THESIS ENHANCING THAI ELEMENTARY SCIENCE TEACHERS’ VIEWS AND PRACTICES OF ZOO-BASED SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, SOCIETY, AND ENVIRONMENT (STSE) APPROACH THROUGH A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
SASITHEP PITIPORNTAPIN
GRADUATE SCHOOL, KASETSART UNIVERSITY 2011
THESIS APPROVAL GRADUATE SCHOOL, KASETSART UNIVERSITY Doctor of Philosophy (Science Education) DEGREE
TITLE:
Science Education
Education
FIELD
DEPARTMENT
Enhancing Thai Elementary Science Teachers’ Views and Practices of Zoo-Based Science, Technology, Society, and Environment (STSE) Approach through a Professional Development Program
NAME:
Mr. Sasithep Pitiporntapin
THIS THESIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY
THESIS ADVISOR
(
Assistant Professor Naruemon Yutakom, Ph.D.
) THESIS CO-ADVISOR
(
Assistant Professor Kantimanee Pradermwong, Ph.D.
) THESIS CO-ADVISOR
(
Professor Gaalen Erickson, Ph.D.
) DEPARTMENT HEAD
(
Assistant Professor Sudarat Sarnswang, Ph.D.
)
APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE SCHOOL ON
DEAN
(
Associate Professor Gunjana Theeragool, D.Agr.
)
THESIS ENHANCING THAI ELEMENTARY SCIENCE TEACHERS’ VIEWS AND PRACTICES OF ZOO-BASED SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, SOCIETY, AND ENVIRONMENT (STSE) APPROACH THROUGH A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
SASITHEP PITIPORNTAPIN
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Science Education) Graduate School, Kasetsart University 2011
Sasithep Pitiporntapin 2011: Enhancing Thai Elementary Science Teachers’ Views and Practices of Zoo-Based Science, Technology, Society, and Environment (STSE) Approach through a Professional Development Program. Doctor of Philosophy (Science Education), Major Field: Science Education, Department of Education. Thesis Advisor: Assistant Professor Naruemon Yutakom, Ph.D. 286 pages.
This professional development (PD) project was divided into two phases. The aim of the first phase was to explore the views of upper elementary science teachers (Grade 4-6) in teaching about animals based on the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource. The aim of the second phase was 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. In the first phase, the researcher mailed open-ended questionnaires to a 25% random sample from 433 schools under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. The response rate was 60%. The data from the questionnaires were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. The outcomes of the data analysis demonstrated that most teachers emphasized animal content knowledge through the reliance on worksheets and other activities that failed to capture student interest. Further, the teachers did not relate their teaching activities to the community. Moreover, most teachers did not emphasize the linking of information gathered in their field trips to the zoo with their science teaching. For learning assessment, most teachers focused on knowledge more than scientific process skills. Key factors that affected their uses of the zoo as a learning resource included: lack of funds, difficulties with transportation, lack of teachers’ awareness, lack of educational information in zoos, school administrators’ support, coordinative planning for zoo visit, and parents’ support. In the second phase, the researcher developed the PD program based on data from the first phase and literature review. 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 being facilitators of students’ inquiry. They assessed student 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 experience of teaching, 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.
/
Student’s signature
Thesis Advisor’s signature
/
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest thanks to my advisor, Assist. Prof. Dr. Naruemon Yutakom, for her meaningful suggestions and tremendous encouragement throughout this thesis. I would like to express my gratitude to Assist. Prof. Dr. Kantimanee Pradermwong who is my co-advisor and my inspiration to be a good teacher. She also provided me with many good opportunities in my life. I also wish to extend my special thanks to Prof. Dr. Gaalen Erickson and Assoc. Prof. Dr. David Anderson who have always helped, guided and advised me, not only when I studied at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Canada, but also when I came back to Thailand.
I am indebted to the Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST) and to Thailand for providing me with a scholarship to study from bachelors to the doctoral degree. I also wish to thank the Graduate School at Kasetsart University for funding support. Furthermore, this thesis would not have been completed without the support from the group of experts, research participants, school administrators, and zoo educators. I would also like to thank my English editors, Alan Robinson, Tim Anderson, Laura Mclennan, and Jennifer Jestley, for their patience in proof-reading my writing.
I am so appreciative of teachers and friends in the Program to Prepare Research, and Development Personnel for Science Education for their help throughout my Ph.D. study. Profoundly, my heartfelt gratitude goes to my aunts and uncles who love me like their son. I also wish to thank my beloved sister who stands beside me whenever I need some help. For all of the benefit of this study, I would like to dedicate the following chapters to my father who works hard all of his life for me. Without this support, I will not stand at this point. These people have always encouraged me to have strong power and to be a good teacher.
Sasithep Pitiporntapin April, 2011
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
vi
viii
1
Background of the Study
1
Statement of the Problems
3
Research Objectives
8
Research Questions
9
Anticipated Outcomes
9
Definition of Terms
10
Delimitation of Study
11
Summary and Preview
14
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Science Education according to Educational Reform
16 16
Objectives of Teaching
16
Content of Learning
17
Teaching Activities
19
Using Learning Resources
21
Learning Assessment
23
Science, Technology, Society, and Environment [STSE] Approach
25
Objectives of Teaching
25
Content of Learning
27
The Characteristics of Teaching
28
Teaching Activities
29
Models of Teaching
32
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page
Learning Assessment Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
35 36
Linking Zoological Field Trip with the Curriculum
37
The Characteristics of Learning
39
Learning Objectives and Visiting Agendas
40
Learning Activities
41
Learning Assessment
47
Professional Development in Science Education Teachers’ Views and Practices
48 48
The Characteristics of Successful Professional Development
50
Designing the Professional Development Model
56
Current Trends of the PD Programs
59
Summary CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
64 65
Methodological Perspective
65
Research Design
67
Research Procedures in First Phase: Survey Research
71
Context of the Study
71
Samples
72
Methods
72
Data Analysis
74
Research Procedures in Second Phase: Case Studies
75
Context of the Study
75
Participants
89
Methods
91
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page
Data Analysis
96
Summary
98
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS OF THE STUDY IN PHASE I
100
Background Information of Samples
100
Elementary Science Teachers’ Views on Science Teaching Animal Content Based on STSE approach
103
Views on the Teaching Objectives of Animal Content in Science
104
Views on the Teaching Methods for Animal Content
104
Views on Using the Local Learning Resources for Teaching Animal Content
106
Views on Using STSE Issues in Teaching Animal Content
107
Views on the Application of Knowledge about Animals in Daily Life
109
Views on Learning Assessment on Animal Content
110
Elementary Science Teachers’ Views on Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
111
Views on Objectives for Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
111
Views on Science Content for Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
112
Views on the Strategies of Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
113
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page
Views on Learning Assessment of Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
114
Views on Factors that Affected Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
115
Conclusions and Discussions of the Finding in Phase I
116
Summary
120
CHAPTER V FINDINGS OF THE STUDY IN PHASE II Case I: Mrs. Maree Background Information
121 121 121
Changes of Maree’s Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach Due to the Influence of the PD Program
123
The Factors that Affected Maree’s Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach Case II: Mr. Somchai Background Information
160 167 167
Changes of Somchai’s Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach Due to the Influence of the PD Program
170
The Factors that Affected Somchai’s Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach Common Findings and Discussions
198 206
The Changes of the Elementary Science Teachers’ Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach and the Influence of the PD Program
206
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page
The Factors that Affected the Elementary Science Teachers’ Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach Summary
213 217
CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
219
Conclusions of the Study
219
Phase I: Survey research
220
Phase II: Case studies
222
Implications of the Study
228
Implications for Professional Development
228
Implications for Science Teaching according to the Zoo-Based STSE Approach Recommendations for Future Research
230 232
REFERENCES
233
APPENDICES
251 Appendix A Views on Teaching and Learning about Animals (VTLA) Questionnaire Appendix B Outline and Scope of the PD Program
252 259
Appendix C Semi-Structured Interview Framework: Teachers’ Views on a Zoo-based STSE Approach
261
Appendix D Example of a Zoo-Based STSE Lesson Plan
264
Appendix E Field Note
283
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
286
vi
LIST OF TABLES Table
Page
4.1
Background of Samples
4.2
Views on the Teaching Objectives of Animal Content in
102
Science
104
4.3
Views on the Teaching Methods for Animal Content
105
4.4
Views on Using Local Learning Resources for Teaching Animal Content
4.5
4.6
106
Views on the Methods of Using the Local Learning Resources for Teaching Animal Content
107
Views on Using STSE Issues in Teaching Animal
108
Content
4.7
Views on Methods of Using STSE Issues in Teaching Animal Content
4.8
109
Views on the Application of Knowledge about Animals in Daily Life
110
4.9
Views on Learning Assessment about Animal Content
111
4.10
Views on the Objectives for Using the Zoo as Learning Resource
112
vii
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table
4.11
Page
Views on Science Content for Using of the Zoo as a Learning Resource
4.12
Views on the Strategies of Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
4.13
114
Views on Learning Assessment of Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
4.14
113
115
Views on Factors that Affected Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
115
Appendix Table
B1
Outline and Scope of the PD Program
260
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure
2.1
Page
Science Content for the Use of the Zoo as a Learning
38
Resource
2.2
Professional Development Design Framework
57
3.1
Research Phase Diagram
68
3.2
Diagram of Procedure for Development and Implementation of the PD Program
86
5.1
Layout of Ms. Maree’s Classroom
123
5.2
Layout of Mr. Somchai’s Classroom
169
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION This study is concerned with the understanding of Thai elementary science teachers’ views and practices of Science, Technology, Society, and Environment [STSE] approach and the use of the zoo in supporting student learning. This chapter initially describes the background of the Thai educational context. The statement of the problems in the second part focuses on the STSE approach, using the zoo as a learning resource, and professional development. In particular, these topics are discussed in the Thai educational context. The following sections provide the research objectives, research questions, anticipated outcomes, description of terms relating to this research, and delimitation of study. The final section is a summary of the chapter and preview of this research.
Background of the Study
Under educational reform, all learners are regarded as being the most important stakeholders. Thai education will henceforth be the process of enabling students to acquire knowledge as well as moral values. The ultimate goals are to foster virtue, capability, and happiness in order to educate learners to be of the highest quality (Office of the Education Council [OEC], 2000). To support this idea, chapter 4 of the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (A.D. 1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B.E. 2545 (A.D. 2002) provides the guidelines of educational principles (section 22), content (section 23), learning process (section 24) and assessment of learning (section 26). The principle focus is to enable students to develop themselves at their own pace and potential. For the content of teaching and learning, each level of education will place emphasis on knowledge about the relationship between oneself and society, knowledge of science, management, conservation, and utilization of natural resources and ensure that the environment is balanced and sustainable. For the learning process, it focuses on a student-centered approach, in which students engage in activities based upon their interests and their
2 individual differences. Subject matter, integrity, value, and desirable attributes will be integrated in the activities in order to promote thinking processes, management, application of knowledge to solve problems, practical work for complete mastery, enthusiasm for new knowledge, and opportunities for authentic experiences. Teachers will act as facilitators who not only provide the learning environment and create instructional media for their students, but also learn together with their students by using research as part of the learning process. Finally, learning can occur everywhere in cooperation with parents, guardians, and communities. To assess students’ performance, suggested assessment strategies include observations of student development, conduct, learning behavior, participation in activities, and the results of a variety of tests (Office of the National Education Commission [ONEC], 2003). Therefore, the aims of science teaching and learning emphasize on linking knowledge with processes, acquiring essential skills for investigation, building knowledge through investigative processes, seeking knowledge and solving various problems. Learners are allowed to participate in all stages of learning, with activities organized through diverse practical work suitable to their levels (The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology [IPST], 2008).
For lifelong learning, the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (A.D. 1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B.E. 2545 (A.D. 2002) in section 25 indicates that the state shall promote the running and establishment all types of lifelong learning sources such as public libraries, museums, art galleries, zoological gardens, public parks, botanical gardens, science and technology parks, sport and recreation centres, data bases, and other sources of learning in a sufficient number and with efficient functioning (ONEC, 2003). This implies that learning not only occurs within the classroom but also outside the classroom (OEC, 2000). A zoo is one of many informal resources where students can enjoy studying animals because they have the opportunity to observe animal behaviour in a real context, as opposed to just studying about animals in a textbook (Melber, 2001). This can promote formal education, especially at the elementary level, and help raise awareness of conservation by providing information about animals and their natural habitats (OEC, 2005).
3 To achieve these goals of science teaching and learning, a Thai science and technology teacher is expected to: be an effective educator based on Thai Science Teachers Standards; apply science and technology morally and be aware of professional development; understand student learning and development; provide teaching and learning activities by considering student individual differences; use a variety of teaching strategies corresponding to the learning development of students; have good communication skills; develop science curriculum and learning tools, and plan lessons to develop student learning; use a variety of assessments, especially authentic assessment, to evaluate student learning in the areas of mental, social, and physical development; and can use community resources such as the zoo to support science teaching and learning for students (IPST, 2002b).
Statement of the Problems Science and technology are related to everyone’s daily lives. Science enables us to understand natural phenomena and leads to specific knowledge and development of technologies that respond to human needs (IPST, 2002a: 1). At present, Thailand is experiencing rapid scientific and technological change. These changes that have been occurring over that last twenty years are a response to accelerating economic development which, in turn, promotes and supports the harvesting of natural resources and especially the high rate of wildlife extinction. The continuous loss of many species is mainly caused by a lack of awareness due to the fact that the Thai education system does not fully provide enough information concerning the extinction of wildlife to Thailand's youth (Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning [ONEP], 2004: 10).
Therefore, a basic knowledge about living things should be provided for Thai people, especially students, in order to increase their environmental awareness and ability to use biological resources with more of a focus on sustainability (Baimai and Brockelman, 1998). 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
4 environmental awareness (ONEP, 2008: 18). These schools, universities or other educational institutions should promote Thai people to be scientific and technologically literate citizens who have ethical and moral decision making skills regarding science, technology, society, and environmental issues that have an impact on daily lives. In addition, these educational institutions should guide the better utilization, preservation and development of environmental and natural resources with equilibrium and sustainability (IPST, 2002a: 1).
However, the educational system places too much emphasis on technical knowledge and not enough on knowledge that helps students become knowledgeable and qualified citizens (Pillay, 2002). In addition, the recent science learning processes are not currently relating science knowledge to daily life (Ngamkeeree, 2006). Therefore, the STSE approach appears to be in line for Thai educational reform (Yutakom, 1999; Ngamkeree, 2006). This has been developed from the Science, Technology, and Society [STS] approach which were designed for understanding the interactions among science, technology, and society (Pedretti, 2003: 8). Because of increasing environmental awareness, many science educators suggest that the letter “E” (for “Environment”) be added to the STS approach to become the STSE approach which places emphasizes on the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment (Pedretti and Forbes, 2000). For the STSE approach, the main goal is to promote social responsibility. It includes the development of scientifically and technologically literate citizens (Pedretti, 2003: 219).
Many researchers agree that using the STS approach in the classroom can help teachers improve their teaching skills (Chin, 2000), and promote teachers’ awareness of science education reforms. In particular, this approach is related to a number of the characteristics of the constructivist approach to teaching in teachers’ classrooms (Cho, 2002). In the Thai context, many instructors who used the STS approach in classroom research found that the learning results were developed in a positive way (Ngamkeeree, 2006). For example, the STS approach can increase students’ achievements (Permpipat, 2003; Portjanatanti, 2003), their attitudes toward
5 science (Khongkanan, 1998; Sakdiyakorn, 1998; Thewphaingarm, 1998; Jeteh and Portjanatanti, 2005), creativity (Attachoo, 2001), application skills (Sakdiyakorn, 1998; Permpipat, 2003), problem solving skills (Attachoo, 2001), understanding of the nature of science (Attachoo, 2001; Portjanatanti, 2003), and the awareness of the interactions among science, technology, and society (Portjanatanti, 2003). In addition, teachers’ views on STS education are often considered as an important factor that frames the teachers’ teaching practices. Some teachers viewed that STS instruction was a potential way of practicing teaching according to constructivism and pedagogical knowledge about STS growth after actual implementation (Tsai, 2001). However, many teachers feel uncomfortable using STS in their classrooms because of a lack of interdisciplinary knowledge (Pedretti, Bencze, Hewitt, Romkey, Jivraj, 2006). Some teachers have concerns that students would not get enough knowledge using this approach because of cross-class standard tests, lack of support from colleagues and school administrators (Tsai, 2001), and a lack of time to prepare the instructional unit (Kim, 2005). Moreover, they could not adopt informal resources in their teaching based on the STS approach because they did not have enough knowledge about these informal setting areas (Chin, 2000).
In using learning resources such as zoo, most schools visit zoos mainly to fulfill learning objectives in the cognitive domain and as additional activities to extend school science lessons (OEC, 2005). Several studies demonstrated that students also enjoy studying animals in the zoo because they have the opportunity to observe animal behavior in a real context, not just learning by studying their textbooks (Melber, 2001; Crider, Passmore, and Anderson, 2009). Moreover, other studies suggest that students’ field trip experiences to zoos are in fact powerful mediators of learning about animals connected with the school curriculum (Crider et al. 2009; Lawson, 2007). However, many schools are failing to make effective use of the educational potential of zoos (Tunnicliffe, 1997; OEC, 2005). Therefore, the quality of an excursion to the zoo undoubtedly depends on the inclinations and capabilities of teachers (Crider et al., 2009). However, in the current situation, the teachers in Thailand and other educational systems around the world make little
6 effort to link topics studied in the classroom with informal learning environments (Griffin and Symington, 1997; Anderson, Kisiel, and Storksdieck, 2006). In addition, the teachers’ views on zoos and the related issues are important factors to their development of a field trip to the zoo. Because of the teachers’ beliefs that students will learn more when they have tasks based on task-oriented strategies, students should always complete their worksheets or other tasks during the excursion (Anderson et al., 2006). Therefore, these issues are important barriers to teacher’s development of effective excursions to the zoos. However, these tasks can make little connection to the topics that they are studying in the classroom (Griffin and Symington, 1997).
On the other hand, many zoos lack an understanding and knowledge of their roles as an educational resource because of a lack of expertise in education. These zoos do not construct their own curriculums that can support formal education. Typically, there is a focus on entertainment in Thai zoos which results in the feeling that a zoo is a place to relax, as opposed to a potential source of learning (OEC, 2005). Therefore, the capacity of teachers is an important factor that affects the quality of using zoos as a resource for learning (Chin, 2000). In particular, teachers at the elementary level are crucial to this process since low achievement at other levels is affected by teaching and learning at the elementary level (Educational Research Division, 1999: 71).
A professional development [PD] program is considered to be an effective way to make teachers confident in their teaching (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 that is required by Thai society (Pillay, 2002). Although science and technology teacher standards exist in Thailand that teachers have to practice, some teachers continue to maintain old or traditional ways. Even though, teachers know that teaching and learning based on a student-centered approach according to education reform is more beneficial for students than traditional teaching (Pillay, 2002). Especially with respect to teachers in schools
7 under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration: they may not graduate with a major in science; they lack science teaching skills; they have too many responsibilities; and 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). Further, there is insufficient coordination of the utilization of local human resources for education (Plangdang, 2001), and the teaching-learning program is arranged without considering the differences among the students (Chaihongkum, 2005). In addition, it is surprising that teachers do not demonstrate sufficient motivation in working and searching out knowledge for developing themselves (Chaihongkum, 2005). Many teachers lack mutual respect of their colleagues, neglect innovation, fail to conduct and utilize classroom action research (Khotchasila 2000), and show reluctance to write academic papers for promotion (Ponvijit, 2005).
Although some teachers need to attend PD programs, including workshops and seminars according to education reform (Kitkanjanat, 1999), the schools lack experts needed for professional development in their schools (Ponvijit, 2005) and lack the budget for training teachers (Chaihongkum, 2005). These problems suggest that teacher professional development should be vital in the current Thai context. However, the major constraints to the design of PD programs are: the lack of new knowledge about learning strategies at all levels; the lack of certification for current teacher training and staff development programs; the lack of local experts in local communities and throughout the country; the lack of new alternative models for teacher training; the lack of incentive frameworks and teachers’ registration; and the lack of a plan and support for national implementation from the government (Pillay, 2002).
Typically, professional development in science education in Thailand is mostly an authoritative top-down system (Pillay, 2002) which mostly does not meet the needs of teachers, and focuses instead on theory over practice. It also lacks of follow-up and continuation of professional development (Cheangkool, 1999; Jurawatanaton, 2003). Therefore, there are teachers who have not had any substantial
8 additional training since they graduated some 20 or more years ago (Pillay, 2002). Finally, teachers report having difficulty in implementing knowledge from these PD programs into their practical teaching (Kaewdang, 1998). Although the teachers do participate in the program for in-service science teacher development in accordance with the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (A.D. 1999) and Amendments B.E. 2545 (A.D. 2002), they still have views which do not take into account the aim of science teaching concerning awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment (Yutakom and Chaiso, 2007).
In order to address 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. Before development of the program, it is essential that the researcher should explore the elementary science teachers’ current views on teaching about animals and using the zoo as a learning resource. These data were used as the preliminary data to develop the PD program and select the elementary science teachers to participate in this program. The implementation of the program should result in the teachers developing positive views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach.
Research Objectives This study was designed to understand Thai elementary science teachers’ current views on science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource as the first phase of this study. The second phase relates to two case studies of the volunteer teachers who participated in a specially designed PD program. The aims of this phase were to understand teacher views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach and to examine the factors that constrained and facilitated their views and practices. To achieve the objectives of the study, this research is answered according to the following research questions.
9 Research Questions 1. What are the current states of the elementary science teachers’ views on science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach? 2. What are the current states of the elementary science teachers’ views on using the zoo as a learning resource?
3. How does a specially developed PD program influence the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach? 3.1 What changes in elementary science teachers’ views and practices occur as a result of participating in the PD program?
3.2 What are the factors that constrain or facilitate the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach?
Anticipated Outcomes
This study is significant because it provides preliminary data for institutes, schools, and universities that are involved in professional development, and will yield practical guidelines which will enhance elementary science teachers’ views and practices about animal topics based on the zoo-based STSE approach. Hopefully, this development can be linked to science teaching according to the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource. Moreover, this study could be a guideline for promoting students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment with respect to high extinction rates of wildlife.
10 Description of Terms Teachers’ Views on Science Teaching about Animals This term is defined as the elementary science teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and opinions about the teaching objectives, content of learning, the teaching methods for animal content, using the local learning resources for teaching animal content, using STSE issues in teaching animal content, the application of knowledge about animals in daily life, and learning assessment on animal content. These views were examined through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Teachers’ Views on Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource This term is defined as the elementary science teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and opinions about the objectives for using the zoo as a learning resource, science content for using the zoo as a learning resource, the strategies of using the zoo as a learning resource, learning assessment on using the zoo as a learning resource, and factors that affect using the zoo as a learning resource. These views were examined through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Teachers’ Views on the Zoo-based STSE Approach This term is defined as the elementary science teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and opinions about teaching objectives, content of learning, teaching activities, learning resources, and learning assessment. The researcher examined these views through questionnaires, focus group discussions, journals, and semi-structured and informal interviews. Teachers’ Practices of the Zoo-based STSE Approach
This term focuses on how the elementary science teachers applied their knowledge about the STSE approach and used the zoo as a learning resource for
11 designing their lessons and how they changed their practices to be more concerned with the zoo-based STSE approach. The zoo-based STSE approach in this study refers to a teaching approach that aims to promote not only students’ cognitive and psychomotor domains, but also the affective domain and especially awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment. The teacher can use a variety of pedagogies but focus is on the questions that come from students to drive lessons in order to link with real situations and relate to taking action in order to combine science and values together. Teaching strategies within this approach use the zoo as an outside classroom resource in order to consider the long term learning of students and the connection to environmental sustainability. The assessment based on STSE approach is flexible and emphasize student learning rather than grading students. These practices were revealed through focus group discussions, classroom observations, field trip observations, field notes, and semi-structured and informal interviews.
Factors that Constrain or Facilitate the Elementary Science Teachers’ Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach
This term is defined as one of several things that cause or influence the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. The researcher offered teachers opportunities to think and speak critically about the factors both before and during participation in the PD program. Data were obtained through journals and semi-structured and informal interviews.
Delimitation of the Study
Research Sites
This study took place with public elementary schools under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. The teachers who taught topic about animals participated in the first phase of research to examine the current views on science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning
12 resource. Due to the data from the first phase and budget constraints, the researcher selected one school to be research site by purposive sampling based on five criteria: (1) the teachers in the school volunteered to participate in the PD program, (2) the school already planned an excursion to the zoo in the second semester of the 2009 academic year in order to examine the real phenomenal, (3) the distance between the school and the zoo was not far, (4) the number of elementary science teachers who taught animal content was at least two or more teachers at the upper elementary level, and (5) the teachers had never attended any PD programs or workshops regarding to the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource.
Samples/Participants
The teachers in this study were elementary science teachers who teach at the upper elementary level (Grade 4-6) in public schools under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. These teachers were divided into two groups based on phases of study. In the first phase, the researcher selected 108 schools using 25% random sampling schools under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration in the 2008 academic year. One elementary science teacher from each school was asked to answer a questionnaire to explore the upper elementary science teachers’ views on teaching about animals and using the zoo as a learning resource during the 2008 academic year. Finally, there were 65 upper elementary science teachers who sent the questionnaire back to the researcher. Therefore, they were samples of this phase of study. In the second phase, the researcher selected volunteers from one school to participate in the program in the 2009 academic year by purposive sampling, as previously mentioned. Eventually, two elementary science teachers from this school were asked by the researcher to be case studies for an in-depth study. Therefore, these teachers were participants who represented a variety of professional experiences within the PD program.
13 Professional Development Program
The PD program in this study was a specially developed program for enhancing upper elementary science teachers’ views and their practices regarding a zoo-based STSE approach which the researcher planned, and implemented during the 2009 academic year. This program was appropriately designed for a Thai context based on the data which described the elementary science teachers’ current views on teaching about animals and using zoos as a learning resource. The basic ideas of the program came from review of the literature concerning professional development, the STSE approach, concepts of animals, and informal-setting learning resources, especially as it related to zoos. The PD program then was designed based on the characteristics of a successful program which included: (1) using more than one strategy for development, (2) development based on teacher prior knowledge and promoting their construction of new knowledge, (3) using activities in the same ways as they teach in classrooms, (4) providing situations for teacher reflections about practices, and (5) having sufficient time to encourage meaningful changes. In this program, the elementary science teachers worked collaboratively with the researcher to develop their zoo-based STSE lesson plans on content about animals. The researcher acted as facilitator and evaluated the impact of the PD program on the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach.
Animal Content
The scope of the animal content in this study concerned the National Science Curriculum Standards of the upper elementary level in Substance 1 (Living Things and Living Processes) and 2 (Life and Environment). The scientific topics beyond these substances covered scientific ideas about the life cycles, reproduction, animal behavior, the characteristics of animals in local areas, animal classification, biodiversity, the relationship between groups of living things in different habitats, food chains, the relationship between the environment and living things, local natural resources, the impacts of natural resource exploitation, and the care and preservation of natural resources and the environment (IPST, 2008).
14 Zoo
Zoos in this study were learning resources that the elementary science teachers used for promoting students’ direct experiences about animals. Typically, the school also provided an excursion project to the zoo. The teachers were not obligated to plan some activities that could link students’ experience in the zoo to the activities in the classroom. They could plan if they were aware of the better learning outcomes for their students. In the first phase of this study, the researcher explored the elementary science teachers’ views on using the zoo as a learning resource. The zoo in this term referred to any zoos that these teachers used to take their students to. In the second phase of this study, the zoo referred to the Dusit Zoo in Bangkok. This zoo was used in this study because it is a public zoo, it is located in the same province as the research site, and it was easy for transportation. Moreover, it has a varied collection of about 2,000 animals. There are 288 mammals, 1018 birds, and 292 reptiles. Highlights are Asian animals such as orangutans, elephants, and monkeys. The zoo also provides services such as a mini-train, a paddle boat, and a garden for relaxing in a natural atmosphere.
Summary and Preview This introductory chapter discusses the statement of the problem in this study: Thailand is experiencing rapid scientific and technological change which has led to a high rate of wildlife extinction. The main cause of this problem is a lack of adequate information on the extinction of wildlife for Thailand's youth. The STSE approach, designed to bring about an understanding of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment, seems to be in line with educational reforms according to the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (A.D. 1999) and Amendments B.E. 2545 (A.D. 2002). Zoos are one of many informal resources that promote a formal education and awareness of conservation by providing information about animals and their natural habitats. However, many schools are failing to make effective use of the educational potential of zoos. Particularly regarding the schools within the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, there are many barriers for teachers in their teaching practices. A PD program is considered to be an effective
15 way to help teachers build confidence for science teaching according to the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource to support meaningful learning. Therefore, these issues have led to this development of the PD program to enhance the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. The findings of this study will be beneficial in suggesting theoretical and practical guidelines for institutes, schools, and universities that are related to professional development. This chapter also presents the research objectives, research questions, anticipated outcomes, definition of terms relating in this research, and delimitation of study.
For the following chapters, a literature review of science education according to educational reform, STSE approach, using the zoo as a learning resource as well as professional development are discussed in chapter II. Chapter III describes the research methodology. It also presents the context and outline of the research samples and participants, methods, data collection, and data analysis of this study. Chapter IV presents the findings and discussions from phase I by examining how the elementary science teachers viewed science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach and used the zoo as a learning resource in the current situation. Chapter V presents the findings and discussions from phase II by enhancing elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach with the PD program. Chapter VI presents conclusions of the findings, the implications of the study, and recommendations for future research.
16
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The intent of this chapter is to provide a review of the relevant literature and theoretical framework of this study for the forthcoming discussion on development of a PD program to enhance the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. The discussion will frame the literature into four sections: science education according to educational reform, STSE approach, using the zoo as a learning resource, and professional development of science teachers.
Science Education according to Educational Reform
Science is relevant to humans in everyday life and is needed for knowledgebased societies. It is necessary for people to have sufficient scientific knowledge in order to understand nature and man-made technologies and apply this knowledge with logical, creative and moral approaches (IPST, 2008). Because Thailand has changed from an agriculture-based economy to an industrial economy, it is necessary to provide Thai citizens with higher-level knowledge and skills for engaging in the global economy (Pillay, 2002). In order to be successful in the preparation of new human resources, the direction of the Tenth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2007-2011) emphasizes the development of children and youths’ capacity for leading to sustainability in national development (Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, 2006). In addition, the quality of teaching and learning, especially in the science and technology area, should be said to relate to these issues (IPST, 2002a).
Objectives of Teaching
In 1997, the Thai educational system was reformed for the maximum benefits of all learners to be able to adjust to world trends and events, and to develop desirable characteristics including virtue, competency, happiness, and self-reliance.
17 These aims are reflected in the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (A.D. 1999) and Amendments B.E. 2545 (A.D. 2002) in Section 22 (ONCE, 2003) below:
All learners are capable of learning and self-development, and are regarded as being most important. The teaching-learning process shall aim at enabling the learners to develop themselves at their own pace and to the best of their potentiality.
As the result of these provisions, the Basic Education Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008) provides framework and orientation for preparing school curriculums. It aims to fully develop students in all respects such as morality, wisdom, happiness, and potentiality for further education and livelihood (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2008). For science teaching and learning, the IPST prescribed the National Science Curriculum Standards [NSCS] which is considered as a crucial framework for science teaching covering 12 years of basic education (Grades 1-12). The aims of the teaching of science are to enhance students to learn science with a focus on linking knowledge with processes, acquiring essential skills for investigation, building knowledge through investigative processes, seeking knowledge and solving various problems. Moreover, students are encouraged to participate in all stages of learning, with activities organized through diverse practical work suitable to their levels (IPST, 2008). Furthermore, the objectives of teaching not only expect students to develop scientific knowledge and scientific process skills but also scientific attitudes (IPST, 2002a).
Content of Learning
Regarding content of learning, the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (A.D. 1999) and Amendments B.E. 2545 (A.D. 2002) also recognizes the importance of science and technology knowledge skills as well as knowledge about natural resources and the environment . Furthermore, these kinds of knowledge can be appropriately integrated with each grade level as shown in section 23 (ONEC, 2003) below:
18 Education through formal, non-formal, and informal approaches shall give emphases to knowledge, morality, learning process and integration of ‌ scientific and technological knowledge and skills, as well as knowledge, understanding and experience in management, conservation, and utilization of natural resources and environment in a balanced and sustainable manner depending on the appropriateness of each level of education.
Therefore, the Basic Education Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008) indicates Science is one of eight nine learning areas (Thai Language, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, Religion and Culture, Hygienic Education and Physical Education, Arts, Home Economic and Technology, and Foreign Languages) for the development of students’ quality (MOE, 2008). Within the National Science Curriculum Standard, there are eight content areas such as: living things and processes of life, life and the environment, substances and properties of substances, forces and motion, energy, change process of the earth, astronomy and space, and the nature of science and technology. Moreover, it also provides the goals of science teaching for the teacher to understand and implement in the classroom.
Regarding the topic of animals, the content addresses this in Strand 1 (Living Things and Family) and Strand 2 (Life and Environment) at all grade levels (IPST, 2008). At the end of Strand 1, students should be able to understand: the basic units of living things; the relationship between structures and functions of living things, which are interlinked; investigative processes for seeking knowledge; the ability to communicate acquired knowledge that could be applied to one’s life and care for living things (Standard Sc1.1); process and importance of genetic transmission; the evolution of living things; biodiversity; the application of biotechnology affecting humans and environment; investigative process for seeking knowledge and scientific mind; and communicating knowledge that could be applied for useful purposes (Standard Sc 1.2). At the end of Strand 2, students should be able to understand the local environment; relationship between living things and their environment; relationship between living things in the eco-systems; investigative processes for seeking knowledge and scientific mind; and communicating acquired
19 knowledge that could be applied for useful purposes (Standard Sc 2.1); appreciation of the importance of natural resources; utilization of natural resources at local, national and global levels; and the application of knowledge for management of natural resources and local environments in a sustainable basis (Standard Sc 2.2). Therefore, it shows that the National Science Curriculum Standard is flexible enough for teachers in each school to develop and implement learning lessons that are effective and appropriate for the characteristics of the students, learning resources, or local wisdom.
Teaching Activities
The educational reform also recognized a need to change the traditional style of teaching. Although the guidelines for the learning process in the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (A.D. 1999) and Amendments B.E. 2545 (A.D. 2002) do not specifically mention the student-centered approach as a new teaching approach, it suggests that the students should not be passive learners but be active learners as shown in section 24 (ONEC, 2003) below:
In organizing the learning process, educational institutions and agencies concerned shall: enable instructors to create the ambiance, environment, instructional media, and facilities for learners to learn and be well-rounded persons. In so doing, both learners and teachers may learn together from different types of teaching-learning media and other sources of knowledge to enable individuals to learn at all times and in all places. Co-operation with parents, guardians, and all parties concerned in the community shall be sought.
Therefore, teachers are required to study and understand various learning processes in order to be able to design learning activities which are appropriate to their students. The main role of teacher is as a facilitator who chooses teaching methods or techniques, learning media or resources, and learning assessment for
20 enabling their students to achieve the curriculum goals as the Basic Education Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008) indicate (MOE, 2008) below:
1. Study and analyze individual learners, and then use the data obtained for planning learning management in order to stimulate and challenge the learners’ capacities.
2. Set the targets to be achieved by the learners in regard to knowledge, skills, process of conceptualization, principles, and relationships as well as desirable characteristics.
3. Design and organise learning which is responsive to individual differences and different levels of brain development, so as to enable the learners to attain the goals of learning.
4. Provide an ambience and atmosphere conducive to learning, and provide necessary care and assistance which enables the learners to learn.
5. Prepare and utilise media that are suitable to the activities organised, and make use of local wisdom and appropriate technologies for teaching-learning activities. 6. Assess the learners’ progress through a variety of methods suitable to the intrinsic nature of the subjects and the learners’ developmental level.
7. Analyse assessment results for remedial and developmental measures for the learners’ benefit, as well as improve their own teaching-learning methods and activities.
Moreover, the students have to change their roles to participate more in their learning process for the construction of their own knowledge both in personal ways and interactions with others (MOE, 2008) as follows:
21 1. Set the goals of learning, make plans and take responsibility for their own learning.
2. Seek knowledge, make serious efforts to access learning resources, analyze and synthesize bodies of knowledge, raise questions, and search for answers or problem solutions through various methods.
3. Take action, draw conclusions regarding what has been learned, and apply the knowledge gained to various situations.
4. Interact, work, and join in activities organized by their peers and their teachers.
5. Continuously assess and improve their learning process.
Therefore, IPST (2002a) provided guidelines of science teaching based on educational reform such as cooperative learning, inquiry learning approach, and problem-based learning. These kinds of teaching seem to move away from teachercentered or didactic learning to put more emphasis on students as the person who learns and develops their scientific knowledge, process skills and attitudes by themselves, not only in the classroom but also outside the classroom.
Using Learning Resources
As indicated in Section 24 of the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (A.D. 1999) and Amendments B.E. 2545 (A.D. 2002), learning does not necessary occur only in the classroom but can occur everywhere in cooperation with parents, guardians, and communities. These features of learning lead to the idea about lifelong learning. To support this idea, the state has to provide enough lifelong learning resources, as shown in section 25 (ONCE, 2003) below:
22 The State shall promote the running and establishment, in sufficient number and with efficient functioning, of all types of lifelong learning sources, namely: public libraries, museums, art galleries, zoological gardens, public parks, botanical gardens, science and technology parks, sport and recreation centres, data bases, and other sources of learning.
As in the passage above, it implies that the learning resources may be artificial or natural learning resources. Therefore, the Basic Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008) indicates that schools and relevant institutions for basic education should provide learning resources both in schools and communities for purposive study, research, or exchange of learning experiences (MOE, 2008). For science teaching, IPST (2002b) indicates that the science teacher can use various kinds of learning resources related to content and the standards of each level as the follows:
1. Published media such as course books, reference books, newspapers, and journals.
2. Electronic media such as CAI, multimedia, video, science T.V. or radio programs, CD-ROM, and internet.
3. Learning resources in schools such as science laboratory rooms, botanical gardens, rock gardens, and libraries.
4. Local learning resources such as zoos, science museums, science local laboratory rooms, national parks, botanical gardens, and industrial factories.
5. Local experts such as teachers, scientists, researchers, and local leaders.
Regarding the positive characteristics of using learning resources, OEC (2007) reveals that students can learn from actual practice. They can work collaboratively in groups for construction of new knowledge by teachers’ facilitation and development of their process skills such as observation, data collection, data
23 analysis, conclusion and application of their knowledge. In addition, it also provides the guideline for using learning resources which consist of four steps, as follows:
1. The teacher should set the goals of using the learning resources. Learning resources have to be valuable in learning when other activities do not achieve these goals. Therefore, it is essential that teacher has to consider the linking to learning content.
2. Before using learning resources, the teacher should survey the learning area with some students. When the learning resource is selected, the teacher has to inform the officer of that learning resource for a learning schedule. Moreover, the teacher has to create an objective, schedule, and preparation for their students as well as provide them with a permission letter.
3. When students arrive to the learning resource, the teacher should introduce them to the officer of that learning resource. Students should be promoted about observation, asking questions, or participating in learning activities.
4. When students come back to school, the teacher should assess their learning and whether or not they achieved the goals of using this learning resource by variety methods such as writing reports, creating exhibitions, or discussions.
Therefore, science teachers play an important role in exploring, choosing, and utilizing learning resources which are suitable, diversified, consistent with learning methods, and address individual difference among students. In addition, they have to assess the quality of the learning resources and their application.
Learning Assessment
Teachers are suggested to use various kinds of methods to assess student learning which focus on their performance such as observation, test, and so on. In addition, they can use the results of assessment to provide opportunity for further
24 education as mentioned in section 26 of the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (A.D. 1999) and Amendments B.E. 2545 (A.D. 2002) (ONEC, 2003) below: Educational institutions shall assess learners’ performance through observation of their development, personal conduct, learning behaviour, participation in activities, and results of the tests accompanying the teachinglearning process commensurate with the different levels and types of education. Educational institutions shall use a variety of methods for providing opportunities for further education and shall also take into consideration results of the assessment of the learners’ performance.
As noted above, the Basic Education Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008) indicates that teachers should examine the development and progress of the students through their teaching activities. Typically, the teacher uses the assessment as a process for enhancing the students to develop their learning achievements. The data will also be useful for the teacher to help the student to improve their weak points for their full potential of learning. In addition, the results of assessment also provide teachers with necessary data for improving their teaching. They can conduct evaluations themselves or provide learners with opportunities for self evaluation, peer-to-peer evaluation, and evaluation by parents. For assessment methods, teachers can assess students’ performance in teaching activities by using diverse assessment techniques, asking questions, observing, examining homeworks, assessing projects, tasks or assignments and portfolios, and using written tests (MOE, 2008).
In summary, science teaching and learning according to educational reform considers that students are most important. The students learn by teaching methods and techniques that develop their highest potentiality and thereby attain the established goals. In regard to learning management enabling students to attain the quality students, the teacher should pay the role as a facilitator who assists them to master the learning areas, as well as inculcate and strengthening desirable characteristics, and develop various skills essential for acquiring major capacities as envisaged in the goals. Moreover, they have to analyze assessment results for
25 remedial and developmental measures for the students’ benefit, as well as improve their own teaching-learning methods and activities. Regarding the professional development, the teachers’ views and practices of the objectives of teaching, content of learning, teaching activities, using learning resources, and learning assessment are expected to align with the current National Education Act. The next section provides details about the STSE approach, which is considered to be in line with Thai educational reform.
Science, Technology, Society, and Environment [STSE] Approach
STS[E] approach comes from a post-positivist vision and has its roots in constructivism (Aikenhead, 1992; Tsai, 2001; Pedretti et al., 2006). It is considered as the teaching and learning approach according to the education reform of many countries (Zollar and Ben-Chem, 1994). In Thai context, STS[E] approach also appears to be in line with Thai educational reform (Yutakom, 1999; Ngamkeree, 2006) as being mentioned in the following topics.
Objectives of Teaching
The STSE approach is developed from the Science, Technology, and Society [STS] approach (Aikenhead, 1994) which is seen to be an ideal way of teaching and learning that challenges traditional education (Pedretti et al., 2006). The STS approach has played an important role in science education in Europe since 1980. At that time, due to the rapid development of science and technology, there were many social issues that affected people’s lives. Therefore, there was considerable social awareness regarding the development of science and technology (Akker, 1998; Osborne, 2000). These problems drove educators to reform science curriculum in order to prepare scientific and technologically literate citizens (Aikenhead, 1992; Osborne, 2000) who understand and use scientific knowledge in daily life ethically and morally, can consider the causes of problems, are aware of problems and plan for problems that may occur in the future, choose appropriate choices from many
26 alternative choices for solving problems, have problem solving skills, and practice with responsibility (National Science Teacher Association [NSTA], 1990).
Consequently, the STS approach was suggested to be an appropriate teaching approach for science education reform to promote students’ understanding about the development of science and the place of science learning in cultural, economic, political, and social contexts (Aikenhead, 1994; Akker, 1998). Since its development, the STS approach has been used as a framework for developing curriculum in many countries (Aikenhead, 1994). The countries that place emphasis on environmental issues can add the word “Environment� to the term STS to become STSE approach (Pedretti, 1996; Aikenhead, 2000). One goal of science education is to understand the nature of scientific knowledge, technology, and the relationships among science, technology, and society (Tsai, 1999; IPST, 2002a). Therefore, STSE approach is one form of the STS approach that has the main goal of promoting scientific and technology literacy and awareness of interactions among science, technology, society, and environment (Pedretti, 1996).
There is much research that has focused on using STS approach to promote the effectiveness of student learning. A significant body of research has shown that STS approach can enhance the learning of basic science concepts over the traditional approach of using textbooks (Aikenhead, 1992; Yager and Yager, 2006). Students can apply their knowledge in new situations both at home and in the community (Sakdiyakorn, 1998; Attachoo, 2001; Permpipat, 2003; Portjanatanti, 2003; Jeteh and Portjanatanti, 2005; Yager and Yager, 2006). Students can develop their thinking, such as: critical thinking (Aikenhead, 1992), creative thinking (Aikenhead, 1992; Attachoo, 2001; Jeteh and Portjanatanti, 2005; Yager and Yager, 2006), decision making (Aikenhead, 1992, Kortland, 1996), rational thinking (Portjanatanti, 2001), and problem solving thinking (Attachoo, 2001). In addition, STSE approach can promote scientific literacy (Mbajiorgu and Ali, 2003). Students have more group working skills, the ability to act as good citizens, have more responsibility to themselves, to the community, and to society (Jeteh and Portjanatanti, 2005). Students have also been shown to have positive attitudes towards science. They like
27 to study science more than in the past and participate in classroom activities with greater
frequency ( Sakdiyakorn,
1998;
Thewphaingarm,
1998;
Jeteh
and
Portjanatanti, 2005; Yager and Yager, 2006). Students are aware of the effects of science, technology, and society (Portjanatanti, 2003), and have an increased understanding about the nature of science (Attachoo, 2001; Portjanatanti, 2003).
Content of Learning
To accomplish these goals, science teaching according to STS[E] approach views science as tentative, based on empirical evidence and theory (Aikenhead, 1992; Blunck and Yager, 1996; Pedretti, 2003), and related to technology (Aikenhead, 1992). Some parts of scientific knowledge come from imagination, creation, and a sociocultural perspective (Pedretti, 2003). In addition, learning does not focus on science concepts that have been discovered from scientists. STS[E] teachers can use science concepts and processes in daily life to drive lessons (NSTA, 1993). The content of STS[E] issues is essential to promote science concepts that are related to society in order to prepare students to become effective citizens in future (Tedman, 2005).
However, many teachers lack the necessary knowledge about STS[E] issues (Tedman, 2005), the history and philosophy of science (Pedretti, 2003) as well as other disciplines (Pedretti et al., 2006). Furthermore, many teachers do not have enough knowledge. Rubba and Harkness (1993) found that many teachers have alternative views about the nature of science and technology and indicated that teaching experience will promote teachers’ views on science, technology and society. However, there is report concerning misconception about content taught by STS and STSE approach. The teacher understood that teachers who use STS approach in teaching use societal issues to introduce general scientific knowledge. In the other hand, the teacher understood that the letter “E� in STSE approach represented only environmental issues in society to help students understand only ecological concepts in Biology. Moreover, some teachers still do not know about the role of technology in their teaching (Chin, 2000).
28 The Characteristics of Teaching
Because STS[E] approach has been implemented in many countries with various goals, there have been different proposes that the teachers have focused on. However, there are common characteristics of teaching based on STS[E] approach as the follows:
1. It has a view that science content is more than concept which exist for students to master on tests (NSTA, 1993).
2. Students have some autonomy in learning process such as the teacher uses students’ questions to drive lessons and to link with real situations for the application of scientific knowledge to their daily lives (Carter, 1991; NSTA, 1993; Blunck and Yager, 1996; McShane and Yager, 1996;).
3. Both male and female students have equal roles in seeking information that can be applied to solve real-life problem (NSTA, 1993; McShane and Yager, 1996). 4. Problem solving processes and skills can be used for students’ solution of their problem (NSTA, 1993).
5. The extension of learning goes beyond the class period, the classroom and the school (NSTA, 1993).
6. There are the uses of learning resources from outside the classroom (McShane and Yager, 1996; Pedretti, 1996) in order to consider the long-term needs of humanity with respect to environment sustainability (NSTA, 1993; Pedretti, 2003).
7. There are opportunities for student to identify of problems with local interest and impact (NSTA, 1993).
29 8. Concerning students with the impact of science and technology at local, provincial, and national levels as well as ethical and moral reasoning in order to combine science and value together (NSTA, 1993; Akker, 1998; Pedretti, 2003; Pedretti et al., 2006).
9. Focusing on enhancing awareness of people who work in science and technology related fields with the purpose of discovering new knowledge that may affect society in the future (NSTA, 1993).
10. STS[E] approach is concerned with taking action in order to prepare reasonable and potential citizens for the future (NSTA, 1993; Pedretti, 2003).
Teaching Activities
For teaching and learning based on STS[E] approach, teachers should be aware that each student has different learning potential. To achieve the goals of science teaching and learning based on this approach, teachers can choose strategies for their teaching and learning as outlined in the following items.
1. Historical approach: students can examine the history of science from empirical data, science invention, or theories of famous scientists that they are interested in. They examine values, beliefs, and attitudes toward scientists’ work and examine scientists’ views. In addition, teachers can link to the effect of scientist’s work and emphasize on understanding science in current society (Ziman, 1994; Pedretti, 2005).
2. Philosophical approach: this strategy helps students to understand different views of the nature of science and show that these different views affect scientists’ work. In addition, this strategy also presents the power that social forces can have to direct or resist scientific innovations. Teachers can ask questions related to philosophy and views on science to examine histories or scientific discoveries to
30 help students understand the context of social arguments and understand the nature of science (Ziman, 1994; Pedretti, 2005).
3. Controversies and dilemmas: this strategy is mostly used to enhance the understanding of science in various issues and the effect science and technology had on society and environment. This strategy has various dimensions and can be complicated. The goal of teachers who use this strategy is to promote students’ thinking awareness of the course and effect before making decisions, to learn science from daily life, and to understand the nature of controversial issue that may not have any right or wrong answers (Aikenhead, 1988; Ziman, 1994; Pedretti, 2005).
4. Divergent thinking: this strategy can promote higher order thinking such as critical and creative thinking. Divergent thinking will occur when there is more than one answer in each situation. Students will be scored based on the qualities of reasons supporting their answers (Aikenhead, 1988; Pedretti, 2003; Tedman, 2005).
5. Small group work: teachers can use small group work to show students about the way scientists work. The more they work together, the greater the success of the group will be. Students work in small groups of about two-six students per group. Students can plan and select tools and equipment to collect data by themselves. The role of the teacher is to only encourage students to assign each member’s tasks clearly in order to achieve the goals of the group and facilitate them (Aikenhead, 1988; Yutakom, 1997).
6. Problem solving: teachers can promote students problem solving in their daily lives in order to increase interest in understanding science concepts in depth. This strategy is quite difficult to implement in teaching and learning for two reasons. First, students always use common sense to solve problems rather than the scientific method in daily life contexts. Second, there are many factors that have to be considered in order for students to have the proper information before they solve their problems. Teachers will be coaches of students and manage their time to study.
31 This strategy can be used with other strategies such as small group work or divergent thinking (Aikenhead, 1988).
7. Role play: the main characteristic of this strategy is connecting science lessons to real situations. Students collaboratively plan with peers and search for information to use in their simulations during the class period. This strategy may take much more time than one class period. Teachers can ask students to present their simulation outside of class (such as after school, etc), integrate this activity with other subjects, or set it up as a supplemental activity. In addition, teachers can record their students’ simulations and present them in school events (Aikenhead, 1988; Heath, 1992; Yutakom, 1997; Pedretti, 2003; Pedretti et al., 2006).
8. Decision making: students can find alternative methods of action in order to understand the role of science in the decision making process (Aikenhead, 1988). Ratcliffe (1997: 169) suggested a framework for teaching and learning science that focuses on decision making with six steps: (1) indicate impossible ways to act for solving problem, (2) develop criteria to consider these ways, (3) search for data to support each way, (4) evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each way based on the criteria, (5) select appropriate ways to analyze the effectiveness of the various approaches, (6) evaluate the decisions and improve and develop the selected way.
9. Debating: this strategy is similar to the aforementioned controversies and dilemmas strategy. Debate can promote students’ communication. Students have to search for information for both the advantages and disadvantages about presented issues. Teachers and students who act as referees or facilitators should prepare questions to ask students on both the pro and con side to encourage deep understanding about the issues (Aikenhead, 1988; Heath, 1992; Pedretti, 2003; Pedretti et al., 2006).
10. Mass media: teachers can use media from books, articles, lessons, newspapers, advertisements, posters, videos, pictures or T.V. programs. These media do not have to be completely specific with regards to science content, but can also
32 serve to show misconceptions of science as portrayed in popular media. Teachers should prepare questions to ask students for use in investigating these media. In addition, teachers can assign their student to read, underline important words or concepts, summarize, write their own articles, construct concept maps, or critiques based on the mass media (Aikenhead, 1988; Yutakom, 1997).
11. Learning resources: teachers can use community resources to encourage students’ curiosity about science around them and to link science to the real world. Using the community as a learning resource demonstrates that teachers are not the final source of information. Teachers can learn with their students from utilizing community resources. Teachers can assign their students to learn from various learning resources or do activities such as discussion, debates, or write news-stories about the community. The more teachers learn from the students, the higher scores they will get (Aikenhead, 1988; Blunck and Yager, 1996; Yager and Yager, 2006). In addition, teachers can invite local experts to give students knowledge about STS[E] issues or take their students to areas that are related to STS[E] issues. These areas should not be far from the school and should not disturb the school programs. Students should have enough time to share their ideas with local experts. Teachers should record when local experts give students knowledge in order to discuss with students in the future to enable a better understanding of key issues (Aikenhead, 1988; Yutakom, 1997).
12. Other strategies: teachers can teach science based on STS[E] approach such as using case studies, independent projects, oral presentations, or written reports (Heath, 1992).
Models of Teaching
To implement STS[E] approach into practice, STS[E] approach can be considered with a variety of perspectives. There are many models that have been developed from science educators (Pederson, 1990; Yager, 1991; Lutz, 1996; Carin,
33 1997; Yutakom, 1999; Portjanatanti, 2003). These depth details of each model are shown below:
1. Jurisprudential Inquiry STS
Model:
Pedersen (1990)
applied
a
Jurisprudential inquiry model to science teaching according to STS approach as outlined in the following steps: (1) present issue, (2) indicate and give definition clearly, (3) synthesis data for argument, (4) public meeting, (5) make issue clearly and make conclusion, and (6) application.
2. The Constructivist Learning Model: Yager (1991) presented this model which is comprised of four steps: (1) Invitation: the teacher has learning activities based on asking questions and explaining situations, (2) Exploration: students solve problems by collecting data from various resources such as experiment, observation, construction of model, brainstorming, or debate, (3) Proposing explanations and solutions: students communicate and explain the ideas which they received from exploration, and (4) Take action: students apply and share their knowledge. Similarly, Lutz (1996:45) presented that teachers can teach science according to the STS approach based on constructivism with 6 steps. They are: (1) identify problems or issues, (2) generate questions or identify specific situations, (3) brainstorming to identify resources for collecting data, (4) collecting data, (5) analysis, synthesis, evaluate, and create, and (6) take action.
3. STS Problem-Solving Model: Carin (1997) presented STS model emphasizes problem solving which is comprised of five steps: (1) Search: studentbrainstorming to select a topic to study and generate questions in this selected topic and choose one or two questions to study in depth, (2) Solve: student inquiry process in experiments leading to self-discovery of answers and problems, (3) Create: students collect and analyze data and present using a graph or chart, (4) Share: students present their findings to the class, and (5) Action: students apply their findings or present them to others for solving further problems.
34 4. STS Model: Yutakom (1999) proposed model which is composed of three parts: Planning, Teaching, and Evaluation. (1) The Planning part is to determine the objectives of teaching and learning and prepare for the instructional unit, (2) The Teaching part is made up of six steps: (2.1) Wondering step (I Wonder): the teacher constructs situations that promote students’ questioning and activating prior knowledge, (2.2) Planning step (I Plan): students plan the way to find the answer individually or in a group, (2.3) Investigating step (I Investigate): students seek information by themselves and the teacher acts as facilitator. Students may find new question while they are investigating, (2.4) Reflecting step (I Reflect): students consider and conclude their learning and make links to scientific concepts, (2.5) Sharing step (I Share): students present their learning to the class and exchange opinions with others, and (2.6) Acting step (I Act): students apply their learning to their daily life, (3) The Evaluation part is comprised of six aspects to consider: concepts, processes, applications and connections, attitudes, creativity, and world view. Both teachers and students engage in the evaluation. Teachers evaluate by using tests, performance assessment, and observations, and students by self assessment with checklists or journals, and portfolios.
5. Q PER SEA Learning Model: Portjanatanti (2003) has developed model which is composed of seven stages of teaching a biology course based on an STS approach as outlined in the following: (1) Questioning: students are asked to question what they are interested in, (2) Planning: students work alone or in groups for planning the way to answer their questions and present their planning to the class for the exchange of opinions, (3) Exploring: students explore the answers and collect data according to their planning, (4) Reflecting: students conclude and link their findings with theory and principles, (5) Sharing: students present their findings to the class through an information board or exhibition for discussion and to exchange their opinions with others, (6) Extending: the teacher promotes students to explore any potential questions that occur during discussion, (7) Acting: students apply their knowledge to their practices.
35 Learning Assessment
The characteristics of assessment based on STS[E] approach are the same as assessment of teaching and learning in general that 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 (Yutakom, 1999). There are many methods to assess student learning based on the STS[E] approach, not only by the teachers but also by the students. Some examples are: portfolios (Yutakom, 1999; Pedretti, 2003), reflective writing/journals (Pedretti, 2003), performance assessment (Yutakom, 1999; Pedretti, 2003), self assessment with checklists (Pedretti, 2003, Yutakom, 1999), group-work assessment with rating scales (Aikenhead, 1988), tests (Yutakom, 1999; Pedretti, 2003), content analysis during discussion, debates, interviews (Aikenhead, 1988), and observation (Yutakom, 1999). However, STS[E] assessment focus on understanding student learning processes regarding STSE issues rather than scoring just for the purposes of grading students (Solomon, 1994: 148). Therefore, ethnographic descriptions about the student learning process are important (Solomon, 1994: 148).
In addition, teachers should consider various
aspects such as concepts, processes, applications and connections, attitudes, creativity, and world views in the assessment process (Yutakom, 1999).
In summary, STS[E] approach has the main goal of promoting scientific and technology literacy and awareness of interactions among science, technology, society, and environment. However, the objective of teaching through STS[E] approach in Thailand has not placed emphasis on the high extinction rate of wildlife animals and using learning resources outside of the classroom. Therefore, this study has focused on environmental issues to promote Thai student awareness about the high extinction rate of wildlife animals by using the zoo as a learning resource. To promote teachers’ views and practices according to the current Thai educational reform, this present study used literature reviews above as a framework of content in the PD program. The next section is devoted to how to use the zoo as a learning resource for supporting students’ learning.
36 Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
Utilizing community resources is one STS[E] strategy. For teaching and learning animal content, zoos are considered to play an important role in education because they are a place that students can learn at and enjoy while observing, exploring, and investigating many kinds of animals (Tunnicliffe, 1997; Darlene, 2001; Coll, Tofield, Vyle, and Bolstad, 2003; OEC, 2005). A zoo is one of the many informal resources that is indicated in the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (A.D. 1999) and Amendments B.E. 2545 (A.D. 2002) (ONEC, 2003). Zoos can also promote students’ interest or curiosity about animal conservation and awareness of environmental issues (Falk and Adelman, 2003; Yalowitz, 2004). In the zoo, there are principles of animal performance according to a systematic theme, zoogeographic theme, ecological theme, behavioral theme, popular theme, open zoo, or children’s zoo (Aruninta, 2001). Moreover, the zoos provide interactive media which are provided to enhance students’ learning and long-term memory regarding biology, ecology and conservation (Lindemann-Matthies, P., Kamer, T., 2006).
Originally, the zoo emphasized recreation. The oldest existing zoo was, the Vienna Zoo, was established in 1751. Due to the reputation in Austria, the animals in this zoo were sent to the Jardin des Plantes in Paris in 1793 (OEC, 2005: 30-31). Afterwards, the founders and members of the Zoological Society of London adopted the idea of the early Paris Zoo to establish the London Zoo in 1828 and it was opened to the public for education and the protection of wildlife in 1847. The success of The London Zoo set off a wave of similar establishments in many countries (Barrington-Johnson, 2005).
The first Thai zoo was set up because King Rama V visited a zoo in Europe in 1897 and was made aware about the benefits of both knowledge and entertainment. Therefore, he gave a section of the Royal Dusit Garden Palace to locate the zoo which has the local name of "Khao Din Wana". In 1938, the government of Field Marshal P. Pibunsongkram, the Prime Minister of Thailand, asked King Rama VIII for the land to set up a zoo for the public. Thereafter, the zoo
37 was turned over to the Zoological Park Organization in February, 1954. This was the first point that the zoo became a school field trip destination in Thailand.Since then it has been transferred to the state Zoological Park Organization, which also operates the Khao Khiao Open Zoo, the Chiang Mai Zoo, the Songkhla Zoo, and the Nakhon Ratchasima Zoo. The Dusit Zoo, or "Khao Din", is regarded as the most popular zoo in Thailand (The Zoological Park Organization (ZPO), 2004). The objectives of these zoos are to promote education about conservation of natural and wild animals, research, and to provide a place for relaxing (ZPO, 2004). In addition, there are many private zoos in Thailand such as Safari World, Pata zoo, Lopburi zoo (OEC, 2005).
Linking Zoological Field Trip with the Curriculum
Typically, science can be learned with various methods, resources and at unlimited ages and abilities (Wellington, 1990). Learning resources have been used outside the classroom since Aristotle and Socrates as part of their teaching activities. In time, the use of excursions were expanded and combined with formal education. Especially in Europe, it is indicated in the curriculum that students are not familiar with the world so excursions are a way to expand their knowledge of the outside world (Krepel, 1981 cited in Rudmann, 1994). Therefore, field trips can promote students’ experience which is important to spark their interest for further discovery in greater depth and to deeply develop their minds, emotions, and social skills (OEC, 2000; Noymai, 2004). In addition, it has been reported that teacher feel that direct experiences from field trips can contribute to student learning in the future as a meaningful connection to some part of the curriculum (Kisiel, 2005), related to science, social studies, Thai language study, art, and foreign language subjects (OEC, 2005).
In the Thai context, teachers have the capacity link learning in the zoo to concepts of animals based on the National Science Curriculum Standards Substance 1: Living Things and Family, Substance 2: Life and Environment and Substance 8:
38 the Nature of Science and Technology with various concepts all grade levels (IPST, 2008) as shown in figure below.
Animal life cycle Reproduction and propagation
Animal behavior
Animal genetics
about
about
Standard Sc1.1 Environmental problem concerning animal
Standard Sc1.2 in
in Substance 1 Natural resource
Animal biodiversity
can be linked to
about Standard Sc 2.2
Use the scientific process and scientific mind in investigation, solve problems
Zoo
in Standard Sc 2.1
Ecology about The relationship among living things
Substance 2 The relationship between living things and habitats The relationship between living things and the environment
Animal classification
Substance 8 about Know that most natural phenomena have definite patterns explainable and verifiable within the limitations of data and instrumentation during the period of investigation
Understand that science, technology and environment are interrelated
Figure 2.1 Science Content for the Use of the Zoo as a Learning Resource
39 As presented above, teachers can develop science activities about animal concepts such as animal behavior, reproduction and propagation, animal life cycle, animal genetics, animal classification animal biodiversity, ecology (the relationship among living things, the relationship between living things and habitats, the relationship between living things and environment), natural resource, environment problem concerning animals, and the nature of science and technology (use the scientific process and scientific mind in investigation, solve problems, know that most natural phenomena have definite patterns explainable and verifiable within the limitations of data and instrumentation during the period of investigation, and understand that science, technology and environment are interrelated) (IPST, 2008).
The Characteristics of Learning
Learning in a zoo is different from learning in a classroom because students can study real animals and change the setting of learning. Students get information about zoos on television, advertisement boards, newspapers, and handouts but they have been shown to want zoos to have more information regarding interesting wildlife animals (OEC, 2005). The characteristics of learning in informal situations such as zoo is the way for knowing about the world from direct experiences in various contexts, both physical and social, by learners’ intrinsic desires. When students have motivation, interest, and curiosity in something, they will continue to pursue and practice and their learning will have meaningful consequences (Dierking, Falk, Rennie, Anderson, Ellenbogen, and Kirsten, 2003)
In the other words, student learning is a dynamic, accumulated, and unlimited process (Anderson, Lucas and Ginns, 2003; Dierking, Falk, Rennie, Anderson, and Ellenbogen, 2003; Rennie and Johnston, 2007). Moreover, learning can occur from students interacting with each other by using language as the medium for communication, and by explaining or sharing opinions (Astor-Jack, Whaley, Dierking, Perry, Garibay, 2007: 220). Therefore, learning in the learning resource is also contextualized and is not an isolated process. It is related to the interaction between human and human, or human and object or invention in some situations by
40 using language as the medium (Rennie, and Johnston, 2007: 60). Amazingly, there is over 30 years of research regarding zoo field trips which demonstrate the value of such trips and outlines the factors that affect student learning (Griffin, 2004). Unfortunately, there is little research that explores teachers’ views on using the zoo as a learning resource. The teachers’ views on the factors that they face in the development of an excursion are important factors that profoundly influence their using the zoo for student learning (Anderson et al., 2006).
Learning Objectives and Visitors Agendas
For the teacher agenda of using learning resource, Kisiel (2005) defined as the motivation and strategies of teachers for experience outside the classroom. Typically, teacher field trip motivations can be identified with eight categories: to connect with the classroom curriculum; to expose students to new experiences; to provide a general learning experience; to foster student interest and motivation; to provide a change of setting or routine; to promote lifelong learning; to provide student enjoyment or reward; and to satisfy school expectation (Kisiel, 2005). However, many school field trips to zoos emphasize entertainment more than education (Coll et al., 2003). Falk, Moussouri, and Coulson (1998) found that visitors’ motivations impact their learning, especially educational and entertainment motivation. Visitors who have high levels of educational and entertainment motivation will learn vocabulary and concepts more than those who come with low levels of these motivations. Visitors who have a high level of entertainment motivation will take more time for learning than those who come with low levels.
For strategies of using learning resource, it is related to experience from learning resources outside classrooms or exhibitions. It can be divided into three types of strategies: unfocused strategies, moderately focused strategies, and focused strategies Moussouri (1997) as follows:
41 1. Unfocused strategies: Typically, visitors with this strategy do not have a specific plan when visiting. They can see whatever is offered or whatever they feel is interesting.
2. Moderately focused strategies: Visitors have a plan to see a particular exhibition but it does not represent their sole purpose or objective.
3. Focused strategies: Visitors have a plan and goal before they visit. Interestingly, visitors with focused strategies will get more knowledge than those who visit with other strategies. In addition, people who visit with unfocused strategies will take less time learning than those who visit with other strategies. However, the amount of time spent in learning resources outside the classroom is independent of age, sex, educational level, period of visiting, or crowded conditions (Falk et al., 1998). The completing aspect of these studies of visitor agenda point to the fact that both a high educational and high entertainment agendas, in addition to holding focused visiting strategies are the most effective states for rich learning outcomes to result. As such, entertainment (or the affective objectives of learning) should not be excluded from the cognitive objectives of school field trip visits to zoos.
Learning Activities
The successful field trip depends on planning activities (Anderson and Zhang, 2003). Orion (1993) suggested that developing field trips should be an integral part of the curriculum. Most teachers also felt that making explicit connections before, during, or after the field trip is critical for students to be able to relate their field trip experience to studying in the classroom (Kisiel, 2005). However, there are many available models to develop field trips which have three main parts in common: preparing, the field trip, and evaluation (Orion, 1993; Rudmann, 1994; OEC, 2001; Noymai, 2004). To link to content in curriculum, the teacher can design activities in the zoo according to the following framework.
42 Curriculum Studying
Teachers should review the objectives of the curriculum clearly before making decisions to develop field trips in order to be most beneficial for students (Orion, 1993; OEC, 2001; Noymai, 2004). Afterwards, creating goals and objectives of the field trips should relate to student’s interests and prior knowledge (Noymai, 2004). The curriculum concepts are classified to concrete and abstract levels and assigned to the appropriated teaching environment such as outdoor, classroom, and laboratory, and to the appropriated teaching time such as before, during, or after the field trip (Orion, 1993: 327). In addition, the field trip area will be considered from content that student will get (Orion, 1993; OEC, 2001).
Field Survey
Before surveying, the field trip should be approved by school administrators (Kisiel, 2005) who have the power to manage funds, including entrance fees (Anderson and Zhang, 2003; Coll et al., 2003) and transportation fees (Anderson and Zhang, 2003; Noymai, 2004; Kisiel, 2005). The survey includes selecting the potential learning stations where links can be made between concepts and curriculum (Orion, 1993). In addition, the environment in the zoo is important to be considered because it affects student learning. There are many factors that need to be considered, such as size of animal cages, darkness, humidity, architectural design (Coll et al., 2003), visitor capacity (Orion, 1993), safety (Orion, 1993; Noymai, 2004), the weather (Orion,1993), location from school (Orion, 1993; Darlene, 2001), and transportation (Orion , 1993; Anderson and Zhang, 2003) the appropriate time for transportation should be about 15-30 minutes (Orion, 1993).
Concept Matching
Teachers can use mind mapping to show how concepts for learning can link together. Moreover, students should have the opportunity to select the topic and concept that they are interested in order to feel engaged in the learning processes
43 (Noymai, 2004). Orion (1993) suggested that teachers should integrate concepts to enable students to understand concepts clearly and meaningfully. Sirimahasacon and Kwangthong (2004) also suggested that teachers can integrate concepts from both intra and inter disciplinary approaches for using the zoo as a learning resource. However, Kisiel (2005) found that the curriculum connections mean different things to different teachers. There are eight different teacher’s views of the connection between field trips and content in curriculum: curriculum-related experience; curriculum-related
learning;
connection
to
language
skills;
point-by-point
connections; curriculum unit integration; curriculum unit introduction or review; and implicit or opportunistic connections.
Designing of Learning Activities Regarding teachers’ views on the learning activities in zoos, most teachers expressed that the activities that support students’ learning are animal shows, recreation, walks through a forest, and mini-tours. Students can learn from a curator and from reading information related to the zoo. The appropriate amount of time for a one day zoo field trip is four to five hours. Moreover, teachers also thought that schools should have field trips to zoos one or two times a year (OEC, 2005). Many science educators suggested the good characteristics of field trip activities (Orion, 1993; Rudmann, 1994; Henry, 2000; Darlene, 2001; Anderson, Piscitelli, Weiler, Everett and Teyler 2002; Anderson and Zhang, 2003; Coll et al., 2003; Tran, 2006; Griffin, 2007). These activities should focus on concrete activities which cannot be conducted effectively in classrooms of teaching and learning (Orion, 1993), are related to students’ sociocultural contexts and daily lives (Anderson et al., 2002), have specific activities (Coll et al., 2003), have choice and ownership for learning in social environments (Griffin, 2007: 36), focus on students’ practice such as observation, touch, identification, measurement, comparing, interpretation and conclusion of their findings (Orion, 1993), provide opportunity for students’ to explore and investigate with help from educators (Rudmann, 1994; Anderson and Zhang, 2003). Importantly, students should have enough time to learn in a field trip area. Therefore, field trips should not occur during the first day or the last day of a
44 big festival (Henry, 2000) because of the limitations of time and the curator (Tran, 2006), and should not take place in crowded conditions (Henry, 2000). Darlene (2001) also suggested that using cameras to take animal photos can promote students’ learning in zoos by giving the opportunity to communicate their experiences to others.
Development of Learning Aids
In order to make field trips educational, teachers have to develop their educational materials for preparing and guiding their students learning in that area. These materials should include not only a field trip booklet or worksheet which students work on during the excursion, but also teaching aids which help and guide as the teacher explains observations and preparatory units. Especially, teachers who do not have experience in field teaching have to develop teaching aids for new field trips (Orion, 1993). Regarding teachers’ views on using worksheets, the objectives of using worksheets during field trips can be divided into two groups: survey agenda and concept agenda. For survey agendas, teachers feel that worksheets will encourage students to get experience from the field trip. However, students have to read many descriptions of the exhibits so they do not have much time to learn about topics that they are interested in. In contrast, with concept agendas, teachers feel that worksheets will encourage students’ to link concepts during the field trip to concepts in the curriculum. Therefore, teachers will use worksheets specifically to make students understand concepts clearly. This conceptual worksheet focuses on students’ observations, has fewer questions but at a higher level, generates questions from information during the field trip, has more choices, and gives students a longer time to explore (Kisiel, 2005).
Furthermore, Kisiel (2003) presents the characteristic of an effective worksheet as having a high ratio of time per question. While the number of questions is limited, they are specific to the learning objectives by: providing orientation cues
45 without too rigid of a structure; having orientation before and at the start of the visit; allowing students some choice in seeking information; encouraging students to work cooperatively; having both low and higher levels of questions; including all formats of response, verbal and nonverbal, written and unwritten; making clear connections between exhibits and classroom topics and providing just enough order to assist meaning-making; ensuring worksheets are shared; requiring students to discover answers as a team; and using worksheets after the visit to promote discussion and lead to addition activities. However, although work sheets are important for learning during field trips, many students think that investigation and filling answers in worksheets cause them to have less time to study topics that they are interested in (Griffin, 2007: 35).
Student Preparation
Before taking students to learning in a learning resource, teachers have to present their projects systematically according to school policy and compose the parent’s permission letter (OEC, 2001). There are three domains that teachers should prepare to help students become familiar with content of learning (cognitive preparation), with the area of the field trip (geographical preparation), and the kind of event in which they will participate (psychological preparation) (Orion, 1993; Rudmann, 1994). These three domains will affect students’ novelty. The reduction of student novelty can promote students’ learning during field trips (Orion, 1993). For cognitive preparation, the students’ cognitive novelty can be reduced by using several concrete activities (Orion, 1993). Teachers should plan their lessons or activities with educators in the field trip area in order to link with students’ prior knowledge and interests to promote positive experiences (Tran, 2006). Rudmann (1994) found that students will develop their scientific attitude and the cognitive domain if teachers provide students basic knowledge concerning the field trip area.
Concerning to geographical preparation, teachers can share their experiences about their excursions to the zoo with their students by telling stories, through
46 discussion, presenting pictures, or giving students tasks to search for information about the learning resource outside of the classroom (Orion, 1993; Rudmann, 1994). Mini-tours are a way to reduce students’ unfamiliarity with new spaces and to promote students’ making decisions about what they want to learn in depth (Henry, 2000). However, many students do not like guided tours because they feel that they are being passively inputted with information (Griffin, 2007: 35).
Regarding to psychological preparation, orientation is essential before learning in the field trip area (OEC, 2001; Noymai, 2004). Teachers have to inform their students about preparation, schedule, dressing, safety, and appropriate behavior during field trips (OEC, 2001). It is important that student know the purpose of a field trip to ensure meaningful learning (Griffin, 2007: 36).
Learning in Learning Resources
This step is the heart of the using learning resource. The main principle of learning in this step is linking a concrete concept towards a more abstract concept (Orion, 1993). The field trip starts with leaving from the appointed area. Teachers should first introduce the educators when they have arrived at the field trip area. Afterwards, students can learn from various activities according to the schedule (Orion, 1993; OEC, 2001). In addition, teachers should co-work with other teachers and parents to look after their students and motivate student learning (Anderson and Zhang, 2003; Coll et al, 2003; Tran, 2006). Teachers also should manage post-visit materials, projects, or activities to help their students transfer their experience from the field trip (Rudmann, 1994) for linking concrete concepts to more abstract concepts (Orion, 1993). For the success of using learning resources, the teachers view that indicators of field trip success are expressed by the successful completion of the outing without incident, as well as students’ positive experiences, demonstration of new knowledge, connection to the classroom curriculum, increase in student motivation and interest, good behavior, and quality and quantity of questions (Kisiel, 2005).
47 Learning Assessment
There are many factors that affect the learning process of using zoos as learning resources so it is difficult to assess student learning during these excursions (Rudmann, 1994). Therefore, many teachers have not emphasized student learning processes and knowledge that students will get from the excursions (Griffin, 2007: 37). However, teachers should measure their students using authentic approaches which include assessment of knowledge, understanding, attitude, and the learning process (Noymai, 2004). There are many assessment methods that teachers can use such as observation, interviews, students’ tasks or worksheets, projects, students’ reflection, self assessment or comments about students’ tasks from their friends or parents (Sirimahasacon and Kwangthong, 2004). In addition, students demonstrate learning if they show behaviors such as asking and answering questions, giving comments about exhibitions, explaining the exhibition to others, and reading descriptions of the exhibits silently or loudly (Borun, Chambers, and Cleghorn, 1996). After finishing the field trip, teachers should provide a summary of the outcomes of the field trip project and give suggestions for further projects to the school administrators (OEC, 2001).
In summary, there is much research regarding zoo field trips which demonstrate the value of such trips and outlines the factors that affect student learning. But there is little research exploring teachers’ views on zoos and the factors that they face in the development of an excursion are important factors that profoundly influence their using the zoo as a learning resource. Because of the importance of using the zoo as a learning resource, this present study tries to combine students’ knowledge in the zoo to class room activity based on the STSE approach in order to promote their awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment, especially with respect to the high extinction rate of wildlife animals.
48 Professional Development in Science Education
Professional development is related to teachers developing their personally and socially constructed beliefs and ideas about science education, teaching and learning process, and teacher development (Bell, 1998). For reform in science education, IPST (2002b) indicated the standards for Thai science and technology teacher such as applying science and technology morally and be aware of professional development; understanding student learning and development; providing teaching and learning activities by considering student individual differences; using a variety of teaching strategies corresponding to the learning development of students; having good communication skills; developing science curriculum and learning tools, and plan lessons to develop student learning; using a variety of assessment methods, especially authentic assessment, to evaluate student learning in the areas of mental, social, and physical development, and using community resources such as the zoo to support science teaching and learning for students. To support these ideas, some teachers have different points of view and experiences so the professional development developer needs to know, incorporate, and address the teachers’ prior views and experiences in their teaching practice in order to adjust to the expectable way (Bell, 1998). Teacher’ Views and Practices
The views are beliefs or thinking that humans have an effect on human behavior (Tobin, Tippins and Gallard, 1994; Chin, 2000; Loucks-Horseley et al., 2003: 7). Teachers’ practices in general can also generate their views on teaching (Guskey, 2002). In the context of educational reform, teachers are expected to develop their views and practices about new classroom practices (Bell, 1998). However, teaches have been required to engage in new teaching and learning strategies. Many of them still do not need to change their fundamental views. In the other hand if they change their views, it will be the most influence to their practices (Pillay, 2002).
49 For teaching according to STS[E] approach, the teachers play important roles in the success or failure and have a large impact on students’ views, attitudes, and literacy (Zollar and Ben-Chem, 1994). Many researchers reported the factors that affect the planning and implementation of STS[E] approach in the classroom from the teachers’ views (Lump, Haney, and Czerniak, 1998; Chin, 2000; Tsai, 2001; Kim, 2005; Tedman, 2005; Pedretti et al., 2006).
Therefore, there are many
instruments to examine the teachers’ views about STS[E] approach such as Aikenhead’s (1992) View on Science-Technology-Society [VOSTS] questionnaire, and Rubba and Harkness (1993) Teachers’ Belief about Science-Technology-Society [TBA-STS]. These instruments always focus on the teachers’ view on STSE issues. Nevertheless, there has also been some research that has focused on the teachers’ views related to the actual intent to implement STS[E] programs in their classrooms, but these instruments always ask teachers to reflect on their views of STS[E] instruction without real practice (Tsai, 2001).
The finding from using these instruments showed that some teachers viewed that it is essential to use STSE issues in their teaching to promote science concepts that are related to society in order to prepare students to become effective citizens in future (Tedman, 2005) but many teachers lack the necessary knowledge about STSE issue (Tedman, 2005) and STS[E] approach (Chin, 2000). Some teachers are not confident that science teaching based on STS[E] approach would be more effective than a teacher-centered approach (Chin, 2000). Teachers view that they do not have enough time to teach science based on STS[E] approach because they have many tasks to complete (Kim, 2005), because of a lack of support from school administrators and colleges, a significant amount of science content in the curriculum, a lack of science content that can link to local contexts, and the standardized tests (Tsai, 2001). However, some teachers view that school administrators, parents, students, professional development, and learning resources will support STS[E] teaching and learning (Lump et al., 1998; Chin, 2000; Tsai, 2001; Tedman, 2005).
50 For linking science to the real world, there is not much research that explores teachers’ views on using the zoo as a learning resource. The teachers’ views on zoos and the factors that they face in the development of an excursion are important factors that profoundly influence their using the zoo as a learning resource (Anderson et al., 2006). Most teachers view that most school administrators and parents are not aware about learning science outside of the classroom (Griffin, 2007: 37). Many teachers view that not all parents can take their students on field trips due to a limitation of time or because of monetary constraints. In addition, teachers have indicated that there are limitations of choice, about when the field trip would be conducted, place for the field trip, and funds. The field trip must be approved by the principal or district (Kisiel, 2005). Moreover, many teachers view that using the zoo as a learning resource depends on funds, transportation, the amount of students, and activities in the zoos (OEC, 2005).
To promote their views and practices, professional development has an important role in this process. Many reformers attempt to generate the effective professional development model to change their views and practices of new teaching and learning strategies. However, these models are not always smooth because it does not meet the needs of teachers, and focuses instead on theory over practice, and lacks follow-up and continuation of professional development (Cheangkool, 1999; Jurawatanaton, 2003). Fortunately, there is enough knowledge about professional development to provide a key characteristic of effective professional development as aforementioned in the next section.
The Characteristics of Successful Professional Development
Using More Than One Strategy for Development
For successful in development of teacher, the professional developer should use more than one strategy or combination of various strategies in different ways at different times in the PD program. There are 18 strategies suggested for professional development such as Curriculum alignment and instructional material selection;
51 Curriculum implementation; Curriculum replacement; Partnerships with scientists and mathematicians in business, industry, and universities; Professional networks; Study groups; Action research; Case discussions; Examining student work and thinking, and scoring assessments; Lesson study; Immersion in inquiry in science and problem solving in mathematics; Immersion into the world of scientists and mathematicians;
Coaching;
Demonstration
lessons;
Mentoring;
Developing
professional developers; Technology for professional development; and Workshops, institutes, courses, and seminars. These strategies can be divided into six groups: aligning
and
implementing
curriculum;
examining
teaching
and
learning;
collaborative work; immersion experiences; practicing teaching; and vehicles and mechanisms (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003).
1. Aligning and implementing curriculum is a group of strategies that use quality science curriculum as the focus for teachers’ professional learning. This group is composed of curriculum alignment and materials selection, curriculum implementation, and curriculum replacement units.
2. Examining teaching and learning is a group of strategies that is practicebased learning which focuses on teachers engaging collaboratively to solve authentic issues encountered in classrooms and schools to examine their teaching practices and their students’ learning. This group is composed of action research, case discussions, the examination of student work and thinking, scoring assessment, and lesson study.
3. Collaborative work is a group of strategies where individuals come together for collaborative interaction with others in pursuit of a variety of different kinds of learning. Both goals and procedures depend on participants’ determination. This group is composed of study groups, partnerships with scientists, and professional networks.
4. An immersion experience is a group of strategies where teachers learn through the processes of inquiry and problem solving with direct experiences of
52 science content. This group is composed of immersion in inquiry into science and problem solving in mathematics as well as immersion in the world of scientists.
5. Practicing teaching is a group of strategies that focuses on teaching in classrooms with the purpose of improving science teaching and learning or inducting or supporting new teachers’ use of new strategies with the help of experienced teachers. This group is composed of coaching, mentoring, and demonstration lessons.
6. Vehicles and mechanisms is a group of strategies that have varied content and structures and often include other strategies. This group is composed of developing professional developers, technology for professional learning, and workshops, institutes, courses and seminars.
These 18 strategies can be divided into five groups for the purpose of professional learning. They are developing awareness, building knowledge, translating new knowledge into practice, practicing teaching, and reflection. 1. Strategies to promote teachers’ developing awareness are typically used at the beginning of a program to guide teachers with new teaching strategies or concepts. These strategies include professional networks, demonstration lessons, and study groups. 2. Strategies to promote teachers’ knowledge building focus on science content and pedagogy content knowledge. These strategies are case discussions, immersion experiences, workshops, technology for professional development, and partnerships with scientists and mathematicians.
3. Strategies to translate new knowledge into practice put an emphasis on using teachers’ knowledge for planning lessons and improving their teaching. These strategies
include
demonstration lessons.
coaching,
mentoring,
curriculum
implementation,
and
53 4. Strategies to practice teaching focus on applying new teaching strategies in the classroom. This real practice will promote teachers’ understanding and skills regarding the teaching process of using new strategies. These strategies are examining student work, lesson study, coaching, mentoring, and demonstration lessons. 5. Strategies to promote teachers’ reflection focus on examining their experiences in the classroom, students’ learning, and finding ways to improve their teaching. These strategies include action research, study groups, lesson study, case discussions, and examining student work. Therefore, to promote teachers’ views and practices of new teaching strategies in the classroom, this present study tried to combine the good characteristics of various strategies for designing of the activities in the PD program. Development based on Teachers’ Prior Knowledge and Promoting Their Construction of New Knowledge
Learning is the heart of teacher development. Constructivism seems to underlie the view of this development (Bell, 1998). Constructivism, the epistemology for understanding individual knowledge construction, has its roots from the work of two psychologists: Piaget and Vygotsky (Watson, 2000). Cognitive constructivism, also called personal constructivism by Piaget, emphasizes the processes in the mind. In contrast, Vygotsky’s social constructivism focuses on the individual construction of knowledge from social interaction. For personal constructivism, Piaget suggested that cognitive structure can be developed from children’s prior knowledge or prior experiences. The new knowledge, resulting from individual processes in the mind, occurs from assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation is a combination of prior knowledge and new knowledge that comes together. Accommodation is the process that adjusts new knowledge that is not in line with prior knowledge in order to make equilibrium of cognitive structure. Both assimilation and accommodation occur as individual learning (Bettencourt, 1993). In the context of professional development,
54 the personal constructivist views assert that teachers initially participate in a PD program with existing beliefs (Bell, 1998). The PD program should develop based on the beliefs, the curriculum, and standards that the participants hold (Lappan, 2000). Therefore, they can construct their own understandings which are determined largely by their existing beliefs. However, the changes of beliefs are usually slow (Bell, 1998).
With social constructivism, Vygotsky indicated that each person has a zone of proximal development which is the distance between the potential of an individual to accomplish tasks by themselves without help from others and the potential of an individual to accomplish tasks with assistance from parents, friends, or teachers. Those who have more experience play important roles in helping others who have less experience to construct knowledge and skills (Vygotsky, 1978: 85). The result of these two processes is knowledge that is part of individual thinking. According to this social constructivist perspective, social construction of knowledge is personally mediated. Teachers who participate in the PD program can construct knowledge from the context for, and the outcome of human social interaction as an integral part of learning activity (Bell, 1998). To capture these changes, mostly narrative and reflective tools were brought into context for professional development (Tippins et al., 2002).
Using Activities in the Same Ways They Teach in Classrooms
Professional development concerns new teaching strategies or assessment activities for use in the classroom, including trying out new strategies, evaluating, discussing, reflecting, getting feedback on new teaching activities, and rewriting of school curricula (Bell, 1998). Therefore, the teachers should act like students to construct their knowledge in the same ways as students will be taught in the classroom (Loucks-Horseley et al., 2003). Fortunately, the characteristics of STS[E] instruction include science-based inquiry activities that can promote the changes of teachers’ views (Tsai, 2001). Based on inquiry activities, IPST (2002a) indicated that students who learn with this approach should be curious and eager to learn about the
55 natural world, be determined and happy about doing research and the search for knowledge, be capable of accumulating data, able to analyze results to find answers, make decisions based on reasonable use of data, and finally communicate questions, answers, data and discoveries from their learning to others. Interestingly, the numbers of participants doing activities have a greater effect on their changing knowledge, beliefs, and practices (Wilson and Berne, 1999).
Providing Situations for Teachers’ Reflections about Their Practices
The teacher is the decision maker who sets up the main purpose, behavioral objectives, content, procedures and activities, instructional aides and resources, and evaluation methods (Borich, 2007; 122). The teachers’ reflections on everyday teaching experiences can help them accumulate tacit knowledge which can change their views in content and method (Borich, 2007: 114) and improve their awareness, and control of themselves in their classroom practices (Baird, Fensham, Gunstone, and White, 1991). It is also a guide in professional development that allows teachers to be a reflective practitioner who can discuss their current practices and their attempts at changing them (Veal, Dussaillant, Roman, 2002: 160). In addition, diaries, logs or oral feedback from colleagues and course leaders may be used during a course of the program (Veal et al., 2002: 160). The reflection can be divided into three types: in action, on action and about action. Reflection-in-action refers to the teachers’ decision-making processes while they are teaching. The aim of reflectingin-action is to draw upon existing frameworks to solve rather than define problems. Reflection-on-action occurs outside of the practice (both before and after action). This reflection seems to be the subject of the practice which is an ideally systematic process of analysis, reconstruction and reframing in order to plan for further teaching and learning (Day, 1999: 28). Reflection about action involves teachers’ everyday thinking and practice about moral, ethical, political, and instrumental issues. This kind of reflection can promote teachers’ decisions about responsibility and accountability in their teaching. It also promotes the teachers’ understanding of the interrelationship between teaching purposes and practices of the concerned policy
56 contexts (Day, 1999: 28-29). Therefore, the environment in PD programs has to support reflections about practice (Richardson and Placier, 2001).
Having Sufficient Time to Encourage Meaningful Changes For the change of teachers’ views and practices to be in line with educational reform, the important thing that the researcher has to be aware is that the change process takes time and persistence (Loucks-Horseley et al., 2003: 48). The changing process can occur when the teachers are confident about the outcomes of teaching strategies (Bell, 1998). In addition, it occurs when they recognize a need, make plans to improve, engage in improvements, and allow time to evaluate the effectiveness of the new practices (Boling and Martin, 2005). Therefore, the number of contact hours, sustained over a period of time has a stronger impact on teacher growth than shortterm workshops (Richardson and Placier, 2001). The professional development should have sufficient time and on-going professional support (Radford, 1998). Follow-up phases in the classroom are also needed to support gradually change teachers’ beliefs and practices (Bryan and Atwater, 2002).
Designing the Professional Development Model
For designing an effective professional development model, Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003) states that the framework for professional development is composed of six steps: (1) committing to a vision and a set of standards, (2) analyzing student learning data and other data, (3) setting goals, (4) planning, (5) doing, and (6) evaluating, These are expressed in the model below.
57
Knowledge and beliefs
Commit to vision and standards
Context
Analyze student learning and other data
Set goals
Critical issue
Plan
Do
Evaluation
Strategies
Figure 2.2 Professional Development Design Framework Source: Loucks-Horseley et al. (2003)
1. Committing to a vision and a set of standards is the first step in designing a PD program. This vision of science teaching is the norm in classrooms. Teachers need chances to learn what they need to know to achieve this new vision as the model that they can use to work with their students. Standards are used as the basis of vision that inspires the professional development design process from the first to final steps. It is important that professional developers consider knowledge and beliefs about teaching, learning, the nature of science, effective professional development, and changing of teachers during or after participation in the program.
2. Analyzing student learning data and other data is a step that the researcher has to identify for improving student learning. These aims for students learning lead to the goals for teacher learning in the PD program. The contexts that the professional developer should consider include students, standards, learning results; teachers and teachers’ learning needs, curriculums, instructions, assessment, practices and learning environments; organizational cultures; organizational
58 structures and leadership, national, state, and local policies, available resources, the history of professional development, parents, and the community.
3. Setting goals is the driving force behind the PD program. Professional development that makes links to improve student leaning is relevant to four kinds of goals: (1) goals for student learning, (2) goals for teacher learning, (3) goals for teaching practice, and (4) goals of the organization. Goals for students, related to analyzing students’ needs, address closing the achievement gaps and expanding the learning opportunities to all students. In addition, teachers’ learning goals are informed by referring to standards, data about teacher performance, knowledge and skills, needs, and supports available. The goals of teacher practice are related to the translation of new knowledge and skills in classroom practice. Goals of organization, such as the development of leadership or the strengthening of the learning community, reflect the professional developer’s attention to critical issues of sustainability and professional culture. They reflect as well on their knowledge and beliefs about effective professional development and change. To set goals for the PD program, the critical issues that the professional developer should consider are finding time for a professional development, ensuring equality, building professional culture, developing leadership, building capacity for sustainability, scaling up, and garnering public support.
4. Planning is strongly related to critical issues, context, knowledge and beliefs, and strategies. Planning is a time to revisit and clarify the beliefs that underlie the program. The professional developer can plan in the short term or long term as well as for small or large scale programs. Plans for small scale and short term programs should select among the contextual factors, critical issues, and knowledge and beliefs that are most relevant for the program. During planning, strategies are selected to be employed in the PD program.
5. Doing is the actual implementation of a plan. It is impossible to predict how the initial design will work. Based on feedback, planners often go back to revise or change things. Professional developers will learn from their experiences and the
59 program will change over time because they figure out better way, or the conditions change.
6. Evaluating is the last step which needs attention. There are several reasons for evaluating that are related to the purpose of the program. Professional developers should consider what the goals or desired outcomes are, how to assess the accomplishments of the outcomes, how to acknowledge and evaluate how professional development and participants change over time, and how to take advantage of evaluation as a learning experience in itself. The results of evaluation are important in contributing to continuous improvement.
Current Trends of the PD Programs
PD programs are the dominant strategy of teacher development in Thailand. These training programs conventionally are conducted by the staff of the Ministry of Education, Universities, Teacher Colleges, or the IPST for teachers at least 2-3 days or a week (Pillay, 2002). The good aspects of this strategy that they have varied content and structures and often include other strategies to promote teachers’ knowledge building which focuses on science content and pedagogy content knowledge (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003). For developing teachers’ direct experiences about the STS[E] approach, it is important for teachers to have opportunities not only to observe the successful implementation of STS[E] teaching by themselves in their own classrooms (Lumpe et al., 1998). Fortunately, there are many successful PD programs to promote teachers’ teaching through the STS[E] approach. The Iowa Chautauqua Program, for example, was set up by the NSTA in 1983 for developing teachers from K-12 according to STS reform. This program was supported by the National Science Foundation [NSF]. The advantages of this program have been: awareness raising regarding STS reform, having activities to promote teachers’ direct experiences about
STS approaches by working
collaboratively with staff, the ability to assist teachers to plan and implement new modules, the focus on using new assessment and evaluation strategies in the classroom, and the promotion of communication skills regarding STS endeavors.
60 This program was divided into three parts: the Chautauqua STS Leadership Conference, three week summer workshops, and an academic year workshop series (Blunck and Yager, 1996).
1. In the Chautauqua STS Leadership Conference, thirty teacher-leaders had meetings in Iowa to plan five workshops to develop STS leaders, use STS teaching skills, and use assessment and evaluation strategies in the summer and in the academic year. In the three week summer workshop, there were five workshop sites. In each site, three to four teacher-leaders, faculty, and scientists worked collaboratively with thirty teachers. The thirty teachers got direct experience with science content and knowledge about how to connect science, technology, and society to current situations.
2. In the academic workshop series, there were the same groups of three to four teacher-leaders, faculty, scientists, and an added new thirty teachers at each site. The sixty teachers were provided short fall courses, interim projects, and short spring courses. In the short fall courses, this series had a twenty hour instructional block (Thursday and Friday evening and Saturday all day). The activities included reviewing problems and views related to science and traditional science teaching, drafting the essence of STS, providing clear definitions of the techniques for developing STS modules and the way to assess the success of STS approaches, selection of tentative topics and trying to use assessment and evaluation strategies in each domain, and analyzing practice teaching related to constructivism. For the interim project, the activities included developing STS modules for teaching about twenty days, the implementation of developed modules, reflection about teaching and learning based on constructivism, development of assessment and evaluation strategies, and communication with regional and central staff.
3. In the spring course, there were twenty hours of instructional blocks (Thursday and Friday evening and Saturday all day). The activities included analyzing STS experiences, discussions, measuring results from assessment and evaluation, reflection and analysis of the changes and practice based on
61 constructivism, interaction with new data related to STS, further planning about STS teaching and learning, having professional meetings, and conducting local school transformations. The results of the implementation of this program were to increase teachers’ confidence and understanding about planning their STS module. Teachers could link goals of the curriculum to their practice, promote students’ understanding of basic concepts and basic aspects of science, apply knowledge, enable understanding about basic aspects of science, develop creative thinking and attitudes toward science teaching, and apply science to real life situations. For the development of teachers’ teaching through STS[E] in an Asian context, Cho (2002) developed a PD program in Korea adapting the Iowa Chautauqua Program. This program was composed of a one week seminar in the winter, four three-hour spring semester meetings, and a one-week summer workshop.
1. One week seminar in winter: the goals of the one week seminar in the winter were to develop teachers’ understanding, get experience about the STS approach and constructivism in science teaching, and the development of a STS unit. Teachers developed ten to twenty class hour units which were based on the Sixth National Curriculum for Science in Korea and the tenets of STS and constructivism.
2. Four three-hour spring semester meetings: the teachers implemented their units in their classrooms. They videotaped two continuous classes of the unit during the semester and brought the video-tapes to meetings. They then received responses from other teachers after watching them. Teachers shared their experiences and problems with other teachers. In addition, they learned more about constructivist teaching strategies, assessment practices, and concept mapping.
3. During the one-week summer workshop teachers evaluated the units, the teaching experiences, and extended and improved their units based on the semester. In addition, university science educators provided additional enrichment of content by introducing new trends in science education. The results showed that this program can improve teachers’ awareness and practices of STS and constructivism according
62 to education reform. Teachers could develop and implement STS units in their own classrooms, and reflect on their teachings through video recordings of science classes. Their units focused on various aspects of learning such as creativity, application, and concept acquisition. Their students’ perceptions showed that the classroom environments improved in terms of personal relevance of content, scientific uncertainty, and student participation. From these results, the researcher concluded that this program was an effective and successful implementation for Korean science teachers.
For linking learning resources with science teaching through the STS approach, Chin (2000) examined the teachers’ perceptions and practices of two teachers in the development of a museum-based STS module. This project took seven months to complete and can be divided into three parts.
1.
In part one, teachers got knowledge about STS approaches, and were
shown examples of STS modules.
2.
In part two, teachers were focused on in-depth discussion to generate
ideas for developing the modules. The teachers presented possible topics to teach in their own school contexts. They also discussed how to link STS issues in the modules and how to link science concepts to learning in museums.
3.
In part three, the preliminary museum-based STS modules were
submitted for peer review for further improvement and the improved forms were implemented in the real museum settings. Their videotaped teaching practices were presented at meetings to facilitate self-reflection and obtain peer comments. Based on the feedback, the teachers improved the modules as much as possible. The result of this project showed that teachers had difficultly developing museum-based STS modules. They did not understand the role technological issues played in the STS modules and used various methods and materials in their STS modules. However, one out of two case studies agreed that this project could improve teaching skills
63 through understanding the rationale of the STS module. The teacher also thought that museum-based STS modules were useful for students.
Considering about the examples of the PD program above, these programs included the common characteristics that support teachers’ changing of their views and practices as previously mentioned. Therefore, in this current study, the researcher provided the environment for the teachers’ learning about the zoo-based STSE approach. They worked collaboratively in small groups for the construction of their own views connected to their prior views and responses to social interactions. The role of the researcher in this PD program was a facilitator who promotes the teachers’ learning in the same way as their students learn in the classroom. The ultimate goals of the learning activity were to promote the teachers’ clear views and practices compared to the zoo-based STSE approach in order to shape their new views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach.
In addition, this study dealt with all elements of change and growth. The researcher set some field trips to the zoo for the teachers to learn about using the zoo as a learning resource and invited the experienced teachers to present and discuss the STSE approach. After that, they applied their knowledge to design their lesson plans and practices for the real classroom. From practice, the researcher also focused on both self-reflection and reflection with others. The teachers who participated in this program got the chance to glean knowledge from direct discussions with experts in using both the STSE approach and the zoo as a learning resource. In addition, they were facilitated by the researcher to encourage them engaging in the reflection of specific issues, activities, their practices in the classroom and in the zoo. Due to shortcomings of support, the researcher extended the professional growth opportunities throughout the academic year (2009) into three parts. These were based on the characteristics of both the Iowa Chautauqua Program and the adapted Iowa Chautauqua Program which promoted teachers’ views and practices based on constructivism (Blunck and Yager, 1996; Cho, 2002; Chin, 2000).
64 Summary
This chapter presents a literature review on science education according to educational reform, STSE approach, using zoos as a learning resource, and professional development in science education to help the researcher to synthesize the guiding principles utilized in the development of PD programs to enhance elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. After a review of the literature it can be concluded that: science education according to educational reform mainly focused on the student. The teachers have to construct the environment of learning and facilitate their students to learn by themselves. STSE approach is seen to be an ideal of teaching and learning that still challenges traditional teaching. It has the characteristics that are in line with the current educational reform. Using a learning resource is one of STSE approach strategies that uses outside the classroom resources to drive science lessons. Therefore, the zoo can be used to link with science teaching according to the STSE approach to promote students’ learning about animal contents, scientific process skills, as well as the awareness of animal extinction in Thailand. However, few teachers understand and implement STSE approach in the classroom. Teachers’ views and attention affect their teaching practices based on this approach. To promote teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach, professional development is a way to promote teaching and learning according to education reform. There are evidences about characteristics of successful professional development and framework for designing a professional development model provided as a guideline for the design of the PD program in this current study. For the in depth details on the process to promote teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach, it is presented in the next chapter.
65
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Enhancing the views and practices of elementary science teachers of the zoobased STSE approach is the main aim of this study. The previous chapter reports a literature review on science education according to educational reform, STSE approach, using zoos as a learning resource, and professional development in science education. Based on research questions, this research involves two phases of study: a survey research phase, and a case study phase. This chapter will discuss the research methodology including methodological perspective, research design, and research procedures of each phase. For research procedures, the section in each phase is divided into three parts. The first part addresses the context of the study. The second part is associated with data gathering methods. The third part provides information about data analysis to answer the research questions of this study.
Methodological Perspective
The methodological perspective of this research study has its roots in interpretive paradigm. The interpretivist researcher attempts to understand and explain human and social reality. It involves rich description and evidence from the investigated phenomenon which the researcher has collected and interpreted from research participants and settings (Crotty, 1998: 67).
In science education, interpretive methodology is often used to understand the ways that teachers or students make sense of the social interactions both in and around schooling. It also helps teachers better understand what they do in order to improve their teaching (Gallagher, 1991). In other words, it helps researchers to understand teachers’ actions and the beliefs that lie behind their actions. As a result of using this methodology, the teachers also get the benefit of being more reflective of their own teaching and learning.
66 Typically, the researcher had broad questions which led to data collection. However, the research participants’ behaviors and settings could change over time, were impossible to control, and they cannot be separated from each other (Patton, 2002). Therefore, the data collection frameworks are usually reshaped at any time during the
study until the researchers get a set of assertions that provide insights into the questions (Gallagher and Tobin, 1991). Furthermore, the researchers needed some fieldwork which would help them to reach the data resources and situations (Patton, 2002). Many kinds of methods are essential for collecting data and making analyses that provide the understandings of participants and contexts (Patton, 1990). To describe the nature of the teachers’ practices in their classrooms, the
researcher can use interviews, videotapes, field notes, or teacher journals as methods for collecting data (Borko, Whitcomb, and Byrnes, 2008). Researchers are also an
important instrument for data-gathering (Jackson, 1995: 9-10). A strong relationship between the teachers and researcher is needed in order to make for a better understanding of what is happening in the classroom (Borko et al., 2008). For analyses of the data, inductive processes can be used in the building of data into broad themes.
The strength of this interpretivist research depends on providing a thick description to show how participants generate meaning from the events or actions happening in the contexts (Bryman, 2001).
For using interpretive research as methodology in this study, the researcher came with the aims to find a deep understanding of the phenomena about teachers’ views and practices of the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource. This aim can be accomplished by employing inductive strategies to get both quantitative and qualitative data. Therefore, the researcher used as many kinds of methods, such as surveys and case study with interviews, observations, and
documents reviews for identifying the multiple realities to be found in the data. In this study, elementary science teachers make sense of and give meaning to the social interactions in and around a school setting. To get a better understanding, the teachers and their environments were not controlled or manipulated. The researcher had to build a long term relationship with the teachers to get close to them and the realities of their daily teaching. In interpreting the data, the researcher categorized it to emerge in
67 themes and provided a thick description of views and practices of the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource. In the next section, the research design associated with interpretive research is discussed.
Research Design
With the lens of an interpretive perspective, the research design of this study focuses on mixed-method studies which first collect and analyse quantitative data, and then obtains qualitative data to answer the research questions. For quantitative data the researcher decided to use survey research in the first phase to explore the current stages of elementary science teachers’ views on science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource. After that the researcher used the data from surveys to design the PD program, which is designed to enhance the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoobased STSE approach, and select volunteer teachers to participate in the PD program. For qualitative data, case studies were used in the second phase of this study with an emphasis on obtaining rich and detailed understandings of the teachers’ perspectives using a variety of data gathering techniques. The researcher’s interpretation in this study is important in order to examine how they change in their views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. The research phases are shown in figure 3.1 below:
68
Phase I: Survey research Exploration of the current states of elementary science teachers’ views on science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource
get
Information to design the effective professional development program for
get for
Selecting participants
Phase II: Case Studies Examining of the elementary science teachers’ change of their views and practices and the factors that constrain and facilitate their views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach
Professional development program for enhancing the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach
for
Figure 3.1 Research Phase Diagram
Phase I: Survey Research
Surveys are used as methods to describe the characteristics of a population by collecting data through asking questions from a group of people rather than every member in the population. The answers to these questions generate the data of the study. There are three main modes of data collection for a social survey: the face to face interview, postal questionnaires, and telephone interviews. To allow the researcher assess the opinions of a large group of people, postal questionnaires seem to have more advantages than the others. They are able to access people who are hard to reach in person or by phone. Moreover, the respondents have enough time to give thoughtful answers to questions in the questionnaire (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2003; Henn, Weinstein, Foard, 2006).
69 A questionnaire is the most common type of instrument for surveys. Questionnaires are composed of a series of questions in order to gather information from respondents (Krathwohl, 1997: Vaus, 2002). For success of using a questionnaire, it should have questions that are easy and attractive, and there should not be too many of them. Before distributing the questionnaires, the researcher should test them out with a small sample of people similar to the group of respondents that they are designed to survey. Moreover, the researcher should provide cover letters indicating the purpose of the survey, the importance of the topic being researched, confidentiality and anonymity, and the deadline date. To enhance the return rate, the researcher also should attach a stamped, self-addressed envelope to the questionnaire. They will be some no responses. To reduce them, a reminder letter about the questionnaire can be sent (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2003).
In this study, this first phase was undertaken in the first semester of the 2008 academic year. The aim of the survey was to examine the current views on science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource for elementary teachers who taught in schools under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. The researcher decided to use mailed questionnaires because they are inexpensive to administer, they cover of a wide geographic area, and they ensure a degree of privacy for the respondent. The data from this questionnaire was used for designing the PD program and to select the group of teachers to participate in this program.
Phase II: Case Studies
Case studies are concerned with the fields of interpretive study as a research design with the purpose to provide understanding of what happens in natural phenomena under investigation (Merriam, 1998). The strength of a case study is about
understanding cause and effect in the context of the study (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000). It is often a part of training which involves the study at different levels, such as individual, classroom, school, or program. For understanding holistic views or processes in particular instances, the selection of a case is important in
70 conducting case study research. Purposive sampling should be used for choosing cases to study in order to gain rich information (Merriam, 1998). For collecting data, the information should be collected with various methods such as in-depth interviews, observations, and so on (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2003: 439). Typically, the results of case studies usually focus on qualitative analyses such as verbal descriptions rather than quantitative analyses (Jackson, 1995: 10). Therefore, the reader may encounter difficulty in reading the thick and rich descriptions which state the complete and literal description of the incidents. These are provided to clearly explain new meanings of the phenomena rather than presenting them as abstract theories or principles. To deal with this problem, it is always a good idea that the researcher
should provide a summary for the reader (Merriam, 1998).
There are three kinds of case studies which are described by Stake (2000): intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. The intrinsic case study is often used in explanatory research which focuses on understanding a specific individual or situation to describe what is going on and to learn about some unclear phenomena in depth. The instrumental case study uses the cases as instruments to illustrate the issue(s).
The researcher has more interest in understanding something than the
particular individual, event, or program involved. Conclusions can be applied to more than one particular case. A collective case study refers to research that investigates a number of single cases or multiple cases at the same time as it is part of an overall study (Stake, 2000). Multi-case studies can be designed as cross case studies, comparative case studies, and contrasting case studies (Merriam, 1998). Multi-case studies seem to provide deeper understandings and uncover meanings by investigating individual cases and looking across other cases to produce commonalities and differences (Merriam, 1998). In addition, the use of more than one case is more likely to lead to a valid generalization of other situations (Merriam, 1998). In the circumstances of investigation, it cannot be guaranteed that these cases will be representative, but the researcher can apply these findings, at the least, to other similar cases (Henn et al., 2006: 59).
71 From the characteristics of the case studies above, this phase of study used multiple case studies to help the researcher make sense of how a PD program influences elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE
approach and the factors that constrain and facilitate their views and practices. The participants in this phase were the teachers whom the researcher selected from purposive sampling. Throughout the PD program, multiple methods were used such as interviews, observations, and document reviews for data triangulation. The data of each case was submitted and used with the constant comparative method to develop categories and themes regarding the changes of the teachers’ views and practices.
Research Procedures in First Phase: Survey Research
Context of the Study
School setting
This study was conducted with the schools under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. These schools are set up according to the passage of the Administration of Bangkok Province Act of 1975 which provides various types of learning from formal education to informal education. The schools are governed by the Department of Education Bangkok Metropolitan Administration [BMA] which is responsible for the operation of the center in the academic districts, as well as teaching supports in terms of academia, research, project assessment and dissemination of educational information. Up to now, there are 433 schools throughout all districts in Bangkok (Department of Education Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, 2008). Unfortunately, there are a lot of reports concerning teachers’ lack of science teaching skills as previously mentioned in Chapter I. Therefore, the researcher selected the teachers who taught about animal topics in this kind of schools to be the study population for examining the current views on science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource.
72 Samples
The samples in this phase were elementary science teachers who teach topics related to animals at the upper elementary level in the 2008 academic year. The researcher used a 25% random sampling of schools under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and determined 108 schools on which the study was based. There were 66 elementary science teachers who returned questionnaires back to the researcher. However, there was one questionnaire that was answered from an elementary science teacher who taught at other grade levels. The result in the response rate was 60%. Therefore, the participants in this study were comprised of 65 upper elementary science teachers (Grade 4-6) who taught topics about animals.
Methods
Views on Teaching and Learning about Animals [VTLA] Questionnaire For examining the teachers’ views, there is much research that uses questionnaires as an instrument to identify the teachers’ views concerning STS[E] approach (Aikenhead and Fleming. 1989; Rubba and Harkness, 1993; Tairab, 2001). However, the aim of using these questionnaires did not focus on examining the teachers’ views of instruction. In this study, the data for examining the teachers’ current views on teaching about animals was collected using a newly developed questionnaire named, “Views on Teaching and Learning about Animals [VTLA]”. The purpose of developing this questionnaire is to examine the views of elementary science teachers on science teaching based on the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource, and to examine the need for professional development regarding the zoo-based STSE approach. The researcher focused on the elementary science teachers’ goals, animal content, teaching activities, learning assessment, and factors that constrain and facilitate.
An early step in developing the VTLA questionnaire was studying the national science curriculum, documents, text books, related research about the STSE
73 approach, using the zoo as a learning resource. Further the researcher needed to lay out a table of specifications which would guide question construction for a study of the impact of various election events on voting behavior (Krathwohl, 1997: 362). The questions were framed to include demographics, views on teaching about animals in the classroom, and views on teaching about animals in the zoo. This was done with open-ended questions. There are four parts in the VTLA questionnaire: personal data, views on teaching and learning science, views on using the zoo as a learning resource and views on participating in the PD program to enhance personal views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. This VTLA questionnaire is shown in appendix A.
In the section of personal data, there are eleven items which consisted of a checklist with an open-ended format. The questions in this part are related to sex, age, degree and major fields, science teaching experience, number of student per class, animal topics that you teach, number of class periods per week, other positions in the work place, experience of using the zoo as a learning resource, frequency of using the zoo as a learning resource, and experience about professional development regarding the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource. In the section of teaching about animals in the classrooms, there are eight items which all are openended questions. The questions in this part are related to content that is actually taught in schools, objectives of teaching and learning about animal content, teaching activities, using the learning resources for teaching animal content, using STSE issues for teaching animal content, application of knowledge about animals in daily life, and learning assessment on animal content. In the section on teaching about animals in the zoo, there are six items which are all open-ended questions. These questions are related to the objectives of using the zoo as a learning resource, science content for using the zoo as a learning resource, the strategies of using the zoo as a learning resource, learning assessment on using the zoo as a learning resource, and factors that affect elementary science teachers using the zoo as learning resources. In the last sections, there is one question about their need to participate in the PD program. If they need, they can give the researcher their contact details.
74 The early draft was reviewed by three experts who were comprised of two experienced teachers and one science educator. The constructed questionnaires were then sent to the reviewers for their approval regarding the format, content, and wording. Feedback involved clarifying jargon, eliminating ambiguous items, eradicating redundancy, and adding items to ensure a broad sampling of questions. Afterwards, the researcher improved the questionnaire and tried out it with three elementary science teachers from three schools within one public school educational district under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. The researcher revised the questionnaire for validity and reliability and implemented the real samples in the 2008 academic year.
Finally, the researcher distributed the VTLA questionnaires by mailing them to 108 public schools under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration in the 2008 academic year. In each school, one upper elementary science teacher who teaches animal related topics was asked to answer the questionnaire. To maximize response rates, participants were informed that the results would be kept strictly confidential, and that a letter of transmittal would be sent to their administrators. Teachers were also told that if they returned the questionnaire to the researcher, they would get an example of a lesson plan based on constructivism as an external motivation to return the questionnaires via a pre-stamped envelope to the researcher.
Data Analysis
The data from each respondent in the VTLA questionnaire was analyzed in both quantitative and qualitative terms. Quantitative data analysis involved using descriptive statistics to identify which categories were most commonly answered in the questionnaires. For qualitative data analysis, the answers in the questionnaire were analyzed through content analysis. The researcher had to read raw data for interpreting and constructing categories to capture relevant characteristics of the documents’ content. Validity of the coding was done by the panel of science educators. The data about the current stages of elementary science teachers’ views on teaching about animals and using the zoo as a learning resource would be
75 preliminary data to design the PD program and to select the participants for participation in this program.
Research Procedures in Second Phase: Case Studies
Context of the Study
Professional Development Context In order to enhancing the upper elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach, the researcher developed and implemented the PD program which was adapted from professional development design framework of Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003). The developing processes of this study composed of four steps: generation of the guiding principles; setting goals; designing of strategies, activities and assessment; and validation of program. The details about the developing processes were discussed as follows.
1. Generation of Guiding Principles for the PD Program
The guiding for this PD program received from the review of literature. It suggested researcher to developed the PD program according the features of the successful PD program such as mention in Chapter II including (1) using more than one strategy for development, (2) development based on teachers’ prior knowledge and promoting their construction of new knowledge, (3) using activities in the same ways they teach in classrooms, (4) providing situations for teachers’ reflections about their practices, and (5) having sufficient time to encourage meaningful changes.
2. Setting Goals of the PD Program The researcher sets the goals of the PD program to promote the teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. The researcher also considers
76 the results from phase I about the current stages of elementary science teachers’ views on teaching and learning about animals and their practices about excursions to the zoo. It has been suggested for development of elementary science teachers’ views that: (1) the teaching objectives should concerned with promoting the students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment, (2) pedagogical approaches should change from task-oriented environment to the STSE learning environment which using student thinking, experiences, and interests about situations, events, or issues related to STSE to drive lesson for experiencing students to be a good citizenship roles, (3) learning assessment should focus on all student achievement domains, (4) the goals of using the zoo as a learning resource should
promote student awareness of wildlife
extinction in the current situation, (5) planning for linking learning during excursion to learning in the classroom should addressed by the teacher, (6) using student-center activities to provide more learning autonomy during visiting, and (7) teachers, schools administrator, zoo educators, and parents should cooperatively help to find the way to reduce some factors related using the zoo as a learning resource. For the depth details, it is shown in Chapter IV. Therefore, the specific goals were that the elementary science teachers would be able to:
2.1 Indentify the characteristic of teaching science according to educational reform, the nature of science, the nature of technology, the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment, the STSE approach, and using the zoo as a learning resource.
2.2 Analyze the objectives of science teaching and learning in the current National Education Act, the National Science Curriculum framework, and teaching according to the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource.
2.3 Discuss the characteristics of teaching science according to educational reform, the nature of science, the nature of technology, the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment, the STSE approach, and using the zoo as a learning resource.
77 2.4 Reflect on zoo-based STSE lesson plans (e.g. the teaching objective, teaching activities, using learning resources, and learning assessment) from role playing as students.
2.5 Create the zoo-based STSE lesson plan in topic related to animal concerning with zoo excursion.
2.6 Implement and reflect on teaching practices of the zoo-based STSE lesson.
2.7 Be aware on using the STSE approach and the zoo as a learning resource in their teaching.
3. Designing of the PD Program
The researcher designed the PD program based on principles and goals as mention above. The content of this program based on the data from phase I which the elementary science teacher should be developed. To explore their views and practices in natural situation, the researcher decided to use various kinds of strategies in this PD program but mainly on reflection. The main role of the researcher was leader and facilitator at the same time. For evaluation, the researcher focused on the teachers’ development of their views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. The content, activities, and assessment were shown below.
3.1 Content
The researcher provided content in this PD program including science teaching according to educational reform, the nature of science, the nature of technology, the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment, science teaching according to the STSE approach, using the zoo as a learning resource, demonstration of an example of a zoo-based STSE lesson, the development
78 of zoo-based STSE lesson plans, and the implementation of zoo-based STSE lesson plans.
3.2 Activities
For the activities of professional development, this program used various kinds of activities such as lecture, discussion, presentation, excursion, reflection on and about their practices, observation, interview, and the invitation of guest speakers sharing some ideas. The activities were designed for promote the elementary science teachers to be active participants by doing hand-on and mind-on activities. The activities in this PD program were divided into three parts: preparation; zoo-based STSE lesson planning; and implementation of zoo-based STSE lesson plans. The details about activities in each part were described below:
Part I: Preparation
For an introduction of the basic knowledge of the zoo-based STSE approach and the example of a zoo-based STSE lesson plan, it took place in the first semester of the academic year 2009. This part was composed of seven meetings which aimed for promoting teachers to learn more about the educational reform, the nature of science, the nature of technology, the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment, science teaching based on the STSE approach, and using the zoo as a learning resource. In addition, an example of a zoo-based STSE lesson plan was presented. In each meeting, the teachers had an opportunity to do and reflect upon their tasks both in individually and in groups. Moreover, the teachers were asked to write journals to reflect their learning. The teachers were interviewed after the introductions of zoo-based STSE concepts were presented. There were also informal interviews. A brief summary of activities of each meeting was provided below.
79 First Meeting: My Science Teaching and Learning Style
The objectives of this meeting were that the elementary science teachers would be able to: (1) indentify the way to teach science according to the current National Education Act and the Science Curriculum framework, (2) compare and discuss on the difference between their practices as shown in lesson plans and the guideline of practice according to the educational reform, and (3) suggest the way to teach science according the educational reform. This meeting took three hours on Saturday at the university where the researcher was studying. At the beginning of meeting, the teachers were asked to generate a mind map about educational reform based on their understanding. The researcher then used their mind map to motivate them to generate questions about the teaching objectives of science teaching, teaching activities, and learning assessment. For searching the data, each teacher explored the current National Education Act and the Science Curriculum framework that were provided by the researcher and set their own criteria for examine the lesson plan and whether or not it is in line with teaching and learning according to educational reform in their worksheet. After that the researcher asked them to present their criteria they then discussed with the science educator to find the common criteria. With the common criteria, each teacher used this to examine their lesson plans in the topic related to an animal that they taught last semester. They presented and discussed the results of evaluation of their lessons plans for finding ways to improve. Finally, they applied their knowledge to adjust the mind map that they did at the beginning of this meeting by writing with the red-ink pen. Moreover, they were asked to reflect their learning in a journal entry and they handed it in the next meeting.
Second Meeting: Amazing Earthworm
The objectives of this meeting were that the elementary science teachers would be able to: (1) identify characteristics of the nature of science; (2) observe, explore, and discuss about the nature of science, (3) analyze the scientist’s work concerning the nature of science, and (4) recommend alternative teaching
80 activity for linking to the nature of science. This meeting took four hours on Tuesday at the school where the teachers worked. Initially, the teachers were asked to write what they knew about the nature of science on the blackboard. The researcher led the discussion and used their prior knowledge for linking to the experiment activity about earthworms. The learning situation started with showing earthworms by the researcher and asking about teachers’ wonder and interest. These teachers did the activity with term work. They helped together to make clear the identification of the main problem that they would like to investigate, generating the hypothesis, setting experimental design, doing experiment, and making conclusions and discussions. The researcher only prepared the essential materials that they might use for their experiment. When they finished their experiment, they presented their findings and discussed with the researcher and the invited scientist. After that the teachers read the history of the scientist in the book that the researcher provided for comparing with their processes to find the new knowledge from the experiment. In addition, the researcher also asked the teachers to ask the scientist about their work at least five questions about the scientist’s work. Finally, the teachers concluded the nature of science which related to the scientific world view, scientific inquiry, and the scientific enterprise. As well they reflected on the way to teach science concerning the nature of science. Moreover, they were asked to reflect their learning in a journal entry and they handed it in the next meeting.
Third Meeting: Cloning technology
The objectives of this meeting were that the elementary science teachers would be able to: (1) identify characteristics of the nature of technology, (2) explain the difference and relationship between science and technology, (3) discuss about the current issues related to the nature of technology, and (4) recommend alternative teaching activities for linking the nature of technology. This meeting took three hours on Tuesday where the school that the teachers worked. Due to the teacher’s reflections on the activities in the second meeting, the researcher had to adjust the activities in this meeting so that there were not too many. The researcher examined their prior knowledge by asking them to tell about the technology
81 concerning the animal that they knew. After that the researcher showed the picture of the well-known cloned sheep, “Dolly� for leading into a discussion about the cloning technology with the scientist. During the discussion, the teachers had to indentify the characteristic of the nature of technology in their worksheet. Finally, they made the conclusion about the nature of technology and reflected on the way to teach science concerning the nature of technology. Moreover, they were asked to reflect their learning in a journal entry and they handed it in the next meeting.
Forth Meeting: The STSE Government
The objectives of this meeting were that the elementary science teachers would be able to: (1) explain the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment, (2) analyze, and discuss about the current issues related to the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment, and (3) suggest ways to teach science concerning the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment. This meeting took three hours on Tuesday at the school where the teachers worked. The researcher started the meeting with asking the group of teachers to construct the mind map about the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment on the white broad in front of the meeting room. After that the teachers watched a video clip about GMOs and the researcher set the situation that the government was making a decision to produce a GMOs hen that could lay eggs for curing some diseases. Each teacher played the role as the head of government ministry such as the Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, and Ministry of Commerce. The framework of each ministry and the essential information about GMOs were provided by the researcher. When they finished collecting data the researcher acted as the prime minister to consider the positive and negative impacts of the GMOs hen from their debating. After debating, teachers brainstormed to conclude the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment in both positive and negative effects and reflected on the way to teach science to promote students’ awareness of these interactions. Moreover, they were asked to reflect their learning in a journal entry and they handed it in the next meeting.
82 Fifth Meeting: STSE Instruction
The objectives of this meeting were that the elementary science teachers would be able to: (1) identify the features of science teaching and learning according to the STSE approach, (2) ask questions, search information, and discuss about science teaching and learning according to the STSE approach, (3) design learning activities based on STSE approach, and (4) suggest how to apply STSE approach in their science teaching. This meeting took three hours on Saturday at the university where the researcher was studying. In this meeting, each teacher completed and reflected on a KWL chart (what I know/ what I want to know/ what I learned) in part of what I know and what I want to know in order to examine their prior knowledge about science teaching and learning according to the STSE approach. After that the experienced teacher in science teaching and learning according to the STSE approach came as guest speaker to present and exchange ideas with the teachers. They then worked in a group to design learning activities in one topic based on the STSE approach. When they finished their planning, they presented their lesson plan and reflected on the feasibility of using science teaching according to the STSE approach in their school context. Before dismissing the meeting, each teacher completed and reflected on a KWL chart again in the part of what they learned. Moreover, they were asked to reflect their learning in a journal entry and they handed it in the next meeting.
Sixth Meeting: Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
The objectives of this meeting were that the elementary science teachers would be able to: (1) describe the principles, procedures, and assessment methods of using the zoo as a learning resource, (2) identify the scientific content in the zoo that could be linked to science teaching in the classroom, (3) discuss about the features of using the zoo as a learning resource, and (4) suggest ways of using the zoo as a learning resource for science teaching and learning. This meeting took three hours on a Saturday at the zoo in Bangkok where the teachers would take their students. The activity started with teachers’ reflection on the school excursion
83 project to the zoo of the last academic year when it was compared with the features of the STSE approach. The researcher then discussed with teachers about their prior knowledge of using the zoo as a learning resource. After that the zoo educator took them to explore the animals, learning materials, and learning activities which zoo provided. The researcher acted like a facilitator to arrow their discussion focusing on how to link students’ experience in the zoo to learning activities based on the STSE approach. The activity ended with concluding their knowledge in a worksheet and discussion about the principles, contents, procedures, and assessment methods of using the zoo as a learning resource based on the STSE approach. Moreover, they were asked to reflect their learning in a journal entry and they handed it in the next meeting.
Seventh Meeting: Demonstration of a Zoo-based STSE Lesson
The objectives of this meeting were that the elementary science teachers would be able to: (1) describe the features of a zoo-based STSE lesson, (2) discuss the activities in a zoo-based STSE lesson, and (3) recommend alternative teaching activities for a zoo-based STSE lesson. This meeting took three hours on Saturday at the zoo in Bangkok where the teachers would take their students. In this activity, the teachers acted as students and the researcher acts as the teacher who was teaching a topic of animal behavior. The researcher began teaching according to the example of a zoo-based STSE lesson as shown in appendix D. When they finished doing the activity, each teacher got the example of the zoo-based STSE lesson plan. They reflected on the features of the zoo-based STSE lesson and suggested the way to effectively use this zoo-based STSE lesson in their school context. Moreover, they were asked to reflect their learning in a journal entry and they handed it in the next meeting.
Part II: Zoo-based STSE Lesson Planning
The development of zoo-based STSE lesson plans took place during the first school break (in October) of the academic year 2009. The main aim of this
84 part was to motivate the elementary science teachers in transforming their basic knowledge about the zoo-based STSE approach from part one in their teaching. Each teacher was asked to develop a lesson plan in a topic related to an animal 5-10 class periods based on the Thai Science National Curriculum. There was one meeting per week for their developing progress. The role of the researcher in this part was the facilitator in discussions for generating ideas to infuse the STSE approach in using the zoo as a learning resource in their lessons. Finally, one teacher was interested in developing lessons in the topic of animal classification for teaching grade five but another one was interested in developing lessons in the topic of animal behavior for teaching grade six. When they finished their planning, the researcher gave them recommendations and also sent their lesson plans to a science educator for some suggestions. Due to the lack of experience in teaching according to the STSE approach, the researcher also provided them with opportunity to plan and implement the lesson that they were soon going to teach. In doing so, they received a lot of feedback from their students. Therefore, they adjusted their zoo-based STSE lesson plans according to their direct experiences and the suggestions of the researcher and science educator before implementation in the second semester of the academic year 2009. During this part, the researcher recorded the discussions and collected both of the preliminary and revised units. In addition, each teacher was asked to write journals to reflect their practices. The teachers also were interviewed after finishing the development of their zoo-based STSE lesson plans. There were also informal interviews.
Part III: Implementation of Zoo-based STSE Lesson Plans
For implementation of their lesson plans, the teachers were asked to teach the lesson plans which were constructed during part II in their classrooms. Each teacher divided the lesson into three parts: before zoo excursion; during zoo excursion; and after zoo excursion. For the zoo excursion, the school administrator supported them by providing funds and contacting the zoo educators to provide experience about the zoo. The students did not pay any money. While the lesson was being taught, the researcher acted as a complete observer who watched and took field
85 notes on what was happen in their teaching. They videotaped their teaching both in the classroom and during the zoo excursion. After they completed the practice sessions, they reflected on their teaching and followed up with an informal interview by the researcher. In addition, each teacher was asked to write a journal to reflect their practices.
3.3 Assessment
The effectiveness of this PD program was assessed by determining the extent to which elementary science teachers continue to develop their views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach with respect to the topic of animals. This development was examined by focus group discussion, interviews, observation, and document analysis. In addition, the factors that constrain and facilitate their views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach also were considered. During participating in the PD program, the researcher used the teachers’ feedback on the activities to adjust strategies, activities, or assessment again for better learning styles.
4. Validation of the PD program
The researcher developed the manual of the PD program including the learning activities and materials in the program such as worksheets, lesson plans, and instructional media which were validated by the research supervisors and a panel of experts. The panel consisted of two science educators and one experienced teacher from the elementary school. After finishing the first draft of designing the program, a committee of advisers and experts gave the researcher feedback and suggestions for improving the manual of the PD program. When the experts and researchers held different views, discussion continued until consensus was achieved. Most of their suggestions were concerned with the clear direction of each activity and the amount of activities in each meeting. The researcher then improved the manual according to their suggestions. Finally, the program received approval from them and was implemented in the first semester of academic year 2009. The procedure for
86 development and implementation of the PD Program is shown in the figure below and the outline and scope of this PD program are shown in appendix B.
Review literature Additional information from survey of phase I
Generation of the guiding principles
Setting goals
Designing
Validation of PD program
Strategies Activities Assessment
Implementation
Part I: Preparation
Part II: Zoo-based STSE lesson Planning
Part III: Implementation of Zoo-based STSE lesson plans
Assessment
Figure 3.2 Diagram of Procedure for Development and Implementation of the PD Program
School Context
Due to the data of the first phase and budget constraints, the researcher selected one school to be the research site based on five criteria: (1) the teachers in the school volunteered to participate in this program, (2) the school already planned an excursion to the zoo in the second semester of the 2009 academic year in order to examine the real phenomenon of excursions to the zoo, (3) the distance between the
87 school and the zoo is not far so the teacher can take students to the zoo by walking, (4) the number of elementary science teachers who taught animal content should be at least two or more at the upper elementary level, and (5) the teachers had never attended any PD programs and workshops regarding to the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource. For the procedures to contact the school, the researcher used the data from the last sections of the VTLA questionnaire to select the schools that gave the researcher contact devices which showed their need to participate in the PD program. After that the researcher contacted each school to ask school administers’ permission for giving professional development opportunities to the elementary science teachers about teaching with the zoo-based STSE approach. Finally, the researcher selected one school which held all of the criteria.
This selected school was a large public school under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration in the Dusit district. It was established in 1952 with the school philosophy of preserving Thai cultures. The goals of the school were for students to be interested in learning, have integrity, value desirable attributes, and have awareness of the value of Thai cultures. In addition, this school also provided some opportunities for community services. At the time of the study in the academic year 2009, the school provided classes from kindergarten to grade six. There were 24 classes of students total; 6 classes in kindergarten, 9 classes at the lower elementary level, and 9 classes at the upper elementary level. There were eight departments in the school including Thai language, mathematics, social studies, religion and culture, health and physical education, foreign languages, art, career and technology and science departments. This school had 35 teachers (5 male teachers and 30 female teachers) in all departments. Moreover, there were 19 teachers who were teacher assistants. For the science department, there were two lower elementary science teachers and one upper elementary science teacher and one teacher assistant in the lower elementary level. For the number of students, the total number of student population was 793 students and consisted of 343 male students and 450 female students including 17 special-child students. There were around 25-40 students per classroom of mixed ability. Buddhism was the religious for most students. Most students came from middle class to poor families and the parents worked as workers
88 or officers near the school area. Fortunately, the school got the funding from the Bangkok metropolitan government to provide each student with a free lunch, milk, stationary, backpacks, school uniforms, textbooks, and health insurance. There were about seven or eight students living in child’s protection center in every classroom. Although there was the department in this child’s protection center providing them with education, the children who had good behavior would be selected to study in the general school. Some of them were aggressive and would cause disturbances in classrooms. The teachers always searched for the appropriate strategy to control the classroom.
The schools had two semesters per year. The first semester ran from May to September and the second semester ran from November to March. In each semester students had around 16 weeks for learning and one week for examinations. Generally, the first class started at 8.30 am. Each teaching period was 50 minutes long. Science followed the previous National Science Curriculum Standards B.E. 2544 (A.D.2001). It changed to the new one in B.E. 2551 (A.D.2008). In each week, the students had to study science for 3 periods (150 minutes) as a single period and a double period. For teaching science materials, the school provided various kinds of media, instruments, and substances in teaching. The teachers had also to write their science lesson plans as the requirement of the principals. In addition, each science teacher not only taught science but also taught other subjects such as health study, moral study and boy and girl scouts. The overall average for student’s G.P.A in science at this school was medium.
This school is located in a center area in Bangkok. It was surrounded by the palace, government offices, apartments, rented homes, markets, temple, and the zoo. It had limited area to provide a large playground, sports field or garden. However, there were three five floor buildings including a library, a computer room, and a science laboratory for student learning. In each semester, the school provided outside the classroom experiences in terms of field trips for students leaning not specific to science learning but for general learning. These field trips were funded by the budget
89 from the school. However, students always went to the zoo because the distance between the school and the zoo is only one kilometre or about a fifteen minute walk.
Participants
The participants were teachers who were in the PD program during the 2009 academic year. For the needs for professional development from the questionnaire, most of the elementary science teachers (74%) showed their views to participate in the PD program. They gave the reasons that they wanted to get new knowledge for developing their science teaching and learning, general interest, and to exchange knowledge about teaching with others. Due to the budget constraints, they were selected by purposive sampling which is useful for providing rich information to develop an in-depth understanding of them and their situations. Concerning with ethical issues, the researcher had to treat participants with great respect (Cohen et al., 2000). If they felt uncomfortable about participating in the PD program, they could withdraw anytime they wanted. For reciprocity, the participants knew and understood the objectives and the sequence of activities of the program before they made their decision about participating. To protect the anonymity of the participants, the researcher would keep all of the results in secret and used them only this study. The report would not show the real names of teachers, students or schools (Sieber, 1998). When the teachers understood the commitment of the program, the researcher sent the formal letter from the dean of Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University to their school principal and both of them for permission. Eventually, the two elementary science teachers from this school, one female and one male, participated in this program. Maree and Somchai, their pseudonyms, were used to protect the teachers’ identities and privacy. The backgrounds of the two case studies are provided below: Case I: Mrs. Maree. Maree was a 34 years old with a bachelor’s degree in education (biology teaching) from a public university in Bangkok. She had six years of experience in science teaching at the elementary level. In this academic year 2009, she taught grade five science subject of animal topics regarding animal classification,
90 reproduction and propagation, life cycle, and genetics. The numbers of periods per week she taught were seventeen. In each classroom there were around 25 students. In addition, she had other positions in the work place such as head of the science department, distribution of food for students, and co-operative tasks, and student advisor. For excursions to the zoo, she always took students to the zoo once a year. However, she did not have any professional development experience about using the zoo as a learning resource or the STSE approach. She was a teacher who was enthusiastic about learning new things. She expressed her appreciation on the opportunity to participate in this PD program by agreeing to participate quickly. She believed that this program would provide new knowledge that she could apply into her teaching for the most benefit of students.
Case II: Mr. Somchai. Somchai is an elementary science teacher assistant with ten years of experience in science teaching in a private school in Chonburi province and one year of 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 four regarding animal topics about living and environment three periods per week and also taught grade six the topics of animal behavior and natural resource. The numbers of periods per week he taught were eighteen. In each classroom there were around 30 students. In addition, he had other positions in the work place such as boy and girl scouts or contributed activities, administrative business, and supervision of the laboratory. For excursions to the zoo, he had the same experience as Maree that took students to the Dusit zoo once a year. However, he did not have professional development experience both about the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource. When he was invited to join in a PD program, he was pleased. His desire to participate this program was mainly to receive some new experiences for designing learning activities that can link the lesson and using the zoo as a learning resource. In addition, he also needed a certificate as his motivation.
91 Methods
Before starting the PD program, the researcher contacted participants to make agreements about the date, time, places, and framework of activities in 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 interviews, observations, and document review had been used for triangulation.
Group Discussions Group discussions provided an opportunity for the participants to learn from sharing their experiences and interacting with each other (Roth and Alexander 1997). In this study, the teachers were assigned to discuss their experiences on the specific topic based on the content in each meeting of part I of the PD program. In addition, the discussion in this part tried to use the issues which emerged from the survey of phase I of this research in order to encourage the teachers to examine their views and practices of the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource. In part II of the PD program, the main aim of discussion was to give teachers an opportunity to share ideas on how to design zoo-based STSE lesson plans for implementation in the second semester of the academic year 2009 and how to revise lesson plans to be in line with the zoo-based STSE approach. In part III of the PD program, the researcher focused on discussions self-reflection, and peer comments about various problems and solutions of their typical teaching processes in order to improve their zoo based STSE lessons. During discussion, the researcher acted as facilitator and asked questions for clarifying any points not understood. Typically, the discussion took at least one hour per meeting. The researcher also asked each teacher for permission to video the discussion.
Interviews The interview is a research method to access what is inside someone’s mind because it cannot directly be observed (Patton, 1990). Because of the strength of interviewing, the researcher decided to use interviews in this study. Interviews are
92 useful for understanding interactions in a natural setting by providing much more context that the researcher can focus on. In addition, interviews can be used for immediate follow up of data collection for clarification, and facilitates analysis, validity checks, and triangulation (Hughes, 2002: 209-210). Typically, the interview techniques can be classified into three large groups: structured, semi-structured, and unstructured (Bryman, 2001). The structured interview is like a written questionnaire or checklist and is decided on by the interviewer. It asks each respondent the same set of questions in the same order or sequence (Patton, 1990). The semi-structured interview is more flexible than the structured interview in order to access a more indepth view of the respondent. The researcher prepares an interview guide which is a list of general questions to make sure all relevant topics are covered. Typically this kind of interview is conducted during a set time that is selected by the interviewer (Bryman, 2001). The informal interview gives more of a qualitative nature than the other types of interviews because it has an unstructured, conservational aspect. The questions are asked in order to get more respondent detail (Patton, 1990). In some cases, the researchers can re-interview in order to clarify some point that they did not understand (Patton, 1990).
Based on the strengths and weaknesses of each technique, the researcher chose both the semi-structured interviews and informal interviews to achieve the aims of this study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in this study to facilitate understanding about the elementary teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. The process of creating framework of semi-structured interviewed began with setting up the aims of the semi-structured interviews and making drafts about the framework of the semi-structured interviews. The early draft was reviewed by the thesis committee and experts for their approval of the format, content, and wording. Feedback involved clarifying jargon, unambiguous items, eradicating redundancy, and adding items to ensure a broad sampling of questions. In this study, the researcher used five semi-structured interviews during the implementation of the PD program: (1) one before the elementary science teachers started the PD program to examine their background about the zoo-based STSE approach, (2) one after the teachers had already learned content about the zoo-based
93 STSE approach from part one of the program, (3) one after they had designed their preliminary zoo-based STSE lesson plans in part two of the program, (4) one immediately following each classroom observation session to reflect on their actions in observed the lessons to get a more realistic view about their practice, and (5) one after they had finished the program to reflect overall about the zoo-based STSE approach and the PD program. The semi-structured framework of interviews is shown in appendix C. Before starting the interview, the researcher introduced himself and explained the objectives of the interviews and asked permission to taperecord the interviews. During interviews, the teachers could change or add their views after they had already answered. In addition, the researcher used informal interview to clarify some points that the researcher did not understand. Typically, the interview took 25-30 minutes per person.
Observations
Observation is one method of qualitative data gathering (Adler and Adler, 1994: 377). The researcher can use observation techniques to understand the participant’s perspectives which they do not or can not discuss during the interview (Patton, 1990; Cohen et al., 2000). The differences of the observations in social science compared to observations in everyday-life are systematic and purposive in nature. Social science researchers study their surroundings regularly and repeatedly, with a curiosity based on theoretical questions about the nature of human action, interaction, and society (Adler and Adler, 1994: 377). For planning of observation, the researcher is expected to begin with a clear propose and to develop a well-coded scheme based on theory or literature (Palys and Atchison, 2008: 200). The observational techniques can be classified into four groups: complete participant, participant-as-observer, observer-as-participant, and complete observer (Palys and Atchison, 2008: 204). With the complete participant role, the observer does not reveal himself or herself as a researcher. The researcher is a participant. There are two ways this observation may occur. Firstly, the researcher who has been a participant in some social situation decides to write about it after the participation ends. Secondly, the researcher enters a situation to engage in observation research,
94 but does not reveal to anyone what they are doing (Palys and Atchison, 2008: 204205). With the complete observer role, the researcher does nothing except observe by setting up a study in his or her own setting or seeking and obtaining the permission of someone to access another setting (Palys and Atchison, 2008: 207). With the mixed participation and observer role, both participant-as-observer and observer-as-participant may not be particularly different. The participant observers often float back and forth between the two based on the particular situation (Palys and Atchison, 2008: 209).
In addition, the researcher has to decide the basis for recording (videotaping, audio taping, and/or making notes) to enable the researcher to review the situation (Krathwohl, 1997: 267). The field notes can be used to record preliminary data from observations without changing the behavior of those observed. Otherwise, the researcher can complete field notes as soon as possible after leaving the field. Good field notes provide much verbatim conversation and context. Comments, inferences, and judgments are kept separately from observations as observer comments or memos (Krathwohl, 1997: 272) which can be made into a table for collecting the data. The table for collecting data is separated into two columns: (1) what is observed, and (2) the researcher’s thought/action about those observations (Bouma, 2000). However, the validity and reliability of observation are an issue of discussion. For validity, there are some biases in the subjective interpretation of situations if the observers rely more on their own perceptions. Therefore, multiple resource data can be used for cross-checking and eliminating inaccurate interpretations (Denzin, 1989). Regarding lack of reliability, the observers cannot have statistical analysis to confirm the patterns or trends of what they observe. Therefore, to make the findings credible, observations should be conducted systematically and repeatedly over varying conditions (i.e. time and place) (Denzin, 1989).
In this study, the researcher’ s goals of observations are to examine the teachers practice based on the zoo-based STSE approach in the real classroom setting and in the zoo. Therefore, the role of researcher was as a complete observer. The researcher took field notes during their teaching and observed until obtaining
95 enough information for setting the assertion of how teachers taught. Before the elementary science teachers participated in this program, the researcher asked permission from each teacher and their principals to observe natural teaching style in the selected classrooms for one science unit. While doing activities in the PD program, 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 practices. To eliminate inaccurate interpretations, the researcher recorded contextual details in field notes such as names of participants, location, duration, activities and opinions as shown in appendix E. In addition, the audio and video tape recordings were used as triangulation. All data from observations were cross-checked by the research committees. To increase reliability, the researcher observed the teachers not only in group meetings but also in classroom practices.
Document review
Document review is a method of collecting data. Because the data from each person are subjective, the researcher can use documentation to describe people’s actions and views of the world (Merriam, 1998). In addition, the document review is also a way to reduce the subjective interpretation of researchers (Hatch, 2002). The document includes journal entries, lesson plans, and teachers’ worksheets (Martin, 2002; Merriam, 1998). A journal is a powerful way for individuals to record their practice and their reflection on this practice (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). Before writing a journal, the researcher has to make clear to the respondent the directions of the focal area, the types of issues that the researcher needs, and the length of time that the researcher should keep the journal (Martin, 2002: 30). Typically, the teachers write journals about activities or stories in attempt to make sense of their experiences (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). From the writing in journals, the researcher can identify
96 critical incidents or problems in the teachers’ work (Martin, 2002: 30). Lesson planning is the processes of deciding what and how your students should learn (Borich, 2007:112). The researcher can use the lesson plan as empirical data to confirm the teacher’s views on instruction (Chin, 2000). In addition, the researcher can use what the teachers have done in worksheets as unobtrusive data. This is recommended as a measure to reduce researcher influence over the data (Hatch, 2002). In this study, the main goal in this document review was to understand the elementary teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. Before development of the PD program, the researcher reviewed related documents regarding STSE education, using the zoos as a learning resource, and professional development. In addition, the researcher also used the data from the survey in phase one of this study to develop this PD program. While doing activities in the PD program, teachers were asked by the researcher to write journals, lesson plans, and worksheets. These documents were considered as an alternative way to examine elementary science teachers’ views on the zoo–based STS approach resulting from participation in this PD program. 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. The discussion allowed them to articulate and negotiate their views on the STSE approach and the use of the zoo as a learning resource.
Data Analysis
Data analysis in phase two of this study involves organizing, reducing, interpreting data derived from discussion, interviews, observations, and documents to depict the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach both before and during participation in the PD program. As well, the factors that constrained or facilitated their views and practices were considered. These data were analyzed as within-case analysis and cross-case analysis. 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
97 and their properties; delimiting the theory; and reducing and refining categories and their properties (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The steps used in this method were described as follows:
1. Comparing incidents applicable to each category: all information that the researcher got from discussion, observation, interview, and document were compared with each other and coded into provisional categories. The memo was written to describe the content of the properties of each category. New provisional categories emerged when incidents could not be coded in any provisional categories.
2. Integrating categories and their properties: new incidents were assigned to initial versions of properties defining the category. When one incident cannot exhibit suitably for those properties, the content of properties or categories must be reviewed or adjusted again in order to ensure that new incidents exhibit some of properties of the categories.
3. Delimiting the theory: there are two levels of delimiting. In the first level, the researcher modified the properties of categories by clarifying the logic, taking out unrelated properties, and reduction. The researcher found uniformities in the original set of categories or its properties and formulated theory. In second level, the researcher reduced the original list of categories for coding data within the boundaries of present theory.
4. Reducing and refining categories and their properties: the researcher reduced and refined categories and their properties to become the major theme of theory. Finally, the categories from each method or instrument were sent to three experts to analyze the findings before summarizing the data.
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.
98 For trustworthiness in this study, there are four criteria of trustworthiness (credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability) which are outlined by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Credibility means the same as internal validity which indicates that the research findings are believable and the research process is credible (Patton, 1990). In this study, the researcher increased creditability using triangulation of various data sources including questionnaires, interviews, field notes, and document analysis. Moreover, interviews, filed notes, observation and document analysis were transcribed and sent back to the teachers for checking. Dependability refers to the extent to which research findings can be replicated (Merriam, 1998). In this study, the researcher increased dependability by describing and explaining the assumptions and theory behind the study, how data were collected in detail, and how categories were derived. Moreover, the dependability occurred through an independent audit process of the research by educational experts and scientists. Therefore, the independent auditing allows anybody to trace the original data sources. For confirmability, it refers to which findings of the study is the result of the study and not of the biases of the researcher (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). In this study, the details about the data collecting, coding and analysis were examined and reviewed by researcher committee to give the researcher feedback on their points of view of the accuracy. Transferability is used in the same meaning as external validity which refers to the findings of study that can be generalized or applied to other studies (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Cohen et al., 2000). To achieve transferability, the researcher used two strategies that are recommended by Lincoln and Guba (1985). They are purposive sampling and thick description. The researcher used purposive sampling of two teachers to be multiple case studies for in-depth case study analysis. This provided rich details about their views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. These findings of this phase were discussed in Chapter V.
Summary
To enhance the views and practices of elementary science teachers about the zoo-based STSE approach, the methodological perspective of this study has its roots in interpretivism, whereby the researcher attempts to understand and explain their
99 views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach concerning animals as the result of participating in the PD program. This study was divided into two phases which relate to the survey research and case studies. Survey research is used to explore elementary science teachers’ current views on teaching about animals and using the zoo as a learning resource. The researcher developed and implemented a VTLA questionnaire to explore these views in the first semester of the 2008 academic year. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. After that, the researcher used these data from the survey as well as a literature review to synthesize the PD program for enhancing the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. Before implementation, this program was approved by a committee of advisers and experts before implementation. Two teachers from one school were selected to participate in the case studies. During the PD program, the research involved focus group discussions, interviews, observations, and document analysis to examine views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. The data were analyzed by within-case analysis and cross-case analysis. The findings of both phases were presented in the next chapters. Chapter IV shows the finding from the survey of phase I. Chapter V illustrates the findings from the case studies.
100
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS OF THE STUDY IN PHASE I This chapter presents the findings from examining the elementary science teachers’ views on science teaching based on the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource. There are four parts in this chapter. The first part provides background information of the samples in this study. The second part describes the elementary science teachers’ views on science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach. It is followed by the elementary science teachers’ views on using the zoo as a learning resource. The chapter is finally completed with the conclusions and discussions of the findings in phase I.
Background Information of Samples There were 66 elementary science teachers who sent the VTLA questionnaire back to the researcher. However, there was one questionnaire that was answered from an elementary science teacher who teaches at another grade level. The researcher analyzed data from the 65 respondents. The result in the response rate was 60%. Most respondents were female. The most predominant range of age was 31-40 years old. Other ranges of age included 41-50 years old, 20-30 years old, and 51-60 years old. All teachers had graduated with a bachelor’s degree. Most teachers graduated with majors in Science or Science teaching. Other teachers did not graduate with a major in Science, and instead focusing on other areas such as Thai language study, social science, or history. There were some teachers who had graduated with a diploma degree in science teaching and some teachers with a master’s degree in a department related to education such as the Department of Educational Measurement and Evaluation, the Department of Educational Administration, the Department of Psychology and Guidance, the Department of Science Education, and the Department of Curriculum and Instruction.
101 In regards to experience of science teaching, most teachers had 5-10 years of experience. The following teachers’ teaching experience was less than 5 years, 11-15 years more than 25 years, 21-25 years and 6-20 years. The number of students per classroom was between 31-40 students, 20-30 students, and 41-50 students. The teachers had to teach science each week for about 17-19 hr., 11-13 hr., 14-16 hr., 810 hr., less than 8 hr., and 20-22 hr.. In addition, all teachers had other positions in the work place such as student advisor, boy and girl scout or contributed activities, head of the science department or vice of the science department, advisor of student activity, administration tasks, education guidance counsellor, administrative business coordinator, registration and assessment personnel, superintendent, and involving other works such as co-operative tasks, nurse service, librarian, and being substitute teachers.
Regarding the science teaching about animals, most schools taught in the first semester of the academic year but there were some schools that taught in the second semester of the academic year. For excursions to the zoo, most schools used to take students to Safari world. There were some schools that took students to the Dusit zoo, the Khao Khiao Open Zoo, the Samphran Elephant Ground and Zoo, the Sriracha Tiger zoo, the Bang san aquarium, the Crocodile farm, Siam Ocean World, and the Buffalo Village. The greatest frequency of excursions to the zoo was once a year. This was followed frequency by inconsistently (depending on the season, school administration or teacher’s decisions), once every three years, and never taking the students to the zoo.
Regarding professional development experience, most teachers did not have professional development experience about the STSE teaching and using the zoo as a learning resource. Their reasons were that they did not know about PD programs related to these topics, and they were not required by the school administrators. However, there were some teachers that had STSE professional development experience from
the
Bangkok
Metropolitan
Administration
Training
and
Development Institute, universities, science museums, private companies, IPST, and the Educational district office. These views are presented below in table 4.1.
102 Table 4.1 Background Information of Samples
Topics Gender Age
Education background
Experience of science teaching
The number of students per classroom The number of periods to teach science in each week
Other positions at work
Categories Female Male 20-30 years old 31-40 years old 41-50 years old 51-60 years old Others Bachelor’s degree -majoring in Science or Science teaching -majoring in non Science Diploma degree in science teaching Master degree Less than 5 years 5-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years More than 25 years 20-30 students 31-40 students 41-50 students Less than 8 hr. 8-10 hr. 11-13 hr. 14-16 hr. 17-19 hr. 20-22 hr. Students’ advisor Advisor of students’ activity Boy and girl scout or contributed activities Head of science department or vice of Science department Administration tasks Education guidance counsellor
Frequency (Percentage) 49 (75) 16 (24) 14 (22) 21 (32) 19 (29) 7 (11) 4(6) 65 (100) 48 (74) 17 (26) 2 (3) 10 (15) 16 (25) 24 (37) 9 (14) 4 (6) 5 (8) 7 (11) 10 (15) 46 (71) 9 (14) 5 (8) 11 (17) 15 (23) 11 (17) 22 (34) 1 (2) 18 (52) 17(50) 16(46)
13(38) 10 (30) 7(19)
103 Table 4.1 (Continued) Topics
Categories
Administrative business coordinator Registration and assessment personnel Superintendent Others The animal Teaching in the first content semester Teaching in the second semester Lists of the zoos Safari world that teachers took Dusit zoo their students to Khao Khiao Open Zoo Samphran Elephant Ground and Zoo Sriracha Tiger Zoo Bang san aquarium Crocodile farm Siam Ocean World Buffalo Village Frequency of Once a year excursions to zoos Inconsistently One a semester Once every three years Never taken students to the zoo Experience about Never had professional professional development experience development Have professional development experience regarding to the STSE teaching
Frequency (Percentage) 6(17) 5(14) 4(11) 5(14) 60(92) 5(8) 36(35) 32(31) 18(18) 4(4) 4(4) 4(4) 2(2) 1(1) 1(1) 31(48) 20(31) 5(8) 5(8) 4(6) 38(59)
27(42)
Elementary Science Teachers’ Views on Science Teaching Animal Content Based on the STSE Approach This part presents the findings from examining elementary science teachers’ views on science teaching and learning about animals. There are six topics including: (1) views on the teaching objectives of animal content in science, (2) views on the teaching methods for animal content, (3) views on using the local learning resources for teaching animal content, (4) views on using STSE issues in teaching animal
104 content, (5) views on the application of knowledge about animals in daily life, and (6) views on learning assessment on animal content. Views on the Teaching Objectives of Animal Content in Science
The majority of teachers surveyed wanted to promote students’ understanding of basic concepts about animals. Some teachers were interested in promoting students’ scientific process skills. However, only a few teachers seemed interested as to how or whether students applied their knowledge in daily life and were aware of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment. These views are presented in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2 Views on the Teaching Objectives of Animal Content in Science
Objectives Enhance students’ understanding of basic concepts about animals Promote students’ scientific process skills
Examples of Teachers’ Answers Animal lives and behavior, animal classification, and animal propagation Investigation, exploration, explanation, observation, and communication of their learning Looking after pets appropriately according to their ages
Promote students’ applying knowledge in daily life Promote students’ Having clear values about the awareness of science, environment and appropriate technology, society, and behavior towards other living things environment interactions
Frequency (Percentage)
48 (71)
12 (18)
4 (6)
4 (6)
Views on the Teaching Methods for Animal Content
The majority of teachers’ views was traditional and focused on students’ learning science content by using task-oriented approaches as a teaching strategy rather than the construction of the students’ own knowledge. In the launching part of the lesson plan, only a few teachers reported that they examined students’ prior knowledge. Typically, the teachers indicated that they communicated with students
105 about animals, and used various forms of media to do so. In the learning part of lesson plan, only a few teachers reported that they set up activities based on student interest or took students to learn in local learning resource areas. Typically, most teachers indicated that they asked students to complete their worksheets. They then used various media to promote the students’ curiosity and followed with discussions. In addition, they communicated with them about animals. In the summary part of lesson plan, few teachers found that students could summarize their learning by themselves and most teachers thought that the students should present their tasks and discuss how to summarize the animal concepts with the teacher. Also, teachers viewed that students should have post-tests to give them scores as part of their science achievement. These views are presented below in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 Views on the Teaching Methods for Animal Content
Methods Launching part Communication with students about animals Using various kinds of media Examining student prior knowledge Learning part Asking students to complete their worksheets Using various kinds of media and discussion
Communication with students about animals Taking students to learn in local learning resource areas Setting up activities based on student interest
Examples of Teachers’ Answers Asking questions; giving students examples; telling stories about animals Pictures, video, singing songs, and games Concept mapping, mind mapping
Frequency (Percentage)
19 (51) 17 (46) 1 (3)
Asking students to read knowledge sheets and answer questions on a worksheets Textbooks, pictures, videos, Computer Association Instruction (CAI) media, or real animal specimens Discussion about animals to exchange student experiences Taking students to outside classroom learning resources. Students had to report their learning by drawing or describing their learning Asking student to do a report an experiment or project about an animal they are interested in
35 (34)
33 (33) 12 (12)
11 (11)
11 (11)
106 Table 4.3 (Continued) Examples of Teachers’ Answers
Methods Summary part Presentation and discussion Having a post-test Summarize their learning by themselves
Students present their learning in front of the class and discuss together. Doing exercises, tests, or oral tests Summarize their learning with essays or concept mapping
Frequency (Percentage)
13 (46) 11 (39) 4 (14)
Views on Using the Local Learning Resources for Teaching Animal Content
Most teachers found that the surroundings both in and outside the school could be used as learning resources for teaching animal content. Other local learning resources that some teachers indicated were the communities that the students lived in, the natural resources, traveling areas, temples, and animal farms. A few teachers found that local learning resources did not have to be places, but could be anything that helped promote students’ learning. These views are presented below in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Views on Using Local Learning Resources for Teaching Animal Content Local Learning Resources Surroundings both in and outside school Communities that students lived in Natural resources Traveling areas Temple
Animal farm
Examples of Teachers’ Answers Library, pond, butterfly garden, waterfall, garden, herb garden, agriculture garden House garden, local animals, park, and market River, cannel, rice field, mangrove vegetable garden Local museum, education centre, and the zoo Having a lot of animals such as cats, dogs, cows, buffalos, pigs, hens, turtles, and fish. However, only one teacher viewed that if teachers took students to a temple frequently, it might be troublesome for the monks Frog pond, fish pond, and goat farm
Frequency (Percentage)
34 (31) 31 (29) 17 (16) 11 (10)
8 (7) 4 (4)
107 Table 4.4 (Continued) Local Learning Examples of Teachers’ Answers Resources Anything in local area Internet, television, local radio station
Frequency (Percentage) 3 (3)
In order to use these local learning resources for teaching and learning animal content, most teachers reported giving students tasks to explore about animals in the community. Another method that most teachers reported was taking students to use local learning resources. However, a few teachers felt they gave chances for students to study animals the students were interested in the communities. These views are presented in Table 4.5 as follows.
Table 4.5
Views on the Methods of Using the Local Learning Resources for
Teaching Animal Content
Methods
Examples of Teachers’ Answers
Giving students tasks
Asking students to observe and explore animals in the community or interview local experts about animals in the community Excursions or camping trips for studying animals in real life
Taking students to use local learning resources Giving chances to students for self-study based on their interests
Frequency (Percentage)
44 (66)
20 (30) Doing reports, experiments, or projects based on students’ interests 3 (5)
Views on Using STSE Issues in Teaching Animal Content
Most teachers viewed that an STSE issue that could be used for teaching about animal content was pollution. The following STSE issues were animals and environmental conservation, animal abuse, global warming and its effects, deforestation, the selling of wildlife, rearing animals, and epidemics which could affect animals (e.g. bird flu, cholera, and so on). However, there were some teachers
108 who stated that they had never used STSE issues in teaching about animals. These views are presented in Table 4.6 below. Table 4.6 Views on Using STSE Issues in Teaching Animal Content
STSE Issues Pollution Animals and environmental conservation
Animal abuse
Global warming and its effects Deforestation Selling wildlife Rearing animals
Epidemics Never
Examples of Teachers’ Answers Draining contaminated water to rivers and air pollution The decreased number of wildlife animals, telling the history of “Serb Nakhasathien” and his work for animal conservation in Huay Kha Kaeng Wildlife Sanctuary in Utai Thani Province, Thailand Taking elephants from rural areas to Bangkok to sell cane; Using electricity to kill aquatic animals Many humans, animals, and plants have died because of the effect of global warming. Destroying animal habitat and the origin of water The effect of alien species to local animals; the smuggling of wildlife Taking care of Pandas from China at Chiangmai zoo; rearing dogs in students’ homes Animal diseases could infect humans STSE issues were difficult for students to understand.
Frequency (Percentage) 18 (23)
14 (18)
11 (14)
9 (11) 8 (10) 8 (10)
7 (9) 1 (1) 3 (4)
Most teachers were able to use the STSE issues to begin their discussions. The following methods that teachers always used included giving examples of the effects of science, technology, and society on local animals, integration of STSE in science content, and using various kinds of media and discussion. A few teachers used STSE issues by taking students to real-life problem areas in the community. They also added ethics and morality into the discussions. However, there was only one teacher who asked students to do projects from the STSE issues. These views are presented below in Table 4.7.
109 Table 4.7 Views on Methods of Using STSE Issues in Teaching Animal Content
Methods
Examples of Teachers’ Answers
Frequency (Percentage)
Discussion
Discussion about issues in order to promote students’ thinking, sharing opinions and giving suggestions about the way to solve problems Giving examples Giving examples of the effects of science, technology, and society on local animals Integration of STSE issues Using STSE issues as the main in science content topic for driving/directing the lesson Using various kinds of Using pictures, videos, TV media and discussion programs, and newspaper articles for discussion Taking students to realSetting up excursions to real-life life problem areas problem areas Adding ethics and Adding ethics and morality into morality into discussions discussions in order to enhance students’ awareness of STSE issues Doing projects Asking students to do projects that they were interested in, based on STSE issues
17 (30)
12 (21)
12 (21)
7 (12) 5 (9)
3 (5)
1 (2)
Views on the Application of Knowledge about Animals in Daily Life
Most teachers asked their students to apply animal knowledge to their daily lives by rearing their own pets at home. The following methods that the teachers always used were giving general knowledge about animals in daily life, as well as animal and environmental conservation. A lesser number of teachers found that they could use local learning resources to promote the students’ application of knowledge in daily life. Finally, there were two teachers who never asked students to apply their knowledge to daily life. These views are presented below in the Table 4.8.
110 Table 4.8 Views on the Application of Knowledge about Animals in Daily Life Application of Knowledge Rearing their own pets at home Giving general knowledge about animals in daily life
Animals and environmental conservation Using local learning resources
Never
Examples of Teachers’ Answers How to take care of and behave toward animals in the student’s own houses Using the benefit from animals. Protecting oneself from harmful animal behavior, not abusing animals, not fishing in laying season, and not killing animals Doing activities about animal conservation on Science Day or growing plants for animal’s living areas Studying the various occupations involving animals in the community, such as feeding fish in a hinged floating basket or feeding frogs for business. Asking students to classify local animals The students were too young and did not have enough responsibilities and some of the student’s houses were not appropriate for rearing animals.
Frequency (Percentage)
35 (42)
29 (35)
13 (16)
5 (6)
2 (2)
Views on Learning Assessment on Animal Content
Most teachers thought that they could find out students’ learning from checking on the students’ tasks. In addition, some teachers indicated that they could find out what the students learned from students’ performances. Moreover, some teachers ascertained that they could understand students’ learning from how they applied their knowledge in real-life situations. These views are presented below in Table 4.9.
111 Table 4.9 Views on Learning Assessment on Animal Content
Evidences of Students’ Learning Students’ tasks Students’ performances Students’ applied knowledge in real-life situations
Examples of Teachers’ Answers
Frequency (Percentage)
Answers in worksheets, exercises, tests, essays, experiment reports, and projects Working behaviors, participation in activities, discussions, giving opinions, and presentations Conversations, interviewing students and/or parents, and visiting students’ homes
59 (51)
30 (26)
26 (23)
Elementary Science Teachers’ Views on Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
This section presents the findings from examining elementary science teachers’ views on using the zoo as a learning resource. There are five topics in this section: (1) views on objectives for using the zoo as a learning resource, (2) views on science content for using the zoo as a learning resource, (3) views on the strategies of using the zoo as a learning resource, (4) views on learning assessment of using the zoo as a learning resource, and (5) factors that affect using the zoo as a learning resource.
Views on Objectives for Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource Typically, the teachers’ objectives for using the zoo as a learning resource were to connect to the curriculum and to provide students with opportunities to see real animals and get direct experience. A few teachers were concerned with promoting students’ awareness of animal conservation, motivating students’ interest about animals, promoting lifelong learning, and enhancing students’ enjoyment and relaxation about learning. These views are presented below in Table 4.10.
112 Table 4.10 Views on Objectives for Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
Objectives Connection to the curriculum Promotion of students’ direct experience Promotion of students’ awareness of animal conservation Motivation of students to take interest in animals
Promotion of lifelong learning Enhancement of students’ enjoyment and relaxation
Examples of Teachers’ Answers To promote students’ learning related to animals’ lives and behavior, animal classification, and animal propagation. To provide students’ opportunities to see real animals and get direct experience To promote students’ awareness of endangered species and conservation
Frequency (Percentage)
31 (62)
10 (20)
3 (6) To motivate students’ interests about animals because the zoo had a lot of animals that were more interesting than studying the animals in textbook To promote students’ awareness so that they can learn from everything around them To help students enjoy learning about animals outside the classroom experience
3 (6)
2 (4)
1 (2)
Views on Science Content for Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
Teachers identified a wide diversity of connections that could be made between the zoo experience and the school curriculum. Data analysis showed that most teachers viewed that what was learned at the zoo could be linked to content about living things and living processes. Other content that teachers could also link were animal diversity, life and the environment. A few teachers indicated that parks in zoos could be linked to the topic about plants, soil, and rocks in local areas as well as all content could be linked to using the zoo as a learning resource. These views are presented below in Table 4.11.
113 Table 4.11 Views on Science Content for Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
Topics
Examples of Teachers’ Answers
Animal bodies and systems, life cycle, reproduction and propagation, behaviors, food, habitat, growth Animal diversity Animal classification, genetics and genetics transferring, and animal kingdom. Life and environment Ecology, the relationship between groups of living things in different habitats, food chains, the relationship between the environment and living things, local natural resources, the care and preservation of natural resources and the environment Plants, soil, and rocks The park in the zoo could be linked to in local areas topics about plants, soil, and rocks in local areas. All content The zoo as learning resource could be linked to all content which depends on teachers.
Frequency (Percentage)
Living things and living processes
58 (45)
34 (26)
30 (23)
6 (5)
2 (2)
Views on the Strategies of Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource Most teachers felt that they did not have specific plans to link knowledge in the zoo with teaching and learning in the classroom but some teachers did have ideas. The researcher divided the teachers’ strategies of using the zoo as a learning resource into three groups: (1) unfocused strategies, (2) moderately-focused strategies, and (3) focused strategies. The strategy that most teachers used most often was the moderately-focused strategy. The following strategy that teachers used was focused strategy which worked on linking science content to using the zoo as a learning resource. A few teachers felt that they used unfocused strategies. These views are presented below in Table 4.12.
114 Table 4.12 Views on the Strategies of Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
Strategies Moderately-focused strategies
Focused strategies
Unfocused strategies
Examples of Teachers’ Answers There could be individual or group activities to help explore something in the zoo. Students had to complete worksheets. When the students went back to school, teachers might ask students to summarize their knowledge and report on what they learned in front of the class. The teachers might set up activities at particular sites specifically related to science concepts. When the students went back to school, teachers used students’ answers in worksheets to set up student learning activities to accomplish science concepts according to the objective(s). Students did activities according to the zoo or the private company that set up the trip. When the students went back to school, if the science content that teachers taught could be linked to students’ learning in the zoo, the teachers would tell their students.
Frequency (Percentage)
23 (64)
10 (28)
3 (8)
Views on Learning Assessment of Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource Most teachers viewed that they could assess their student learning from checking the students’ tasks, such as the answers in worksheets, exercises, tests, essays, and reports. In addition, some teachers thought that they could know students’ learning outcomes from students’ performances such as enthusiasm or interest in studying animals in the zoo, showing their happiness, communicating about what they learned, answering oral questions, discussing their opinions, and making suggestions. Moreover, some teachers viewed that they could know students’ learning outcomes based on students’ opinions from questionnaires, conversation, or evaluation forms. These views are presented below in Table 4.13.
115 Table 4.13 Views on Learning Assessment of Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
Evidences of Learning Assessment Students’ tasks Students’ performances
Students’ opinions
Examples of Teachers’ Answers The answers in worksheets, exercises, tests, essays, and reports. Students’ enthusiasm or interest in studying animals in the zoo, students’ behavior that showed their happiness, students’ willingness to communicate what they learned, and how they answered questions, discussed their opinions, and made suggestions. The answers in questionnaires, conversation, or evaluation forms.
Frequency (Percentage) 34 (62)
14 (25) 7 (13)
Views on Factors that Affected Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource Most teachers viewed that the factor which most affected their use of the zoo as a learning resource was lack of funds. In addition, some teachers viewed that other factors affecting teachers’ use of the zoo as a learning resource were difficulties with transportation, lack of teachers’ awareness, lack of educational information in zoos, school administrators’ support, coordinative planning for zoo visit, and parents’ support.
These are outlined in Table 4.14.
Table 4.14 Views on Factors that Affected Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
Factors Lack of funds
Difficulty with transportation Lack of teachers’ awareness
Examples of Teachers’ Answers The schools did not have enough funds. Supporting funds from schools, communities, and private companies make it convenient to use the zoo as a learning resource The distance between the school and zoo was far, and the school lacked vehicles to take students to the zoo. Each teacher had many responsibilities so they did not want to plan activities for using the zoo as a learning resource
Frequency (Percentage)
65 (29)
39 (18)
35 (16)
116 Table 4.14 (Continued)
Factors Lack of educational information in zoos
School administrators’ support Coordinative planning for zoo visit
Parents’ support
Examples of Teachers’ Answers
Frequency (Percentage)
The activities the zoo set up were not new or attractive, and there were not enough zoo curators to explain about the animals. The school administrators had the power to make all decisions about learning outside the classroom. The time was quite limited for each activity and the weather was not appropriate. Having appropriate schedules and enough time for each activity supported using the zoo as a learning resource. Parents participated in excursions and helped teachers to look after the students. However, some parents did not permit students to go to the zoo.
34 (15)
28 (13)
17 (8)
5 (2)
Conclusions and Discussions of the Findings in Phase I
For views on science teaching about animal content based on the STSE approach, most teachers’ views regarding the teaching and learning objectives were in promoting students’ science concepts related to animals, rather than in promoting the application of the students’ knowledge to daily life and their awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment. Therefore, the teachers’ views in this study were different from those idealistically espoused and promoted by the STSE approach, in that teachers in this study would mainly use task-oriented approaches as teaching strategies.
Typically, many teachers did not realize about students’ construction of knowledge by themselves but teaching according to the content in the textbook. Most teachers expressed a desire for students to learn by completing worksheets or by exploring issues using many resources. These teachers’ views were different from the approach taken by STS[E] educators, in that students’ questions helped to drive lessons by linking real situations and scientific knowledge they had learned in
117 classroom (NSTA, 1993; Blunck and Yager, 1996; McShane and Yager, 1996). The use of local learning resources both in and outside of school was viewed by most teachers to be primarily for students to complete answers in the worksheets. However, there were not many teachers who asked their students to interview experts in the community about animals. To contrast with the STS[E] approach, STS[E] teachers always used resources from outside the classroom (McShane and Yager, 1996; Yutakom, 1997; Pedretti, 2003) in order to consider the long-term needs of humanity with respect to environment sustainability (NSTA, 1993; Pedretti, 2003).
For using issues about animals and environmental conservation, most teachers employed them by giving students examples or they were initiated through conversation. However, a few teachers used STSE issues by taking students to reallife problem areas in the community, by adding ethics and morality to discussions, or by asking students to do projects from STSE issues. Typically in STS[E] approach, there are opportunities for students to critique science and technology issues, and raise awareness of societal and political forces for the development of science and technology related to ethic and moral reasoning in order to connect science and values (Pedretti, 2003).
With regard to the application of animal knowledge in daily life, most teachers asked their students to rear their own pets at home. Some teachers, however, felt that the students were too young and could not handle the responsibility. Furthermore, some of the students’ homes were not appropriate for rearing animals. This view was different from STS[E] teachers that extended frameworks of teaching and learning science to outside the lesson, the classroom, or the school in order to prepare reasonably-minded and environmentally-aware citizens for the future (NSTA, 1993; Pedretti, 2003). With regard to assessing students’ learning, the teachers felt they could use the students’ tasks, performances, and their application of knowledge in real situations to report the students’ learning processes and what they had achieved. In contrast with the STS[E] teachers, the teachers of this study examined students’
118 learning with ethnographic description (Solomon, 1994: 148) and used various methods to evaluate students’ learning based on the STS[E] approach. This was not only used by the teachers but also by the students (Yutakom, 1999; Pedretti, 2003). However, there were some teachers who summarized animal concepts for the students. This is supported by Chin (2000) who found that some teachers who were not confident about STS[E] approach would use a teacher-centred approach.
For views on using the zoo as a learning resource, the findings showed that a lot of teachers wanted to link the use of zoos with school curricula and to promote students’ direct experience. This finding is similar to that of Falk et al. (1998) and Kisiel (2005), who found that many teachers think that field trips provide students with the types of experiences that are important to spark their interest and to link their knowledge in meaningful ways to science curriculum content. However, there were some teachers in the current study who thought that using the zoo as a learning resource could promote life-long learning and could be integrated to all content.
Concerning the views on science content that could be linked to the zoo experience as a learning resource, five topics were identified by the teachers: (1) the living things and living processes, (2) animal diversity, (3) life and environment, (4) plant, soil, and rock in local area, and (5) all content which could link using the zoo as a learning resource. To support these ideas, Orion (1993) suggested that field trips should be an integral part of the curriculum in order to promote students’ learning and enjoyment while observing, exploring, and investigating several kinds of animals. The teachers’ strategies of using the zoo as a learning resource in this study were divided into three groups. Moussouri (1997) argued that visitors use three types of strategies when using the zoo as a learning resource: (1) unfocused strategies, (2) moderately-focused strategies, and (3) focused strategies. Visitors with an unfocused strategy did not have a specific plan for visiting. They can see whatever is offered or interesting. For visitors using moderately-focused strategies, they may plan to see one or more particular exhibitions, but the specific exhibition or aspect of these areas
119 does not represent their objective. Finally, visitors with focused strategies have a plan and a goal before they visit the zoo. Moussouri claimed that visitors who use focused strategies will receive more knowledge than those who visit using the other two strategies. The strategy that most teachers in this study used was a moderatelyfocused strategy rather than a focused strategy. Therefore their activities in the zoo did not emphasize much on making links to science content in the classroom. This finding is similar to Anderson and Zhang (2003) who found that although teachers had positive views about the importance of using learning resources outside school, these teachers did not link students’ experience with these informal learning resources to learning in the classroom or the curriculum. Therefore, there were not many teachers making connections between curriculum objectives and the field trip experience (Kisiel, 2005). For assessment of the students’ learning, the teachers thought that they could gauge students’ learning outcomes by checking the students’ tasks, performances, and opinions. These views showed that most teachers focus on students’ tasks related to the zoo. They did not consider the students’ learning process, which is the key to constructing knowledge through activities such as hands-on exercises or exchanging ideas with their friends. These views are similar to Griffin (2007: 37), who found that many teachers did not emphasize students’ learning processes in the zoo. The factors that affected teachers’ use of zoos as a learning resource in this study were lack of funds, difficulties with transportation, lack of teachers’ awareness, lack of educational information in zoos, school administrators’ support, coordinative planning for zoo visit, and parents’ support. There is a lot of research which supports these findings and it suggests that before taking students to the zoo, teachers should consider about the funding of the trip (Anderson and Zhang, 2003; Coll et al., 2003; Noymai, 2004; Kisiel, 2005), and transportation (Orion, 1993; Anderson and Zhang, 2003). The teacher also should prepare how the knowledge learned on field trip might be linked to the curriculum (Orion, 1993). In addition, teachers also need to take into consideration students’ safety (Orion, 1993; Noymai,
120 2004), as well as how they will prepare for different weather conditions during the excursion (Orion, 1993).
Summary
This chapter presented and discussed the results of phase I. The details were related to the elementary science teachers’ views on science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource. Their views revealed that they remained traditional in teaching styles such as focusing on concepts related to animals, teaching according to the content in the textbook, using task-oriented approaches as learning strategies, using fewer STSE issues to drive lessons, and examining students’ learning focused on the students’ tasks. Although the teachers viewed that using the zoo as a learning resource could be linked to science curriculum, in doing so most teachers did not emphasize linking the information gathered with science teaching. Most of them also focused on students’ tasks related to the zoo visit. Key factors that affected teachers’ use of the zoo as a learning resource were lack of funds, difficulties with transportation, lack of teachers’ awareness, lack of educational information in zoos, school administrators’ support, coordinative planning for zoo visit, and parents’ support. In chapter V, the findings of phase II concerning with cases of elementary science teachers who participated in the PD program are reported.
121
CHAPTER V
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY IN PHASE II
This chapter aims to address the third research question: How does a specially developed PD program influence the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach? Multiple data sources were used to elaborately illustrate two cases of elementary science teachers’ views and practices both before and during participation in the PD program. Maree and Somchai, the given pseudonyms, are used to protect their identities. This chapter begins with background information. It is followed by the findings of themes that emerged from the data about the changes occurring within the elementary science teachers’ views
and practices while participating in the PD program, and the factors that affected the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. The common findings that emerged from a cross-case analysis of these teachers are presented and discussed at the end of the chapter.
Case I: Mrs. Maree
Background Information Teacher’s Background
In the 2009 academic year, Maree had teaching responsibility of seventeen periods per week. She taught science in grade five. She also taught health study, and moral study. Due to her responsibility as a student advisor, her office was located in her classroom. In the first semester, she taught the topics of natural phenomena about clouds, rain, and dew. She chose these subjects because it was the rainy season at that time. Her students could see the real-life phenomena to aid their learning. In the second semester, she taught the topics of material, animal classification, genetics, and biodiversity. She planned to teach topics related to animals in the second semester because she knew that the school would take the students to the zoo then. It
122 was also of benefit for her to apply received knowledge from the PD program to design learning activities and implement them in the second semester. With a degree in teaching Biology, she was more confident to teach science in concepts relating to biological science than concepts about physical science. In addition, her friendly and active characteristics led the researcher to get a lot of information about her views and practices. Students’ Background Due to her responsibility for science teaching to grade five, the group of students of this study was selected by Maree because she was teacher advisor of this
class. This selected group contained 23 students. There were 12 girls and 11 boys. Most of her students came from medium socioeconomic level families whose most parents were workers near the school area. Thus, they lived not far from school for the convenience of transportation. However, most of her students in this class had family problems. Their parents were not deeply concerned about their children’s education. Regarding achievement in Science, most of these students had lower achievement scores. Therefore, she tried to promote their interest in learning. During her lessons, she usually spoke with a strong and loud voice for controlling the class. However, the relationship between Maree and her students was full of trust and respect. For excursions, the school set yearly field trips for the class and quite often since they studied in grade one they had gone to the zoo.
Classroom Setting Maree taught the group of students in this study in the fifth grade classroom. This classroom had one whiteboard at the centre of the wall at the front of the room. Besides this whiteboard there also were two bulletin boards for decoration which contained illustrations. The teacher’s table was situated in front of the right bulletin
board. Windows were located along the left side of the room. Students’ seats were arranged in the traditional style where the teacher was dominant. There were four sections of these seats. The first section was the row of five tables which were on the left hand side and next to the window. These tables faced towards the centre of the
123 classroom. The second and third sections were the columns at the center of classroom. Each column consisted of five pairs of tables which faced the whiteboard. The last section was the row of five tables which were on the right hand side, near the two doors. These tables faced towards the centre of the classroom. There was large bulletin board on back wall of the room. It was filled with announcements and students’ work from various subjects. The diagram of her classroom is presented below.
Front Left
Right Back
Student’s table Bulletin board Whiteboard Teacher’s table Window Door
Figure 5.1 Layout of Ms. Maree’s Classroom
Changes of Maree’s Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach Due to the Influence of the PD Program
Objectives of Teaching The refinement of the teaching objectives in relation to students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment.
124 From the initial interview, before she participated in the PD program, Maree stated that the objective of the zoo-based STSE teaching is, “The approach applies the modern scientific knowledge and process skills for science teaching in order to promote students to learn the differences of environment between inside and outside the zoo.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) It was evident that Maree’s views focused much on students’ content knowledge and scientific process skills. Moreover, she had no views about enhancing the students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment, which is one of the objectives of teaching a science subject. These views also were revealed in her lesson plans about clouds, as follows:
The objectives of teaching are that students can: (1) identify the kinds of clouds, (2) explain how clouds occur, (3) communicate and apply their knowledge about clouds in their daily life, and (4) show interest and curiosity in clouds. (Maree’s lesson plan in the topic of clouds: July, 2009)
During the first meeting in the PD program, she had a chance to share her ideas with other teachers and science educators about the objectives of science teaching according to the current educational reform. She actively shared her ideas with others. Consequently, this task stimulated her to correctly identify key ideas about learning goals and realize the importance of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment. After sharing these ideas, she applied new understandings to reflect on her objectives of teaching and consequently on lesson plans in the topics related to animals that she taught last semester. The data from her presentation showed that she knew that she did not set the objectives of teaching by following the features of educational reform, as evidenced in the excerpt below:
This lesson plan is not in line with the guidelines of teaching based on educational reform. My objectives of teaching do not clearly promote students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment. (The first group meeting from August 15, 2009)
125 In addition, in the fourth meeting she had to role play as the head of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. As a result of the meeting, she was more aware about the goals of science teaching that promote students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment, as she indicated in her journal below:
With regards to science study and work, there has been concern with technology, society and the environment. 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)
During attendance of the fifth meeting Maree had the opportunity to share ideas with experienced teachers about teaching science according to the STSE approach. After she received some knowledge, her reflections in her journal also showed that she had more consideration about the affective domain as one of the goals of science teaching. She indicated this in her journal:
In writing lesson plans, teachers should indicate scientific knowledge, science process skills, and scientific attitudes. The objectives in promoting student awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment require the teacher to make clear links to activities. (The fifth group meeting from September 12, 2009)
In terms of implementing knowledge into practice, she had a chance to design some lesson plans based on the STSE approach in the second part of the PD program. In her lesson plans, there were some unrelated points between the objectives of science teaching and the learning activities. According to suggestions given from both the researcher and a science educator, it seemed like she began to accept them. She adjusted her lesson plans. Finally, the data from her lesson plans, that she was ready to practice, revealed that Maree’s objectives of science teaching focused not only on cognitive and psychomotor domains, but also on the affective
126 domain. Regarding the affective domain, she mentioned about the effect of society and the environment on animal extinction. Her objectives of teaching in the topic of animal classification are shown below:
The objectives of teaching are that the students can: (1) explain the criteria for separating animals into groups, (2) observe and divide animals into groups based on scientific principles, (3) identify the effect of society and environment on animal extinction, (4) suggest ways for animal conservation, and (5) work in groups collaboratively. (Maree’s lesson plan in the topic of animal classification: November, 2009)
In self-reflection, Maree thought that her objectives of teaching in this lesson plan were in line with the zoo-based STSE approach. She explained, “These objectives relate to the National Science Curriculum Standards and cover all of the students’ achievement domains. Emphasis is made on promoting a higher level of expected behaviour while focusing on the awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment.” (Maree’s worksheet: November, 2009) Teaching objectives aimed to promote students’ skills for discovery of knowledge were developed. Before participating in the PD program Maree also stated, “The teaching objectives related to the zoo-based STSE approach should also promote the students’ skills for discovery of knowledge. This discovery process starts with observations. Students can then accumulate details and make summaries about any doubts they have related to these observations.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) Therefore, this statement was evidence to show that Maree had views about using skills to discover knowledge. From classroom observations, there was much evidence to confirm that Maree put her emphasis on skills as a course requirement for doing activities to confirm the students had received knowledge. For example, in the topic of dew, Maree had some experiments for her students to examine how dew occurs
127 and whether it is according to what she taught. She did this after she gave her students knowledge about dew, as she mentioned in the classroom (see below).
This activity is an experiment concerning how dew occurs. We will find out whether or not dew, as I told you, comes from vapor against the cold and condenses to be a drop of water. (Initial classroom observation from July 15, 2009)
For doing an experiment, she asked her students to read lab directions from the textbook, do the experiment following the procedures, and write data that they found in the table of the textbook. These practices were supported by lesson plans that indicated the students were to do the experiment according to the textbook, as evidenced below:
Step III: Experiment. Students can do an experiment according to the textbook in following steps: (1) each group prepares two glasses, ice, water, tissue papers, and stopwatch, (2) put ice in one glass, pour water in another glass and then wipe all the drops of water outside the glasses, (3) put these two glasses in the room for ten minutes and observe what happens on the outside surface of the glasses, and (4) write your observed data. (Maree’s lesson plan in the topic of dew: July, 2009)
Unfortunately, because students were doing experiments as only a few processes, Maree still played the role as teller to frame the students to do the experiment. She always told her students what they should do step-by-step. Therefore, her students did not have a chance to indicate problems and share ideas for finding answers. In addition, there was some misunderstanding about the scientific process. For example, she told her students to write problems of their study according to the topic of activity in the textbook, as the dialogue below shows:
Maree:
What is the problem of this experiment?
Student:
The occurrence of dew.
128 Maree:
Well, the experiment of dew occurring! I have told you many times that the problem of the study is in the topic of the activity. Then hypothesize, you try to guess what the findings of this experiment are ... When you are ready, put the glass of ice and the glass of water near to each other, but not too close. Leave them about five minutes and observe what happens at the surface of these glasses. If you get your data, you write it down in the table in textbook. (Initial classroom observation from July 15, 2009)
While doing activities in the PD program, Maree accepted that she did not understand the nature of science in terms of scientific inquiry that included identifying problems, using scientific processes, and making conclusions. Therefore, her teaching objectives did not relate much to the nature of science. However, she had a chance to plan and conduct experiments regarding the movements of earthworms by herself with direct suggestions from the scientist. This way she developed a clearer view about experiments in science teaching. For example, she learned that it was unnecessary that the results of the experiment need to relate to the hypothesis. This is shown by:
The results of the experiment need to relate to the hypothesis. If students answer like this, it will be correct. In fact as we did, the results of the experiment do not have to relate to hypothesis. (The second group meeting journal, August 18, 2009)
Moreover, she gradually appreciated aspects of the nature of science. Finally, she reflected on her positive views about the nature of science towards being a goal of science teaching in her journal, as follows:
The nature of science is such a good thing that it allows students to learn. ... They might be interested in something in their surroundings, and can try to find the answers to it. They can apply their scientific processes in daily life for solving problems. (The second meeting journal, August 25, 2009)
129 While developing lesson plans for the zoo-based STSE approach, Maree expressed this positive perception on scientific process skills: “To teach according to the zoo-based STSE approach, the aim of lesson should be to promote students to use scientific process skills for investigating what they doubt.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009). Therefore, Maree designed her zoo-based STSE lesson for her students using their scientific process skills to construct knowledge from the zoo. She reflected on this objective that was related to the excursion as follows:
The objectives of the school excursion project to the zoo relate to the aims of science teaching based on the STSE approach … to promote students’ scientific process skills for learning science concepts concerning animals in the zoo. Moreover, students will get direct experience outside the classroom. (Post-excursion interview from December 15, 2009)
Content of Learning
Teacher concerned with content related to daily life rather than as concepts for testing.
In her general teaching, her students did not have a chance to learn any content that they were interested in. Although there has already been an upgrade of the National Science Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008), she still followed the content of the previous one. In her lesson plans, the content was consistent with the teaching objectives, but did not concern much about real life. In the topic of rain, for example, it was indicated that “rain is the condensation of vapor and falls down to earth.” (Maree’s lesson plan in the topic of rain: July, 2009) For classroom observations, she played the main role in dealing with content. Her students always answered her questions, listened, and then jotted down the content that she provided. For self-reflection, Maree accepted during participation in the first meeting of the PD program that her content of teaching sometimes was not concerned about students’ interests.
130 However, she seemed to have more understanding on the content of teaching according to the National Education Act after discussions with the science educator and the researcher that teaching has to relate to daily life or the students’ interests. In addition, after Maree shared ideas about teaching and learning according to the STSE approach with an experienced teacher, she stated, “Content of learning according to this approach related to STSE issues for students to seek information that can be applied to solve real life problems.” (The fifth group meeting from September 12, 2009)
In the fourth meeting, she had to role play about making decisions on GMOs issues. As a result of the meeting, she increased her views on the importance of science teaching relating to daily life. Moreover, she was more aware about the goals of science teaching that promote students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment as she indicated in her journal below:
With regards to science study and work, there has to be concern with human daily life. The objectives of science teaching have to consider both the positive and negative effects of using science and technology on society and environment. (The fourth meeting journal, September 12, 2009)
With regard to Maree developing her lesson plans in the second part of the PD program, Maree did not emphasize much on the basic concepts of science and work in laboratory. She selected the topic of animal classification to develop for science teaching in grade five. From analyzing this lesson plan she stated, “My lesson plan was in line with science teaching based on the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource because the content related to the teaching objectives and daily life. It also was written with scientific concepts appropriate to the learning level of students.” (Informal interview from November 31, 2009) Moreover, she managed the content of learning based on students’ interests by asking her students to select animals of their own interest in the zoo for exploration, and using their data for driving the lesson. This is demonstrated by her statement, “I want you to form groups. Each group should select one interesting animal to study in depth. Work
131 together for planning to collect the data that you have to use for classification.” (First classroom observation from December 9, 2009) After participating in the PD program, Maree had views on the content of learning that were more in line with the National Education Act and the STSE approach as shown below: The content of learning should be concerned with students’ interest. They will learn better when they are doing something they want to do. If this content can be linked to the interactions of science, technology, society, and environment, students can apply their knowledge to daily life. (Interview after finishing the PD program from December 22, 2009)
The content of teaching was concerned more with various disciplines than before.
Concerning scientific content of teaching, before participating in the PD program, Maree seldom integrated any disciplines such as Art, Thai language, and foreign languages in with science. However, she provided guidelines to integrate the teaching content of other subjects in her lesson plans, as is shown here:
For integrating this scientific content to art, students create diagrams of the water cycle. In addition, students speak, listen, read, and write Thai vocabulary about rain for integrating it to the Thai language. Regarding foreign languages, students can speak, listen, read, and write using English vocabulary to describe rain. (Maree’s lesson plan in the topic of rain: July, 2009)
For classroom observations, she seemed to mostly integrate her teaching content to Thai language. Her role was only as a Thai proof-speaker or writer. However, she did not focus on students’ communicating what they learned to others. For integration of arts, when she taught about clouds, she also asked her students to draw pictures of clouds that they saw. The dialogue below shows this:
132 Maree:
I think each group has already finished drawing pictures. In a few moments, I want a representative of each group to present your summary in front of the class … Ok, this group comes out to present.
Student:
Today I will present a summary of the characteristics of clouds from observation. Yesterday, there was a white cloud that was like a bird flying in the sky. Today, there is a blue cloud that is like a car.
Maree:
Give him a big hand! In sum, there are clouds in the sky that have different shapes and colors. (Initial classroom observation from July 8, 2009)
While participating in the first meeting of the PD program, she seemed to have more understanding about the content of learning according to the National Education Act in that teaching has to integrate various disciplines. Moreover, she also showed her intention to improve her content of teaching in her future teaching practice. Therefore, in her lesson with the zoo-based STSE approach, Maree integrated the content of animal classification with foreign languages by showing pictures of animals (that have their names in English) in the launching part of a student spelling activity. The dialogue below shows this:
Maree:
Do you know what kind of bear this is?
Student:
Polar bear.
Maree:
How do you spell “Polar bear”?
Student:
P-O-L-A-R B-E-A-R. (First classroom observation from December 9, 2009)
Moreover, Maree also linked this content to the harmful practices of eating wild animals to promote student love and awareness of animal conservation. An example of the teacher and the students’ discourse that occurred is as follows:
Maree:
What is a bear’s foot? Have you ever heard about it?
Student:
Yes, I have. Humans always cook it for foreigners to eat.
133 Maree:
Not only the bear’s feet, but also other parts of bear’s body are cooked for the Chinese, the Taiwanese, and the Japanese. They like to eat them because they believe that these organs are good for their health. How does the notion affect bears?
Student:
Bears die.
Maree:
If one bear or other bears die, is there any effect on other kinds of animals?
Student:
Yes, there is. (Third classroom observation from December 16, 2009)
Impressively, Maree had a special activity that aimed to integrate science content with various other disciplines. In the conclusion part of her lesson, she asked each group of students to create a handbill about an animal they were interested in and its classification. Her students had a chance to draw and paint pictures as well as to communicate what they learned to others with some charts and sentences in their handbills.
Teaching Activities
Teacher used examples related to STSE issues and had discussions for motivating students’ interests.
Before participating in the PD program, Maree had her views on motivating students’ interest that were not consistent with her practices. From asking for prior knowledge about teaching activities based on the zoo-based STSE approach, Maree thought it was important to introduce the lesson with a motivational activity. She stated, “Teaching activities need to motivate student curiosity. For example, when I teach about a topic related to animals, I show my students pictures. If I can find some animals, I will take them to the classroom. When students see them, they may have questions about the animals and want to find answers about them.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) However, from classroom observation Maree did not bring any pictures or real specimens for enhancing student curiosity as she indicated she would
134 in her lesson plan. For example in the topic of rain, she did not show rainy pictures to her students or discuss rain together as she mentioned she would in her lesson plan. She started the new lesson by writing the new topic on the blackboard and asked students questions about it. However, her questions did not motivate the students’ curiosity or lead to them generating their own interesting questions. This is illustrated in her teaching about rain (see below).
Maree:
We have just finished the topic of fog, so now we are going to learn the topic of...
Student:
Rain.
Maree:
What is rain?
Student:
Vapor.
Maree:
This morning it was raining. What fell?
Student:
Water. (Initial classroom observation from July 14, 2009)
Regarding her understanding of teaching activities according to educational reform, Maree stated in the first meeting of the PD program, “The teacher plays an important role in thinking about teaching methods that will promote students’ interests and awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment.” (The first group meeting from August 15, 2009) However, she still struggled about how to teach science to promote student awareness of these interactions. She indicated this before doing activities in the “Science teaching based on the STSE approach”, as stated below: I would like to know … the characteristics or techniques for promoting students’ awareness on the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment. (Maree’s worksheet, September, 12, 2009)
In the fifth meeting, Maree exchanged ideas with the experienced teacher about teaching based on the STSE approach. Finally, she showed her clear understanding during a discussion with this statement: “To promote students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment,
135 the teacher can use current issues or media related to STSE to be part of the teaching to motivate students to ask questions about what they want to know.� (The fifth group meeting from September 12, 2009) In addition, she also had direct experience about using STSE issues to drive the lesson from a demonstration of a zoo-based STSE lesson in seventh meeting. Finally, she realized about using the STSE issues in her teaching, as follows:
This lesson plan uses issues related to the effect of using science and technology on wildlife for sharing their ideas before doing activities. Therefore, they will further search for information about the real life of animals in the zoo for meaningful learning. After finishing the activities they can link their knowledge to daily life, such as the causes of why langurs in the southern part of Thailand died from swinging on wires without insulation. (The seventh meeting journal, October 3, 2009)
With regard to teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach, the data from her lesson plans in the topic of animal classification showed that her launching activity differed from what she did before she participated in the PD program. This was because she tried to use STSE issues for driving the lessons as she indicates in her lesson plan below.
The launching part: (1) Teacher showed various kinds of bears to students. Students and teacher discussed these bears concerning STSE issues such as the effects of global warming on these bears and the hunting of bears, (2) Students were asked to write the names of animals which are affected by STSE issues on the blackboard, (3) Teacher set the situation that if we were scientists how would we group these animals, and (4) The teacher told the students to write questions about classification on the blackboard. (Maree’s lesson plan in the topic of animal classification: November, 2009).
In the classroom, she started her lesson by using pictures of animals that relate to STSE issues to promote the students to ask questions. She also raised these
136 same questions for discussion to make the students realize about the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment on wildlife. She also asked some students to help her to show the pictures. Many students seemed to pay attention while sharing their ideas. However, the students gave her only short answers that came from their own ideas. These answers were not sentences of explanation, as the dialogue below shows:
Maree:
I want four volunteers to help me to show these pictures to your friends. Come out in front of the class! Well, look at that polar bear. What is the effect of the development of science and technology on the bear?
Student:
The bear doesn’t have much living habitat because of the melting ice.
Maree:
What is the main cause of melting ice?
Student:
Global warming.
Maree:
What is causing global warming?
Student:
Humans.
Maree:
When one kind of animal dies, others will be die too because they are parts of the food chain. The development of science and technology can be a contributor to global warming. Can the bears or other animals live happily?
Student:
No. (First classroom observation from December 9, 2009)
Students had autonomy in working in groups for testing their own ideas. Before participating in the PD program, Maree expressed that “to teach according to the zoo-based STSE approach, students can work in groups and conclude their findings from using scientific process skills to investigate the knowledge of things they doubt.� (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) Although Maree provided opportunities for her students to work in groups, they rarely helped each other to complete their tasks or share their ideas because they knew that the teacher would summarize the lesson at the end of the class. Therefore, students
137 seemed to work individually. For example, in her teaching about dew, she summarized the key concepts that her students should know on the blackboard. The role of the students was answering some missing words at the end of her sentences and writing down these concepts in their notebooks. This is evidenced during her teaching (see below).
Maree:
From your experiment you can conclude that…?
Student:
…
Maree:
There are two glasses, aren’t there? One of them has ice, but another doesn’t. It is concerned with the cold, certainly. Therefore, you can summarize that the cold made the air condense to be…
Student:
Drops of water.
Maree:
Well, write down this conclusion in your notebook … that the cold made the air condense into drops of water. If this situation occurs in the night time, it is called…
Student:
Dew. (Initial classroom observation from July 15, 2009)
While participating in the PD program, it was clear that Maree’s framework for group work was increasing after sharing ideas with another teacher. She rearranged the students’ seats for sitting in groups. Each group had four seats which comprised of two pairs of tables facing each other. Therefore, there were six groups that were divided into two columns and each column had three groups. In addition, she had views that the teaching activities should focus on the inquiry process to encourage students to work in groups. This understanding became apparent in her journal entry. As Maree stated, “There are many activities based on the STSE approach that provide a supportive group working environment. For doing activities, the teacher should start by motivating the students to ask questions. This should be followed with planning, exploring related data, reflecting and sharing opinions, and applying of knowledge to take action.” (The fifth meeting journal, September 19, 2009)
138 In order to prompt Maree getting inside science teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach, she was asked to be a student for a role play demonstration in the seventh meeting. Consequently, she could shape a more authentic image of students working in groups, as she indicated in her journal entry below:
The activities that followed the example of the zoo-based STSE approach are very good. The students can work in groups to explore answers. Moreover, they can share some ideas with their friends. (The seventh meeting journal, October 3, 2009)
During the second part of PD program, she had many opportunities to plan and re-plan her lessons. Maree tried out these beliefs and ideas of the STSE approach in her lesson about materials. The main goal for developing the lesson plan was to try it out. She designed the activities for enhancing her students to be familiar with discussions about the STSE issues and group work. During class observation, she asked each group of students to post their questions of interest about the material. There was one mistake that she had to explain about the students’ roles in group work. As a result, it also took time to get questions from the students because her students were not familiar with sharing ideas in groups. Finally, she got some questions from her students that led to doing an experiment. These questions were about how much these plastics can be extended, and what happens if these plastics are extended. Therefore, she further asked her students to plan the way for answering these questions. Fortunately, some groups of her students could collaborate in planning and doing experiments. Therefore, this experience was important to her for further planning of lessons and practices.
For the development of lesson plans using the zoo-based STSE approach, her activities allowed students to work in groups and do hands-on activities based on their interests. An example was that each group of students selected interesting animals to study, and helped to gather plans about what details (e.g. characteristics, habitat, foods, reproduction, movement, etc.) they should get from this animal. These
139 details would be the primary data for classifying the animals. From her reflections of this lesson plan, the development of her views on student group working was in evidence, as is stated here:
This lesson plan was in line with science teaching based on the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource because it focused on students doing activities by themselves, it promoted cooperative learning in the classroom. It encouraged students to participate in group work, and made links between science, technology, society, and environment for each period of teaching. (Maree’s worksheet of second part of the PD program, November 31, 2009)
While the students were working, she walked around the room to observe and guide her students while they were doing activities. Before finishing the class, she asked a representative of each group to present their planning. From an interview, it showed that her students had more chances for thinking about what they were studying from the activities in groups. This is shown in the following:
This time the students participated in the learning activities more than before ‌ Students learned to plan their work, discuss in their groups, and complete their own tasks. (Post-class interview from December 9, 2009)
The teacher reduced her role as lecturer and provided more opportunities for students to construct their own knowledge.
Before attending the PD program, Maree indicated that the students would get knowledge from the lecture and a discussion of the textbook. In practice, she asked students some questions to complete her lecture and motivated them to use details from the textbook to answer her questions, as evidenced below:
Maree:
Where does fog come from?
Student:
...
140 Maree:
All right! You don’t know, so open your book to page 89. Do you see the pink frames? Are there any words about fog?
Student:
Yes, there is.
Maree:
Try to read and conclude your ideas! Start reading from the first paragraph … vapor does what?
Student:
Against the cold.
Maree:
Vapor against the cold, so what...?
Student:
It condenses to be drops of water.
Maree:
Well, this is the meaning of fog. Fog comes from vapor. Vapor comes from the vaporization of water up in the air and then it condenses to be drops of water over the ground. (Initial classroom observation from July 7, 2009)
When teaching about clouds she also used illustrations of clouds to introduce concepts about the types of clouds. Along with her transmitting knowledge to the students based upon what is in the book, she asked her students to observe clouds at the windows in the classroom to identify whether the clouds had characteristics consistent with what she taught. Interestingly, Maree felt that if her students saw the empirical data or real specimens, they would have learned better. Maree pointed out her views in this discourse with students shown below:
Maree:
Everybody go out to the window. Look at the red roof! That dark cloud, with the gray part below is cumulus. What type of cloud is behind the roof?
Student:
Cirrus.
Maree:
Look at that! There are stratus clouds over there. Students will need to identify them correctly. (Initial classroom observation from July 8, 2009)
She summarized the key concepts that her students should know on the blackboard, as mentioned previously. When asking students to write down key concepts in their notebooks, Maree stated, “Some students cannot learn from listening to what is being said, so I have to summarize the ideas for them to read.
141 Writing might help them understand what we are trying to learn.” (Informal interview from July 15, 2009) It could be pointed out that her activity used the teacher-centered approach along with empirical data. Knowledge was transmitted to the students by the teacher reading and asking questions. The students were passive recipients of knowledge.
While participating in the PD program, Maree had direct experience about learning with the zoo-based STSE approach from role playing as a student. This helped her obtain a clear picture how the students learn according to the zoo-based STSE approach. Finally, she could shape a more authentic image of the students’ construction of their own knowledge. This is shown as follows:
The activities emphasize student-centered learning. First of all, students are placed in groups to share their ideas before they further search for information about the real lives of animals in the zoo. Therefore, they can construct their own knowledge and link their knowledge to daily life. (The seventh meeting journal, October 3, 2009)
During the implementation of her zoo-based STSE lesson, the findings showed that Maree tried to facilitate her students’ construction of their own knowledge. For example, when each group finished their classification, she asked the new representative of each group to present their classification of animals in the zoo based on their criteria. During the students’ presentations, she asked questions of the students to generate their ideas, as the dialogue in her teaching below shows:
Maree:
This group tells me “what is your first criterion?”
Student:
Habitats
Maree:
Habitats! What habitats can you divide?
Student:
On land and in water
Maree:
Which animals live in water?
Student:
Fish live in water.
Maree:
Which animals live on land?
142 Student:
Tigers, elephants, and monkeys.
Maree:
This is the first criterion of this group. (Third classroom observation from December 16, 2009)
To summarize this lesson, she did not give her students directly a concept of classification, as she did before, but she asked various questions and gave students adequate examples, until she was sure that they understood the concept of the classification. However, she still did a little bit of lecturing. The dialogue below shows this:
Maree:
Can you give me the name of an amphibian?
Student:
Frog and turtle.
Maree:
Who thinks that both of them are amphibians? Raise your
hand! Student:
I agree!
Maree:
Umm, many students are confused about this. In fact, amphibian means animals which‌
Student:
Can live both on the land and in water.
Maree:
The early parts of their lives they live in water. When they grow up, they will live on the land. They lay eggs in the water. Which animal is an amphibian?
Student:
Frog.
Maree:
Yes, it is. (Third classroom observation from December 16, 2009)
From the informal interview about her teaching, Maree felt that she had learned much about student learning from her practices. She also thought that her students had more opportunities to share their ideas than before. She accepted her reduced role of lecturing, but there were some parts of her teaching where she still told her students content knowledge (see below).
143 I have developed much in my teaching skills. I now talk less than before so students can use more of their own ideas in learning … but I have to talk in some points because if I do not explain something to them, they will not understand. (Post-class interview from December 16, 2009)
Students had opportunities to use the inquiry process (as a scientist) in learning rather than being passive recipients of knowledge. Before attending the PD program, Maree stated, “Students should have a complete understanding of the involved concepts before they do experiments or activities in order to learn effectively.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) The data from her lesson plan also showed that Maree practiced according her views. For example, in her activities for the students to learn about rain, she indicated in her lesson plan that she would give her students knowledge about the teaching concept after her launching lesson. From classroom observation, Maree presented her students with the concepts of rain by lecturing in incomplete sentences. Many students did not have a chance to find their answers, but they had to open their books to find the words to tell her how to complete each sentence. Some of her students answered her incorrectly, so she had to tell them about the concept of rain. This is evidenced below:
Maree:
Well, we are talking about rain. The meaning of rain is…
Student:
Vapor condenses and falls down to the ground.
Maree:
Jot down into your notebook that rain occurs from condensation of vapor to be… to be what…
Student:
Vapor.
Maree:
Vapor? It is still vapor. It condenses to be what...
Student:
Drops of water. (Initial classroom observation from July 14, 2009)
After sharing ideas with the scientist in the PD program it was clear that Maree’s views on the nature of science were increasing. She had ideas that teaching
144 activities should focus on the inquiry process. This understanding became apparent in her journal entry. As Maree stated, “In doing activities, the teacher should start by motivating students to ask questions. This should be followed with planning, exploration related data, reflection and sharing opinions, and the application of knowledge for action.� (The fifth meeting journal, September 19, 2009)
She sent lesson plans to the researcher and got some suggestions, during a group meeting, for the development of lesson plans using the zoo-based STSE approach.
Every time she got feedback, she modified her lesson plans.
Consequently, she intended her lessons to be more learner-directed inquiry based. During class observations and before taking students to the zoo, the findings showed that her practices were more concerned with the nature of science. Maree launched her lessons using pictures of bears as mentioned before. For linking knowledge in the zoo, she asked students to choose one animal that they were interested in. They were to plan to collect the data of this animal in the zoo, as a scientist might do, using a classification scheme. The dialogue in her teaching below shows this:
Maree:
If you were scientists, how would you classify these animals on the blackboard? From this situation, do you have any questions?
Student:
How will we group these animals?
Maree:
I will not answer you now. You can search for the answers in the zoo. Okay? (First classroom observation from December 9, 2009)
When arriving at the zoo she separated her fifth grade students, who were studying about animal classification, to do activities according to her lesson plan. She asked them to explore for information, as scientists might, and made an appointment time when they would meet after finishing their tasks. She states this below:
145 Students, you have your own interesting animal, don’t you? You have to gather data by yourselves as if you were a scientist. After you observe your animal, don’t forget to jot down data about the characteristics, respirations, locomotion, life cycle, and so on in your worksheet! Besides exploring your animal, you can study other animals too. Well, go with your team. Help each other to do this work! If one member disappears, your scores will be reduced. Okay, stand up! See you here at 10.30 am. (Second observation from December 15, 2009)
During the follow-up activities in the classroom, Maree asked her students to conclude their data and reflect on their learning with a presentation in front of the class. She felt that the inquiry process for the zoo-based STSE lesson could promote her teaching in the classroom because her students would pay more attention in classroom activities. This is shown by:
I feel that it is easy for me to organize further learning activities in the classroom because my students already have a basic knowledge from their own inquiry in the zoo. (Post-class interview from December 16, 2009)
Students took action on science-related issues to discuss and share their knowledge with others.
Before the PD program Maree did not apply her students’ knowledge to any STSE issues or the current situations. Because of the limitations of time there was an absence of discussion among the students. Only the representative of each group presented about their task. Other students always kept quiet. Typically, she played the main role and assisted students by discussing data and making conclusions with them, as the dialogue about clouds shows:
146 Maree:
I think each group has already finished. The method for writing a summary is to find relations in the data. In a few moments, I want a representative of each group to present your summary in front of the class … Ok, this group comes out to present.
Student:
Today I will present a summary of characteristics of clouds from observation. Yesterday, there was a white cloud that was like a bird flying in the sky. Today, there is a blue cloud that is like a car.
Maree:
Give him a big hand! In sum, there are clouds in the sky that have different shapes and colors. (Initial classroom observation from July 8, 2009)
Fortunately, while participating in the PD program Maree had some chances to share her ideas with other teachers and the scientist about STSE issues such as cloning and GMOs. During the discussion she showed her positive perceptions about discussion of STSE issues in teaching to promote students to take action as good citizens. The evidence of her realization is shown below: Have you ever seen the play titled, “AMATA”? It is a science movie. The hero in this movie is a smart person and he does not want to die. He makes three clones that will supply him with organs. However, the clones try to find ways to survive. I have seen this movie on T.V. and have also read it in a book. I think that this story can make students aware of being good citizens. (The third group meeting from August 25, 2009)
In addition, Maree got direct experience in discussions about science-related issues because there was some content related to using technology regarding the cures for diseases that she suffers from. Therefore, she paid more attention to this topic and asked a lot of questions of the scientist. From discussions with the scientist, Maree said, “I learned about cloning. I got more experience than I had before. Discussions with the scientist about my interests make me understand more clearly.” (The third meeting from August 25, 2009)
147 The data from her developed lesson plans showed that Maree wanted students to be aware of taking action and being good citizens. She used discussions in her teaching for linking animal content to related STSE issues in order to promote more awareness in her students about animal extinctions. Consistently she promoted action and good citizenship behavior through discussions. It seems that her students were eager to express their ideas because they had encountered issues of conflict in their daily lives. They did not give her short answers, as they did before. They tried to explain what they thought. For instance, at the end of students’ reflections, she showed pictures of bears again to discuss the effect that hunting is having on various animals. Examples of the discussion during this lesson are shown below:
Maree:
All five species of bear lived in‌
Student:
The forest.
Maree:
When the population increases, humans begin to spread to wild areas. Why?
Student:
They will go hunting or cutting trees.
Maree:
Humans also invented hunting equipment. What else can make these animals extinct?
Student:
Burning forests, taking animals for sale or for labor, and deforestation.
Maree:
This is an example of a bear. There are other animals that have been affected the same way. Some of the reasons for these effects are population growth, development of technology, and human need for food. These things will affect other animals. If animals could speak, they might say how much they are wronged and ask how long they will be punished by humans. If you were animals, how would you feel? (Third classroom observation from December 16, 2009)
She asked each group of students to create handbills for sharing their knowledge about animal classification in the zoo with others. Her practice was
148 consistent with her lesson plan that indicated about the application of students’ knowledge by making handbills for sharing this knowledge with others. From the informal interview about the zoo-based STSE approach, she expressed her positive views on the features of this approach for promoting students’ awareness of taking action and being good citizens. This is shown as follows:
It is the teaching approach that links scientific content to the current issues. Moreover, this approach 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)
Using Learning Resources
Teacher used the zoo as a learning resource more effectively to promote student learning. Although Maree’s school had an excursion project to the zoo in Bangkok, she did not link any knowledge in the zoo to her teaching in the first semester. She said, “The zoo is the centre of knowledge. If students are interested in animals, they will learn better about them as well as the plants in the zoo. For example, they can learn about the animals’ living styles, animal classification, endangered species, wildlife animals, and the variety of plants.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) Unfortunately, she also stated, “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 do not relate to the knowledge from the zoo.” (Informal interview from August 3, 2009)
The following regards her practice during the excursion, and before participating in the PD program. The zoo excursion was a one day trip. There were no student manuals for making notes at the zoo. The zoo provided the bus to pick up the students at the school. The supper and lunch were prepared by zoo officers.
149 Moreover, the activities in the zoo followed a program provided by the zoo staff. The activities were divided into a morning part and an afternoon part. In the morning part, the students were separated into small groups to do activities at provided stations, such as walking to see animals in each cage, taking the bus to watch animals in the nature habitat, and watching some animal shows. The activity in the morning ended with having lunch. In the afternoon, the students watched some more animal shows and had the opportunity to join the playing machine provided at the zoo before going back to school. However, Maree showed her negative views on the activities that her students did at the zoo. Her comments from an informal interview are provided below:
Students do not learn much at the zoo because of the limitations of time. Zoo officers prefer us to see animal shows. When the students come back to school, they cannot do the test for evaluating this excursion. I find that students have fun rather than learn. Sometimes there are no zoo curators to explain about the animals in the zoo, so the students have to study the animals by themselves. They only watch animals in each enclosure. (Informal interview from August 3, 2009)
While in a discussion in the first meeting of the PD program, Maree accepted that her current teaching did not attempt to use the local resources to promote students’ meaningful learning at anytime. Fortunately, the excursion to the zoo was just one of many projects that provided first-hand experiences for the students. However, she accepted, during discussion in the sixth meeting, that students did not have many opportunities for inquiry to create a meaningful experience while at the zoo.
To get information about using the zoo as a learning resource Maree had a chance to ask questions directly of the zoo curator, who then explained about animals in the zoo. In this meeting, Maree was asked to focus on the steps of linking the knowledge in the zoo to science teaching in the classroom. After sharing ideas
150 with the zoo curator, she expressed her knowledge about the connection of students’ experiences in the zoo to teaching in the classroom, as follows:
There are steps for using the zoo as a learning resource. They include reviewing science curriculum, surveying the learning sites of the zoo, planning how to link knowledge in the zoo to teaching in the classroom, preparing the learning aids during the excursion to the zoo, taking students to the zoo according to the plan, and doing the follow-up activities after the zoo trip. (Maree’s worksheet, September 19, 2009)
Finally, she completed her lesson plan in the topic of animal classification. The learning activities included a one day excursion at the zoo. For activities, there were three parts in this lesson plan: (1) before the zoo excursion, including the launching lesson and planning of exploration of animals in the zoo, (2) the zoo trip itself, and (3) follow-up activities in the classroom.
Maree had the responsibility of taking her students to the zoo. Fortunately, other colleagues helped her to look after her students. Before taking them to the zoo, she told them the objectives of the trip, the schedules, and the appropriate behavior for studying in the zoo. It took about fifteen minutes to walk from school to the zoo.
The teacher changed from using only the textbook, to also using the zoo as a learning resource for students to answer questions.
Maree knew about using various kinds of learning resources according to the zoo-based STSE approach. She said, “The teacher can use resources both inside and outside school to motivate student interest. When they are interested in something, they will do it well.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) In addition, when the researcher asked about the opportunity for local people to participate in student learning, Maree gave an example from her experience in teaching about chemical agents. She explained, “I asked my students to talk with their parents about which chemical agents are in their homes. I also gave a worksheet to my students for their
151 parents to jot down what they said.� (Informal interview from July 8, 2009) However, she revealed that most of their parents did not want to participate in their learning because most of the parents did not respond to the worksheet.
From analyzing her lesson plans, the data showed that Maree tried to use learning resources from both inside and outside school. For example in her lesson plan on clouds, she indicated that students were asked to go to the lawns in front of school to observe the clouds in the sky for ten minutes. In practice, she did not do that activity with her students because of the limitations of time. She assigned her students to observe the clouds at their houses and had them draw pictures of clouds to hand in next time. As a learning resource Maree always used textbooks. She used the pictures from textbooks of another publisher that provided color to show and explain to students the different kinds of clouds. She showed her views on textbooks to her students in the classroom, as is shown here:
The weak point of this book is that there are no color pictures. The pictures are only in black and white. It is difficult for students to see the clouds clearly. I have another science book that has color pictures. I have already prepared them for you. Some of you please go to my office and bring them here. (Initial classroom observation from July 8, 2009)
As mentioned previously, Maree used lectures as her main teaching method. Maree also acted out as the source of knowledge. When each student received another book that contained color pictures, Maree asked them open to the page that had types of clouds. She then explained the scientific content following the information provided in that textbook as the dialogue below shows:
Maree:
Open your book to chapter V, page 90, to see the color pictures of clouds. This book provides us with real pictures of clouds in the sky. Do you see types of clouds? Can you tell me about the characteristics of the first type of cloud, Cirrus?
Student:
It is a white piece that looks like a mountain.
152 Maree:
Cirrus has white stripes like a feather, as you see in this book. (Initial classroom observation from July 8, 2009)
Moreover, from observations of her teaching about dew, Maree’s teaching activities did not reflect on the nature of science, as mentioned before. The students did experiments to confirm knowledge that they got from the lecture about dew. However, all of the investigations were designed to follow the textbook. She commented that the book is used to facilitate students to write reports about their findings from the experiments. There are frames for students’ notes, as she stated during her teaching in the topic of dew (see below).
Students are lucky that there are exercise books. For many years there were not these kinds of books, and students had to write all of the report themselves, including stating a problem, formulating a hypothesis, collecting data for testing the hypothesis, discussing the data, and making a conclusion. Thus, you don’t have to be so tired. (Initial classroom observation from July 8, 2009)
For using the zoo as a learning resource, Maree did not have specific plans to link students’ experiences in the zoo to any scientific content, even though she had the opportunity to take students to the zoo. She only asked her students some questions about what was in the zoo. (Informal interview from August 3, 2009) However, she thought that students could learn in the zoo based on their interest questions, as the following shows:
There are a lot of trees in the zoo that produce fresh air. Students can compare the difference of the air quality inside and outside the zoo. The teacher can link questions of student interest to the zoo trip. (Initial interview from June 30, 2009)
As a result of participation in the PD program, Maree developed a zoo-based STSE lesson about animal classification. In this lesson plan, she tried to use her
153 students’ questions about classification to link with the zoo field trip. Besides her students learning from observing the animals directly, or asking the zoo curators, Maree took students to see the information board concerning animal classification and the effects of human activities on animals. These would link to classroom activities. She stated this to her students:
The displayed information right here concerns animal diversity. It shows the scientists’ criteria for classification of animals. You try to learn from this, and apply this knowledge to classify the animals that your group is studying. (Second observation from December 15, 2009)
Regarding her duties, she looked after her students, she engaged them in exploring for information, and she assisted them to ask questions. She also observed her students processes in gathering data at the zoo. She stated this about her students:
When using the zoo as a learning resource, students learned by themselves. 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. If they ask a lot of questions, it means they have learned. (Post-excursion interview from December 15, 2009)
Learning Assessment Assessing students’ achievement increased in terms of the affective domain including the awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment, as well as the application of knowledge.
Maree believed that a teacher who teaches according to the zoo-based STSE approach should assess student achievement, including the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains, using various methods. As she stated, “To assess students’ cognitive domain, teachers always assign the students to answer questions in the exercise book or in student worksheets that are handed in after class. Moreover, the
154 students have tests at the end of the lesson and the end of the semester. For psychomotor domain, the teacher observes and assesses the students’ scientific process skills by observation. Do the students have plans before they practice or not? For affective domain, the teacher observes their generosity towards friends when they work in groups. An example of this is answering questions when friends ask.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) However, Maree emphasized on judging the students’ answers either right or wrong. For example, during her teaching about clouds, she also assessed her students’ content knowledge from their presentations and tasks. The dialogue below shows this:
Maree:
Have students drawn the pictures of the clouds and described the characteristics of them yet?
Student:
Yes.
Maree:
There are three types of clouds: Cirrus, Stratus, and Cumulus. Can you identify the type of your clouds? In a few minutes, I will ask you, and you have to show your pictures as well. I will tell you if it is correct or not…Are you ready?
Student:
Yes.
Maree:
[Student name]
Student:
These clouds are stratus.
Maree:
Right! Put your work on my desk. (Initial classroom observation from July 8, 2009)
During participation in the PD program, Maree put an effort into planning to assess her students’ achievements in the three learning domains: cognitive, psychomotor and affective. Regarding the examination of the students’ cognitive domain, she asked her students questions to examine their understanding about the concepts of animal classification. From asking questions, she knew that there were some students who had alternative concepts about reptiles. Thus, she used this point
155 for further discussion to make her students have a clearer understanding, as the dialogue in her teaching below shows:
Maree:
Students are always confused that turtles and crocodiles sometimes live in water and on land. Actually, they are…
Student:
Reptiles.
Maree:
Why are they reptiles?
Student:
They have scales on their feet.
Maree:
How about amphibians? Are there any scales on their feet?
Student:
No.
Maree:
Where does a reptile lay eggs?
Student:
On land.
Maree:
How about an amphibian?
Student:
In water. (Third classroom observation from December 16, 2009)
For the psychomotor domain, she examined her students’ scientific process skills, from their reports, which showed how they plan, their selection methods for collecting data, and how they made conclusions. She also observed her students’ skills while they were working on their tasks. Her comments about examining student psychomotor domain, from an informal interview, are provided below.
As an observer, I found out that they had more skills in searching for knowledge. They also had planned well on managing their work and could talk about what they learned to others. (Post-class interview from December 16, 2009) With regard to scientific attitudes, Maree used the students’ notebooks and the observations of her student participation in the activities. During discussions in the classroom, she observed that her students shared more ideas about the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment. Moreover, she also examined the students’ application of knowledge through them creating handbills. For the zoo
156 field trip, she found that her students had more positive attitudes about science. Students actively sought information, enjoyed their experience in learning, and increased their interest in science, as she stated below.
I know that my students had a positive attitude in science learning from the greater details they jotted in their notebooks and from observing their attentions in searching for information in the zoo. They also shared their opinions in groups. When I asked them about their feelings towards learning in the zoo, they responded that they were happy and joyful. Moreover, I noticed that they were proud of being the ones who helped the group to do their tasks or sharing some ideas in the group. (Post-excursion interview from December 15, 2009)
Therefore, the data above showed that the PD program impacted Maree to change her practices on assessing students’ achievements from evaluating only the cognitive and psychomotor domains to evaluating all domains. The zoo-based STSE instruction was especially likely to impact the affective domains. It is reasonable that she was more concerned about the students’ attitude toward science.
Teacher used various methods to assess student learning and gave students a chance to assess their own group work.
Before participating in the PD program, Maree placed emphasis only on the product of learning and did not give a chance for students (or parents) to assess their own learning. For example, in the topic of dew, she indicated in her lesson plan that she would use exercises to examine how much her students had learned in the classroom. From classroom observations, her practice also supported her plan that after the students finished their experiments they would answer questions in their exercise books. She stated the classroom evidence provided below:
157 There are two questions to answer. You have already done the experiment. Now you know how dew occurs in nature. Here you go! If you finish, you can hand it in. (Initial classroom observation from July 15, 2009) In addition, Maree also evaluated her students’ content knowledge from their presentations and tasks. Although she focused on using various methods to assess students’ cognitive aspects, she did not give a chance for students or parents to assess the learning. This is shown by the following statement:
I know that it is a good way for students or parents to assess the learning. However, I hardly give them any chance because it does not work. I got too few responses. (Initial interview from June 30, 2009)
While participating in the PD program, Maree put her effort into planning and using various types of assessment methods to assess her students’ achievements. She did this after learning about the STSE assessment methods in the fifth meeting, as she stated below:
I learn from the meeting that assessment of teaching, based on STSE approach, provides opportunities for the teacher to use various kinds of methods to examine student learning. Moreover, students or parents also have a chance to participate in the assessment. Therefore, I try to put this knowledge in my lesson. (Informal interview from November 31, 2009)
As a result of applying knowledge from the meeting, there are four main assessment methods that she indicated in her lesson plans. These consisted of observation, questioning, examining students’ tasks, and student evaluation. She used observation to examine students’ working skills, scientific process skills, sharing ideas about science related issues, and application of knowledge. She used questions as formative assessment tools for examining students’ content knowledge and tools for getting students’ opinions. She also used students’ tasks, such as worksheets, to examine students’ content knowledge, scientific processes, and
158 communicating skills. In examining the handbills, she used them to evaluate the students’ application of knowledge in daily life, and communicating skills.
With regards to the opportunity of self-assessment by the students, she used the students’ evaluation forms to assess how well the students worked together. She told her students the criteria for the assessment of group work at the beginning of her teaching in order to promote her students to work collaboratively with others in a group. At the end of the lesson, she used self and peer-evaluation forms for her students to assess their group work. Her views on using this assessment method to promote students’ contributions in group work are provided below.
This evaluation form is to assess your group work. Students already know the criteria. The scores will reflect how well you contribute in groups. If you get a low score, you should develop your group work for next time. (Third classroom observation from December 16, 2009)
Student learning outcomes from using the zoo-based STSE approach were better than before.
Before participating in the PD program, Maree asserted that she also opened her mind to apply new teaching strategies in her teaching as she mentioned: “I am pleased to accept new knowledge for application in my teaching. If it is good for my students, I will continue use it. If it does not work, I will adjust or change my teaching.” (Informal interview from July 20, 2009) As a result of using the zoo-based STSE approach in teaching, Maree found that her students increased their achievements in cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains. Impressively, Maree revealed that she
had achieved her goal of participating in this program, and had clear a view about science teaching based on the STSE approach. She aimed to further use this approach in her teaching as follows:
159 Before I joined this professional development program, I had a little knowledge about the STSE approach. When I had chance to teach based on this approach, I enjoyed this way of teaching, so I think that I will further use this teaching approach in my work. (Interview after finishing the PD program from December 22, 2009)
In the first semester of the academic year 2010, the researcher found that her
practice was consistent with her views. Maree still used some features of the STSE approach in her teaching. In the launching part of the lesson, she provided
opportunities for students to discuss current issues related her teaching subjects. For instance, in the topic of rain, she provided her students with opportunities to share their experiences about rain, as well as the effect of rain on humans. These discussions led to student questions about how rain occurs. In the exploring part of the lesson, she asked her students to work in groups to explore the answers for explaining the phenomena of rain using various learning resources such as the library, internet, and so on. Moreover, she also had some experiments for students to observe how rain occurs. For linking to daily life, she asked her students to do experiments to examine the quality of rain water. However, her students still did not have a chance to plan their own methods for this experiment, as evidenced in her lesson plan below.
Students do the activity by the following steps in their worksheet (1) bring one bottle outdoor for receiving the rain water, (2) use magnifier to see the rain water, (3) pour the rain water into the paper filter to observe the contaminates, (4) conclude the data about the causes that make rain dirty. (Maree’s lesson plan in the topic of rain from July, 2010)
For reflection, the students presented their findings and discussed them together. Finally, they concluded ideas in a concept map. For taking action, she provided her students with the opportunity to design a board for sharing their knowledge about rain and its effects on humans to others, as evidenced in her lesson plan below.
160 Each group of students will work together to plan and create a board about rain and its effects on humans. This will be a contest. Whichever board gets the first score, from voting, will be shown in front of the classroom. (Maree’s lesson plan in the topic of rain from July, 2010) The Factors that Affected Maree’s Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach There were six major factors, which had the potential to influence Maree’s views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. There were the teacher’s academic background and experience of teaching, teacher’ characteristics, the limit of time, students’ learning styles, school administrators’ support, and media in the zoo. Teacher’s academic background and experience of teaching
During participation in the PD program, Maree gradually revealed that her academic background and experience of teaching were the main factors that affected her views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. She graduated with a major in science teaching so she knew teaching strategies quite well. However, before participating in the PD program, she did not concern much with the objective of science teaching and the nature of science and she focused only on content knowledge. For doing experiments, her activities did not reflect the nature of science in terms of scientific inquiry and scientific enterprise. From informal interviews while participating in the PD program, she expressed that she did not remember any
information about educational reform as her statement below shows:
I had learned a lot concerning teaching based on National Education Acts and the manual of science learning management under the Basic Education Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008). I graduated long time ago, so I forgot them. (The first meeting journal, August 18, 2009)
161 After doing activities in the third meeting, about the nature of technology, she showed the reason that she hardly motivated students’ interests with issues related science, technology, society, and environment. It was because she did not have enough experience of teaching related to these issues. Therefore, she would lecture according to content in textbook as her views in the journal below show.
I think that the activities today are very good because I learned more about cloning. I hardly have any experiences about it. When I teach about it, I only talk with my students and follow information from the textbook. (The third meeting journal, August 29, 2009)
Maree also accepted that she did not have direct experience in science teaching based on the STSE approach. Therefore, she was still not confident whether her activities would be effective for her students. To promote her confidence, the researcher asked her to design the science lesson plans based on this approach in the topic that she was going to teach soon. After trying out her lesson plan, she seemed to be more confident in her teaching. She knew how prepare the questions and facilitate student learning, as her statement below shows:
I learned more about teaching with this approach in order to apply it to further teaching ‌ when I practiced 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)
With a degree in teaching Biology, Maree was confident to develop and implement the lesson plan in concepts relating to animal content. After finishing the PD program, Maree seemed to have direct experience in science teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach. She could identify the features of teaching with this approach more than before participating in the PD program, as the following shows:
162 The STSE approach is science teaching that promotes students to work as scientists, for students to apply knowledge to daily life, for students to use problem solving skills and critical thinking skills, and for students to have habit of mind ‌ Students can learn what they want. They learn from asking questions, planning for answering their own questions, and sharing ideas with each other. ‌ For assessment, both teachers and students can assess learning from observation, asking questions, and using their worksheet or note book. (Interview after finishing the PD program from December 22, 2009)
Teacher’s characteristics
Maree was an active and enthusiastic person. From classroom observation before participating in the PD program, she always provided her students with content knowledge. However, she hardly used their answers to drive lessons but she tried to explain to them with her wording. Therefore, most of her students did not make conclusions by themselves and waited for her explanations. However, she believed that if she did not explain them, they could not learn, as her statement below shows:
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)
During participation in the PD program, Maree expressed her eagerness to learn about the zoo-based STSE approach. Whenever she wondered, she would ask the researcher immediately. Moreover, she searched for information that was essential to her development of the zoo-based STSE lesson. She also learned about the role of a teacher who taught science according to the STSE approach. As the results of her enthusiasm, she seemed to control herself not to tell the students answers from her questions. However, she found that the students still waited for her explanations at the beginning of using the zoo-based STSE approach in her teaching.
163 Therefore, she adapted her teaching style from using fewer explanations to using more questions to motivate the students’ thinking. When the students perceived that she reduced her role as information provider, they had to think and share more ideas. These details were supported with her statement below.
From implementation of the zoo-based STSE lesson, I tried to use my knowledge that I got from the PD program. I promoted my students to share their ideas. Sometimes, I still explained them but not as much as before. However, they tried to share with me their ideas. (Informal interview from December 9, 2009)
The limits of time Although Maree’s school had many extra-curriculum activities, she did not have any problems about the limits of time for teaching because of her using lecturing methods. However, she found that time was one factor that affected her teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach. Her students did not respond her questions suddenly. They always kept quiet. She waited for her students’ answers for a long time until some of them expressed their ideas. Therefore, she ran her class so slowly, as her statement below shows:
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)
To deal with this problem, Maree realized that she had to manage time of teaching effectively. Therefore, she prepared many questions that used easier wording for students to understand than she had used before. If her students could not answer her questions, she would ask her students to discuss in groups before the whole class discussion. Moreover, she also promoted students to search information related to content of teaching. Finally, she found that her students did pay more attention on her activities and she could finish her lessons on time.
164 Students’ learning styles
Before using the zoo-based STSE approach in teaching, Maree was the main learning resource. Her students always learned from her lecturing. They rarely shared their own ideas. The researcher asked her opinions on whether or not the students learned better by teaching according to zoo-based STSE approach. She seemed to worry about her students’ background of learning. She thought that, “For implementation of the lesson, I have to consider the students’ readiness because the background of our students is not good. Perhaps, the teacher has to find interesting activities that are appropriate to students.” (The fifth group meeting from July 15, 2009)
However, her students seemed to be familiar with the style of learning according to the zoo-based STSE approach after she tried it out. They learned that they had to share ideas to answer Maree’s questions related to STSE issues. Otherwise, she would not move her lesson to the next activities. Therefore, some students responded to her waiting by telling what they thought, as she states below:
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)
After participating in the PD program, Maree revealed that her students had more participation in her teaching activities. Therefore, she could conduct her lessons smoothly. However, she accepted that she still told her students content knowledge in some parts where they did not understand. The data from the interviews supported this when her students got used to this approach. She mentions this below:
Teaching this time, the students participated in learning activities more than before. … Students learned to plan their work, have discussions in their groups, and complete their own tasks. I knew that my teaching was not so
165 good because I told my students knowledge in some parts if they did not understand (Post-tried out class interview from December 16, 2009). School administrators’ support
For teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach, the school administrators also agreed with Maree about applying this approach in her teaching. They provided the place for doing activities of the PD program in their school, and adjusted her teaching schedule to allow her to attend the program. As for using the zoo as a learning resource, she mentioned the possibility of using the zoo as a learning resource in her teaching and that the school administrators were the main supporters of the excursion to the zoo including budget and the date and time of the excursion. She states this below:
For each field trip to the zoo, the school administrators managed the budget for the entrance fee, transportation, and food. Some teachers were assigned to take care of students during the excursion. The students did not need to 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)
The school administrators also had power to determine the number of teachers needed to safely care for the students. There were 300 students in grade five and six in this excursion. Maree was assigned for taking care of students during the trip. She might not be able to look after all of her students without any help from her colleagues. Fortunately, the school administrators asked other teachers who did not have classes to help Maree supervise her students as she states below:
There are many students that I have to look after. For one teacher, I think that it is too much. The school administrators were aware about safety during
166 the trip. Therefore, they asked other teachers who did not have class, to help with this endeavour. (The seventh group meeting from September 22, 2009)
Media in the zoo
Before participating in the professional development program, Maree had viewed that media about animals concerned with STSE issues were important for her teaching to enhance students’ awareness about animal conservation. She 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. The following shows this: 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 pandas. Thus, they would like to know how the living styles of these animals are. The teacher can take students to the zoo easily because the zoo is not far from school. Finally, the students will love the animals. When students love animals, they will treat their pets well or not leave them alone. (Initial interview from July 20, 2009)
For using the zoo as a learning resource, Maree tried to design activities that linked the variety of animals and other media provided in the zoo to her zoo-based STSE lessons. From her survey of the media in the zoo, she found an information board about animal classification that could directly link to her lesson. Therefore, she took her students to read this board after they finished their collecting data in the zoo. Moreover, she also led her students to see exhibitions provided about the effects of using technology on wildlife. While discussing in the classroom, it was easy for her to conclude the lesson because she referred to the board that the students had read at the zoo. However, Maree also had negative views on the media in the zoo. These included the lack of enough zoo curators to provide information about animals. She says the following:
167 The zoo is such a good place for student learning. There are many projects that support school excursions. If students do not go to the zoo, they will not know about the characteristics of Fea’s barking deer. … However, 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).
Finally, the media in the zoo were considered to be the factor that affected her teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach. Maree believed that some students came to the zoo in general just to see what animals were in the zoo. This is similar to the old style of field trip to the zoo. Consequently, they would not get much knowledge. If the excursion had a specific plan to link media in the zoo with the activities in classroom the students could learn more than as a general trip. This is shown as follows.
Students learn by themselves. Perhaps, if they wonder about something, they can read the information poster provided at that area. If they do not exactly know, they can ask me. Therefore, they learn how to ask questions and how to get data with meaningful learning for further doing activities in the classroom. (Post-excursion interview from December 15, 2009)
Case II: Mr. Somchai
Background Information Teacher’s Background In the 2009 academic year, Somchai had a teaching responsibility of eighteen periods per week. He taught science in fourth and sixth grades. He also taught boy and girl scouts. Due to his responsibility for supervision of the laboratory, his office was located in the laboratory room. Therefore, he usually set up some experiments to examine student prior knowledge. In this study, he selected students in grade six to teach according to the zoo-based STSE approach because there were more concepts
168 in grade six that he could directly link to animals in the zoo than those taught in grade four. For the concepts in grade six, he taught the topics of plant and chemical agents and animal conservation in the first semester. In the second semester, he taught the topics of animal conservation and animal behavior. For professional development, he used to attend many IPST workshops but he had never known about teaching though the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource. Typically, he could teach science in all concepts because he graduated with bachelors’ degree in general science teaching. However, it was the first time for him to teach about animal concepts with this approach. In character, Somchai was a wise man who talked less. However, he opened his mind to receive new teaching strategies for bettering student learning. Students’ Background The classroom that Somchai selected to study was in grade six. This class comprised of 31 students which were 18 girls and 13 boys. Similarly with Maree, most of his students lived in Bangkok and came from low socioeconomic level families. Some students were orphans under the control of a child centre which supported their tuition fees. Many of them were not interested in education. Thus, Somchai used extra scores for motivating students’ interests and controlling his class. Consequently, the average achievement scores in science were low. However, some students paid more attention in learning because they wanted entrance good public secondary school. Somchai believed that his students lacked basic knowledge relating to science. Therefore, he always asked them general questions at the beginning of his teaching. While teaching, he always found stories to tell with informal wording so his students talked friendly with him but still respect. For excursions, his students could go to the zoo by themselves, with their parents, or school trips. It was noticed that they seemed to be bored if they did the same activities at the zoo.
169 Classroom Setting Typically, Somchai taught science in the laboratory room because his responsibility also concerned the supervision of the laboratory. This room was not designed to be a laboratory, so there were no sinks in this room. However, there was large blackboard at the front of this room. The teacher’s table was in front of the blackboard and nearby the door on the right hand side. Windows were located along the left hand side of the room. There was one long cabinet which put on with a small human body model and students’ notebooks placed along the window. Another big and high cabinet contained television connected DVD player, was at the front of the room and near the whiteboard on the left hand side. At the back of this room, there was a long bulletin board on the wall above four big cabinets filled with lab equipment, models, and chemical substances. On the wall on left side of the room, there was also a long bulletin board above bookshelves filled with textbooks and exercise books. For the student seats, there were two columns and three rows which consisted of six large desks. Each group was provided with four or five chairs.
Students could walk to each group easily. The diagram of his classroom is presented below.
Front Left
Right Back Student’s table Book shelf Bulletin board Whiteboard Teacher’s table Window Door Cabinet
Figure 5.2 Layout of Mr. Somchai’s Classroom
170 Changes of Somchai’s Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach Due to the Influence of the PD Program
Objectives of Teaching
Teacher changed the goals of teaching from only having strong scientific knowledge to application of knowledge in daily life.
Initially, before Somchai attended the PD program, he did not actively tell what he knew about the objectives of the zoo-based STSE teaching. However, he revealed some ideas about the aims that were concerned with teaching concepts
related to the environment. He explained, “The zoo-based STSE approach is a teaching strategy that infers teaching science in concepts about the environment such as with soil, water, and air.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) In addition, Somchai’s views and the data in the lesson plans did not involve enhancing the students’ application of scientific knowledge to solve problems in daily life, which is one of the objectives of science teaching. He perceived that only scientific knowledge would make his students live happily. Eventually, he accepted that his main goal is to promote students’ long term memory in science concepts. He explained: Students have to develop strong knowledge which will stick with them everywhere. Then he or she can tell or transfer this knowledge to others. They will then live in society happily. (Informal interview from July 21, 2009) While participating in the PD program Somchai had a chance to exchange his
ideas and reflect on them with other teachers and science educators. During the discussions, Somchai kept quiet and rarely shared his ideas with others. However, it seemed that he had demonstrated a bit of change by putting more emphasis on the application of knowledge to daily life as a goal of science teaching. He helped his colleagues to design, do, and conclude the experiment about the movements of earthworms. After doing this activity, he came up with a lot of questions concerning
171 scientists’ work. From his interview with the scientist, he found that science related to everyone’s daily life, not only scientific knowledge or process skills, but also scientific attitude. Moreover, in the fourth meeting, he role played as the head of the Ministry of Science and Technology. He became aware of the application of scientific knowledge in daily life, as he mentioned while doing the activities stated below:
Science relates to technology, human life, and the environment. My duty in this ministry is to provide scientific knowledge to people for understanding the facts about controversial issues, not only the positive sides but also the negative sides. (The fourth meeting journal, September 12, 2009)
Somchai already knew about the objectives of teaching based on the STSE approach that try to promote scientifically and technologically literate people. While discussing the objectives of teaching with the STSE approach in the fifth meeting he also showed his concern about the objectives of content knowledge for students’ entrance competitions in the higher levels. He expressed his views to the group saying, “If I teach with this approach, which somewhat focuses on doing activities more than learning concepts, what effect will it have on the students’ scores on the national test?” (The fifth group meeting from September 12, 2009) The response from a teacher experienced in using the STSE approach helped him to make sure that students who learn with this approach can improve in terms of not only sophisticated concept mastery but also the ability to use process skills. They can also develop a positive attitude toward science and the use of science concepts and processes in their daily living and in responsible personal decision-making. Eventually, Somchai developed 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.
For development and implication of the zoo-based STSE lesson, Somchai thought that his objectives of teaching in this lesson did not focus only on content knowledge, but also on the application of knowledge which relates to society and the
172 environment. After his teaching, he revealed positive views on teaching objectives according to the zoo-based STSE approach. His views included the ways to increase students’ application of knowledge to solve problems in daily life, and the identification of ways that science and technology are likely to impact the future.
The objectives of teaching increased in terms of the affective domain which related to society and the environment.
Regarding the objectives of science teaching in his lesson plans before participation in the PD program, Somchai seemed to include only the cognitive and
psychomotor domains. He did not mention any affective domains such as attitudes, harmonies, ethics, or morals in his teaching objectives. For instance, on the topic of the respiratory systems of vertebrate animals, he intended his students to understand scientific concepts and have scientific process skills . He rarely emphasized other dimensions of student learning such as attitudes or social aspects when teaching science. This is evidenced below.
The objectives of teaching are that students can: (1) explain the respiratory systems of a vertebrate animal, and (2) explore and classify the respiratory systems of each type of vertebrate animal. (Somchai’s lesson plan in the topic of chemical agents: July, 2009)
During participation in the PD program, Somchai was asked to analyze the National Education Act and the Manual of Science Learning Management under the Basic Education Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008) to identify the aims of teaching based on educational reform. He could correctly identify the key ideas about teaching goals, in that teaching and learning should aim at encouraging students not only in content knowledge and process skills, but also on the affective domain, as he stated below:
When we prepare lessons, we have to determine teaching objectives covering KPA (Knowledge, Process skills, and Attitude). For knowledge, we might set goals for students’ ability in explanation, comparison, and
173 discussion of what they learn. If they can do this, then they have knowledge. Regarding process skills, they must design, do, and conclude their experiments. Concerning attitude, I will consider their habits of mind and their qualifications as a scientist (The first group meeting from August 15, 2009).
Thereafter, Somchai applied his understanding about teaching objectives to analyze his own teaching objectives in lesson planning in the topics related to animals that he taught last semester. Interestingly, he noticed several weaknesses in his teaching objectives. He did not consider the importance of the affective domain in his teaching objectives, as evidenced in the statements below. The teaching objectives did not mention about promoting students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, humans, and environment. Neither did they address cultivating moral and good values so the students will use science and technology in appropriate ways. (The first group meeting from August 15, 2009)
In the second part of the PD program, Somchai was also concerned about building connections between the objectives of teaching based on the STSE approach, and his objectives of teaching in each lesson plan. Dealing with developing lesson plans in topics concerning animal content, he indicated that he actually needed his students to be aware of animal extinctions in Thailand. Therefore, this objective was shown in his developed lesson plan according to the zoo-based STSE approach as the following sentence demonstrates: To promote students’ participation in campaigning regarding the enhancement of the community by being aware of the effects of science, technology, society, and environment on animal behavior. (Somchai’s lesson plan in the topic of animal behaviour: November, 2009)
174 Content of Learning
Content was viewed as dealing with daily life rather than only something for a test.
Before participating in the PD program, Somchai did not create any chances for students to learn based on their daily life experience. He heavily emphasized the preparation of students for testing. The content of learning in his teaching was similar to that which appeared in the textbook. In addition, he also added some contents that were useful for students’ entrance examinations in higher levels, as the following shows:
Somchai:
Today I bring this book to ask about the knowledge that you have learned in grade IV about rocks … Who can tell me what is put in the hydrant water for killing germs? Raise your hand!
Student:
Chlorine.
Somchai:
Chlorine. Other students listen! If I ask these questions again, you have to answer correctly. (Initial classroom observation from August 4, 2009)
During participation in the PD program, Somchai reflected on his content of learning. In the first group meeting he stated, “I did not have much appropriate integration of science content to the students’ daily lives which would relate to themselves and society.” (The first group meeting from August 15, 2009) The reasons that he did not integrate any STSE issues were revealed in the second group meeting. He actually would like to extend his contents to the STSE issues in daily life, but he was worried about the framework of scientific content provided in the National Science Curriculum. He also revealed during discussions about GMOs, in the fourth meeting, that he only mentioned what was shown in the textbook or in some reading sheets. He did not explain to his students the deep details because he did not have much knowledge of the STSE issues. After sharing ideas with an experienced teacher, regarding the STSE approach in the fifth meeting, he realized that, “The content according to the STSE approach not only has to involve scientific concepts
175 for students to remember, but also it has to relate to real-life situations or interests.� (The fifth group meeting from September 12, 2009)
With regard to the activity in second part of the PD program, Somchai designed his zoo-based STSE lesson plans in the topic of animal behavior for students in grade six. From analyzing the content of teaching in his lesson plans, his content related to teaching objectives and daily life was written at a level appropriate for the learning of students. From classroom observation, Somchai seemed to change his views and practices of the content of teaching from focusing on examination to focusing on integration and linking to students’ daily lives, as is shown below:
I asked them to use their creativity to create a cartoon book using the animals that they were interested in to be the player in their story. Interestingly, most of their stories in the cartoons related to the impact of human beings on the animals such as deforestation, hunting, or illegal selling. Therefore, I think that the 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)
Teacher smoothly connected various disciplines with content of science teaching better than before.
Before participating in the PD program, Somchai had views and practices that related to the integration of various disciplines in science subjects. However, he did not have any plans for integrating science to various disciplines even in his lesson plan. It showed that he occasionally integrated some disciplines in science subjects if he came across an appropriate point. For example, the content about the respiratory systems of vertebrate animals was linked to Mathematics, as shown below:
Somchai:
This experiment shows that when the candle stopped burning, there was some red solution that came into this glass. If I divided this glass into five parts, how many parts of red solution are there in the glass?
176 Student:
One part.
Somchai:
How many percent is one of five?
Student:
15%.
Somchai:
Look at the blackboard! If I have 100 baht, I will divide into five parts. How much is one part of the money?
Student:
20 baht.
Somchai:
I asked you how many percent is one of five? Now can you answer me?
Student:
20%. (Initial classroom observation from July 30, 2009)
In addition, Somchai also talked about English vocabulary in his class such as the word “density�. He found that there were many students did not know about the meaning of this word. He then wrote this word on the blackboard. Amazingly, when his students handed in their worksheets, he found that most of his students could not write Thai words correctly. Therefore, he had to teach them how to write these words, even though it was science class.
During participation in the PD program, Somchai designed his zoo-based STSE lesson plans in the topic of animal behavior. From analyzing the content in his lesson plans, there was evidence that showed that Somchai tried to integrate various disciplines with content of science teaching such as mathematics, arts, and social studies. From classroom observation, he practiced according his lesson plan. His students had the opportunity to explore animal behavior based on their interests and link their tasks to Mathematics as the following shows:
You have to use your data and the data of other groups, which observed other animals with the same behavior as your groups, to generate a bar graph. Try to consult in your groups to compare this animal behavior. (Third classroom observation from December 16, 2009)
Regarding linking science content to art, Somchai also asked his students to create a cartoon book related to what they have learned about animal behavior. His
177 students used their drawing and painting skills in this task. After participating in the PD program, Somchai seemed to have clear views on the aspects of content of science teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach, as is shown below:
Content of science teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach can be linked to various disciplines. For example, integration with social studies can concern the importance of animals in the community. Mathematics can relate to the quantities and percentages found in, for example, science reports. (Interview after finishing the PD program from December 22, 2009)
Teaching Activities The teacher used pictures from newspapers for promoting students’ thirst for information rather than only asking questions.
As noted previously, Somchai had never known anything about the zoo-based STSE approach. In the interview about teaching activities according to this approach, he believed that, “Perhaps teachers should use issues concerning animals such as animal extinctions or the impact of environment on animals for motivating students’ interests.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) From classroom observation, he had no issues or specific probing questions to help students to clarify what they were going to learn. Typically, he started his class with asking general questions for ten minutes. For example, in his teaching about types of chemical agents, he asked questions, checked students’ answers, and gave them extra marks as shown in the dialogue below:
Somchai:
Who can tell me what is the most abundant gas in the air?
Student:
Oxygen.
Somchai:
Incorrect!
Student:
Nitrogen.
Somchai:
Yes, nitrogen is the most abundant. What is your student number? You get two extra scores. (Initial classroom observation from August 4, 2009)
178 At the first meeting of the PD program, Somchai reflected on his activities in the lesson plan concerning animals and 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) In the fifth meeting, Somchai saw many examples of activities for introducing the lesson based on the STSE approach such as using pictures and articles in a newspaper, or setting situations to use students’ thinking, experiences, and interests to drive the lessons. Actually, Somchai himself had not learned science with this approach. Thus, his role playing as a student in the seventh meeting helped him to gradually have a positive view on using the STSE issues to drive lessons based on students’ interest.
In the second part of the PD program, Somchai was asked to develop two lesson plans based on the STSE approach. Due to experience in teaching with this approach, one lesson was designed for the topic that he would be teaching soon in animal conservation to prompt his students to learn based on the STSE approach. Another one was designed for using the zoo as a learning resource based on the STSE approach. Since his experience in the first part of the PD program, he brought ideas about using the STSE issues into his lesson plans. For example, in the lesson plan on animal conservation in a local area, he identified that he used articles in a newspaper about the illegal wildlife trade as a starting point for asking what students knew about them. In addition, he also planned to use pictures from newspapers which related the effects of science, technology, society and environment on animal behavior in teaching topics of animal behavior. The results of implementing direct instruction were not successful because many of the students kept quiet. Most students did not share ideas with each other during discussions. It took too much time to wait for their opinions. Unlike his first lesson plan, he adjusted some points of activities based on his
experience in the first lesson. In the lesson plans, designed according to the zoobased STSE approach, he provided many pictures from newspapers for the students to ask questions. Some examples included a dead group of elephants, dead animals
179 from hunting, and endangered species. In this instruction, before showing pictures from newspapers, he examined the students’ prior knowledge about reserved animals by showing pictures of them and asking questions. Thereafter, he linked students’ prior knowledge to the new knowledge by showing his students pictures of dead animals. During discussions, he led the students to focus on elephant behavior, as the dialogue below shows:
Somchai:
Have you read the current news? Elephants live in the forest, but humans continually destroy the forest which is their natural
habitat and food resource. Consequently, they do not have food to eat so they have to come out from forest to the pineapple or cane fields to find something to eat. Due to the field owner’s selfishness, he fenced his field with wire. What did he put in this wire?
Student:
Electricity.
Somchai:
Electricity in the wire! When an elephant’s trunk touches it, it will get an electric shock. What happened to it?
Student:
It died.
Somchai:
Besides, some humans bring elephants to work in city. The elephant thinks that the electrical wire is a plant. Thus, it also died from touching that wire with its tusk. (First classroom observation from December 9, 2009)
As result from his using a variety of pictures and sharing experiences, his students seemed to participate more in his lesson. After his teaching, he reflected on the lesson from his perspective as the teacher. He believed that his activities could link clearly to the interactions among science, technology, society, and the environment as the following shows: This activity can link the students’ learning to science, technology, society, and environment. In addition, the students can have clear views about these from the related STSE news that I bring to the class. (Somchai’s worksheet, November, 31, 2009)
180 The teacher encouraged student group work rather than assigning students to work individually.
Before participating in the PD program, in order to organize learning activities, he was the main person who controlled the learning process. He assigned his students to search for more information from the reading sheet which consisted of summarized lists of key concepts that the teachers wanted the students to know. Each student read the sheets without any discussion about what they had read and about the
questions on the worksheet. Interestingly, his students enthusiastically participated in completing their worksheet because he also gave extra marks to whoever finished their tasks fast in the class. He states this in the lesson on chemical agents shown below.
Come on to get this worksheet! When you get it, you read and complete it. I will give extra marks to whoever finishes it first. I will also reduce marks for the five people that finish last. (Initial classroom observation from August 4, 2009)
In the first meeting of the PD program, Somchai was asked to identify the key aspects of the activity based on educational reform. He seemed to be aware about group work. He indicated that, “The activity should involve cooperative learning.” (The first group meeting from August 15, 2009) Moreover in the second meeting, he also knew something about the characteristics of scientists’ work, namely that scientists always work as teams for finding new knowledge. In the seventh meeting, he was asked to describe what came up in his mind from doing activities according to the zoo-based STSE approach. He replied, “I think that the teacher has to allow students in each group to manage their roles and duties in tasks before taking them to the zoo. The number of students per group should be around five to six members.” (The seventh group meeting from September 22, 2009)
After Somchai had the basic knowledge about the zoo-based STSE approach in this part of the PD program, he tried to get groups to work collaboratively in the learning activity of his lesson plan. For the first lesson plan, in the topic of animal
181 conservation, he found that his students got more used to working individually than in groups. Consequently, some students still worked individually. They did not help each other in groups. Therefore, he decided to give extra points to the group that finished the task first as external motivation. The finding from this motivation showed that students in each group helped each other to do activities by discussing and exchanging their ideas. In his view, he accepted that his activities had to be improved to be suitable for his students as he stated that, “When I implemented my
lesson plan, I knew that I had to adjust some activities for a better learning experience for my students.” (Post-try out class interview from November 20, 2009) Regarding the lesson plan about animal behavior, according to the zoo-based STSE approach for students in grade six, he asked his students to set up groups for working. He gave them the freedom to organize their own groups. Each group had to select one animal that they were interested in. From the researcher’s suggestions about trying to use their internal motivation to promote group work, he tried to reduce giving extra scores and increase students’ internal motivation for group work by walking around the room to observe and guide his students about doing group work, and telling about the good aspects of good team work, as evidenced in the statements below.
When you have set up your group, write your member names in this worksheet and select one of members to be the head of the group. You have to respect the leader. If you don’t respect him, don’t select him or her ... Each group has to make a plan on how to study zoo animal behavior that interests you. I will give time for brainstorming to identify the procedures for exploration in the zoo. (First classroom observation from December 9, 2009)
Impressively, Somchai encouraged student harmony in group work towards finding the answers before leaving them to explore animal behavior based on their plan in the zoo. Importantly, he also encouraged the students to use group work in daily life more often, as the following shows:
182 Somchai:
Do not worry too much about your score. I will consider whether or not you can work with others. In the future you can choose someone to work with you, can’t you?
Student:
No, I can’t.
Somchai:
You have to try to do your activity the best you can. (Second observation from December 15, 2009)
Proudly, these practices above could be important evidence to show that Somchai changed his emphasis towards student group work rather than giving extra scores to an individual student. This is a direct result of his participation in the PD program.
The students had a chance to find the answers to their questions as a scientist rather than waiting for the teacher’s answers. As a concern about teaching activities, Somchai perceived that “the features of
the zoo-based STSE approach provide students with opportunities to collect data with scientific processes in searching for new knowledge.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) However, his students did not have any chance to use scientific
processes to search their own knowledge. For example, in his teaching about the respiratory system of vertebrate animals, he had a demonstration of an experiment concerning the quality of oxygen gas. During this teaching he always asked students questions, and gave students extra scores as shown in the dialogue below:
Somchai:
What cannot go inside the glass when I turn the glass down to cover the candle?
Student:
The air.
Somchai:
In the air, there is one kind of gas that helps the fire burn. If this gas is not present the fire will not burn. Can you tell me what this gas is?
Student:
Oxygen.
Somchai:
Oxygen. What is your student number?
183 Student:
Two. (Initial classroom observation from July 30, 2009)
With regard to utilizing this experiment, he believed that this experiment would help his students to better understand scientific concepts. In the first meeting of the PD
program, Somchai could identify the key aspects of the activity based on educational reform in that, “The activity should involve inquiry-based learning. The students should investigate what they wonder by themselves.” (The first group meeting from August 15, 2009) However in the second meeting, he revealed his confusion about
the inquiry process during an interview. He said to the scientist that, “Scientists always use experiments as an inquiry process, so for science teaching I have to set experiments for my students, don’t I?” (The second group meeting, August 18, 2009) After sharing ideas, the data from his worksheet showed that he knew that the students had to participate in planning, doing, and analyzing for their experiments. In addition, he learned that observation is a method of scientific inquiry.
Regarding the lesson plan about animal behavior, according to the zoo-based STSE approach, Somchai gave his students more chances to do activities. He gave the prepared worksheet that had the questions to frame the students’ ideas for planning the exploration of animal behavior in the zoo. From classroom observation, when all groups of students finished their planning, Somchai asked the representative of each group to present their planning results. Using his developing perceptions about the role of the teachers, according to the zoo-based STSE approach, he did not tell them directly how to adjust their plans in a better way. Instead he used questions to guide their thinking. However, if the representative could not answer questions, he would ask someone in the groups to help out, as the dialogue below shows:
Somchai:
Well, give him applause. Every group, listen to him. Okay, start!
Student1:
Good morning, my name is [student name]. I will present about albino barking deer behavior in the zoo. Our group is interested in eating, sleeping, walking, and reproductive behavior of the albino barking deer.
184 Somchai:
Can you explain to me more about the process for observation such as eating behavior?
Student1:
‌
Somchai:
Who in this group will help him explain?
Student2:
We will observe it when it is eating and jot down how it eats.
Somchai:
Perhaps you will have to observe it every five or ten minutes to see how often it shows this behavior. (First classroom observation from December 9, 2009)
During the excursion, Somchai encouraged students to explore animal behavior based on their plan in the zoo. In the follow up activities in the classroom, he asked each group of students to use the collected data to make a bar chart of their animals expressed behaviors. His students could talk, exchange ideas and help each other. When Somchai asked each group to present their work based on their questions, they helped each other by explaining their findings about animal behavior in the zoo to their friends. After his teaching, Somchai described the advantages of the zoo-based STSE lesson, as illustrated in his comment below:
This 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. (Postexcursion interview from December 15, 2009)
The teacher changed his role from knowledge checker to become more of a learning facilitator.
Due to the activities according to the zoo-based STSE approach, Somchai thought that “students can learn with scientific methods and see the linking relationships. The teacher has to facilitate them if they have any problems that they cannot deal with. � (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) In classroom observations, he frequently asked the representatives of each student group to present results from doing the activities. His role was only to check whether or not their work was correct before they handed in their worksheets. Students passively obtained knowledge from
185 him by listening to and answering his questions, as evidenced during his
conversation with students regarding respiratory systems of vertebrate animals (see below).
Student:
Good morning everybody, I am the representative of the first group to present about the classification of animals using respiration systems. Some animals that use lungs for respiration are birds, tigers, and humans. Animals using gills for respiration include fish, frogs, and shrimp. Some animals that use their skin for respiration are frogs and toads.
Somchai:
What does the frog use for respiration?
Student:
Skin
Somchai:
Skin and lung. You cannot tell me that frogs use gills for respiration? You have to tell what they use?
Student:
Tadpole
Somchai:
Well, please give a big hand to him. (Initial classroom observation from July 30, 2009)
The above data also showed that the conclusion was formulated based on data obtained from teacher-led discussion. After class Somchai reflected that, “My students did not have much prior knowledge as well as lack of presentation skills. The way to cope with this problem is that the teacher has to explain more about the scientific concepts.� (Informal interview from August 4, 2009) This view could be important evidence to show that he put his emphasis on student content knowledge.
While Somchai attended the PD program, he seemed to be worried about how much time that a teacher had to spend on activities. He also recognized that his students did not get used to learning by the STSE approach because they always received the knowledge from the teacher. However, he learned about the potential of students to summarize their own knowledge during participation in the PD program. Therefore, he tried to be a good facilitator. In particular, he changed his role to use the questions for guiding his students to present their findings rather than giving them knowledge, as seen in the following dialogue:
186 Somchai:
What animal did this group observe the behavior of yesterday?
Student:
Fresh water crocodile.
Somchai:
What behaviors of the crocodile did you observe?
Student:
Movement.
Somchai:
How often did you observe?
Student:
Every five minutes.
Somchai:
Well, tell me your data.
Student:
Five minutes: two times, ten minutes: four times, fifteen minutes: one time, twenty minutes: no movement. (Third classroom observation from December 16, 2009)
Somchai also asked his students to use their collected data to generate bar graphs for comparing animal behavior. For conclusion of the findings, he asked a representative from each group to present their ideas to the whole class. Actually, he also attempted to assist his students to elaborate on their main ideas by asking questions. After teaching, he seemed to increase his understanding about the role of being a learning facilitator, as illustrated in his comments below:
Generating bar graphs for comparisons of animal behavior can promote students to learn from analyzing data and having discussions about animal behavior by themselves. However, there were some students who did not know why I asked them to make the bar graphs. Therefore, I have to facilitate them by asking questions about their own emerging ideas. (Post-class interview from December 16, 2009)
The teacher linked the students’ knowledge to daily life to be more concerned with the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment.
Before participation in the PD program, Somchai hardly made any links with his lessons to the students’ daily lives. Moreover, his talking seemed to be the easiest way for this connection. For example, he indicated in his lesson plan on chemical agents, that he would bring some chemical products to investigate students’ prior knowledge, and relate them to the lesson. In practice he did not prepare any of them. He
187 only talked to his students about chemical agents that could be found in daily life.
Furthermore, he did not enhance students to think or share ideas that could be linked to their daily lives when they finished their tasks on the worksheet. This is shown below:
Somchai:
I want you to tell me how many types of chemical agents there are?
Student:
Four types.
Somchai:
Well, what is the first type?
Student:
Food additives.
Somchai:
Can you give me any examples of the first type of chemical agent?
Student:
Fish sauce, sugar, vinegar, salt, and monosodium glutamate. (Initial classroom observation from August 4, 2009)
During participation in the PD program, Somchai accepted that he did not link much scientific content to students’ daily lives. Therefore his role playing as a student seemed to help him to gradually have a positive view on linking of scientific knowledge to daily life with the zoo-based STSE approach. After his role playing, it seemed that this view was growing, as is shown below:
I have a clear view on how to link science concepts to daily life. There were pictures from newspapers related to the effects of using science and technology in society and environment. Students can become aware of taking care of the environment. This demonstration lesson causes me to improve my lesson plans. (The seventh meeting journal, October 3, 2009)
As a result of his developing views on the application of scientific knowledge to daily life, Somchai designed his zoo-based STSE lesson where his students had to create cartoon books for sharing their knowledge about animal behavior to others. With this cartoon book, his aim was to link students’ knowledge about animal behavior with students’ daily lives in order to help them think about how to apply acquired knowledge to explain the current situations. From classroom observation,
188 he provided much time for group planning. Finally, he also found that it was a challenge to enhance his students to take action in sharing what they learned with others as his following statements show:
For the process of working, when they had problems they always worked together for finding the solutions. If they could not solve their problem, I would make a suggestion for them. For the progress of their work, I often asked them about their work. If I did not pay attention on their tasks, they would not finish them on time. Their cartoons also were shown in an exhibition of the school and were kept in the book shelf of the classroom for whoever wanted to read them. (Interview after finishing the PD program from January 31, 2010)
Using Learning Resources
The zoo was considered as a learning resource to promote student learning in animal content instead of mainly using textbooks and reading sheets.
After initially attending the PD program Somchai had positive views about using learning resources. He said that “the teacher can use some resources both inside and outside the classroom for linking to classroom activities. Firstly, we have to consider the science curriculum for linking the related topics to the zoo excursion.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) In addition, he had views regarding using the
zoo also for promoting students’ awareness of wildlife conservation, as he expressed that, “Taking students to the zoo allows the students to know how these animals look, behave, and live in the world. Moreover, the students can learn the current number of these animals alive now compared to the past. This data will guide them in future conservation.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) In practice, Somchai indicated, in his lesson plan on the respiratory systems of
vertebrate animals, about using the learning resources outside the classroom such as pools, gardens, aquariums, and lawns for students to explore animals. However, he did not use these resources for student learning because of the limitations of the school area.
189 On the other hand, when he t aught about the animal life cycle, he asked his students to bring tadpoles and butterflies to the classroom for student observation and discussion
about what these animals were. However, his students did not bring them to class because of a lack of tadpoles and butterfly larva at the time of teaching, so he used pictures of them instead. Actually, he used books and reading sheets as a learning resource. He seems to believe that students absorb knowledge from reading sheets
and doing exercises. He typically asked students to use their textbooks to find the answers to complete their worksheets. Moreover, he tried to promote students to read the reading sheets. After his students finished reading, he asked questions about what they had read in order to check their understanding, as the dialogue below shows:
Somchai:
[Student name], tell me how many types of chemical agents there are?
Student:
Four.
Somchai:
Well, sit down! In this [reading] sheet, there are four types of chemical agents. (Initial classroom observation from August 4, 2009)
During discussion in the first meeting Somchai thought that, “Using a local learning resource is feasible in my science teaching for promoting students’ direct experience. I believed that my students would learn from the real objects and increase their long term memory on science content.� (The first group meeting from August 15, 2009) On the other hand, he also pointed out that the knowledge and
experience of people in local areas could be shared with students in the classroom. Nevertheless, he did not think that all science content could warrant them to be invited into the classroom as his statement below shows:
It is indicated in the National Education Act that not only the teacher can enhance students to get knowledge, but the local people or their parents also can. It is difficult to do with some content, but in some the teacher can invite them. Therefore, the teacher cannot invite them for all content. (The first group meeting from August 15, 2009)
190 From his reflection on the school excursion project to the zoo, while doing activities in the sixth meeting about using the zoo as a learning resource, Somchai viewed that, “The objectives of the school excursion project to the zoo were to promote students to learn about animals. It is better than seeing only pictures of animals in the textbook. From seeing the real animals, they can learn from observations, asking questions, or having discussions with the zoo curators about why flamingo birds always stand on one leg to sleep.” (The sixth group meeting from September 19, 2009) After Somchai discussed about using the zoo as a learning resource with the zoo curator, his views seemed to increase about the process of using the zoo as a learning resource. This is shown as follows:
The steps of using the zoo as a learning resource start from the study of the curriculum, survey of the zoo, design of activities that can link knowledge in the zoo to the classroom, developing media and teaching aids, and taking students to the zoo. (Somchai’s worksheet, September, 19, 2009)
Finally, Somchai decided to develop his lesson plan in the topic of animal behavior with having a one day trip to the zoo for students in grade six. In his lessons he assigned each group of students to select the most interesting animal in the zoo, and to observe its behavior based on students’ questions. Students had to record its behavior every five minutes for total of twenty minutes. From his reflections on his lesson plan, he thought that “my lesson plan designed activities differently from my general lesson plans because there was some linking of learning inside and outside the classroom. However, the success of implementation also involved good organization during the excursion.” (The meeting in the second part of the PD program from October 13, 2009)
191 The teacher provided more learning autonomy for students while doing activities at the zoo instead of neglecting learning opportunities for linking to learning in the classroom. Regarding the use of a local learning resource, Somchai accepted that, “I seldom used the zoo as learning resource for linking to scientific content due to the limitation of time. When I teach about animals, I always ask my students to view the pictures in the textbook or the reading sheet. However, if they have a chance to go to the zoo, they will recognize it.” (The second group meeting, August 18, 2009) The school where Somchai taught had a project to take students to a zoo in Bangkok. He had his view for linking of knowledge from the excursion to learning in the classroom in many topics as when he mentioned that, “Students might learn about types of vertebrate animals such as mammals, avis, and reptiles. If they can classify them, we will further focus on animal behavior”. (Initial interview from June 30, 2009)
Inconsistent with his views, his role during the excursion was as supervisor. He only looked after and controlled his students’ behavior as Maree did. Somchai did not make any links of student experience in the zoo to classroom activities. After the excursion, he tried to discuss with his students about their feelings, and what the students found in the zoo.
While participating in the PD program, he complained about the activities in the textbook during a discussion in the second meeting. He said that they did not provide students with autonomy and were difficult to follow because of the lack of available scientific equipment. He dealt with this problem by using some local resources in or around his school. For using the zoo as part of his zoo-based STSE lesson, he had the responsibility to take his students to the zoo at the same time as Maree. It took about fifteen minutes to walk from school to the zoo. When they arrived to the zoo, he separated his grade six students, who were studying about animal behavior, to do activities according to his lesson plan. Before leaving the students to do activities according their plan, he told them the schedule, expected behavior, and about when and where they would meet after finishing their
192 explorations. He also aided students to review the tasks and provided time for each group of students to brainstorm. His statement below shows this: You have got this worksheet, haven’t you? From doing activities in the classroom, you have already selected your animal of interest and have written the reason for selecting this animal to study. Today your group has to find your animal, explore its behavior, and implement your plan for data collection. You have one hour to observe the animals. Now I will give you a couple of minutes for talking in your groups before you start your exploration. (Second observation from December 15, 2009)
During the excursion in the zoo, he looked after his students, aided them in gathering data, and gave them guiding questions as they explored. The following dialogue shows this:
Somchai:
What animal are you going to explore?
Student:
Elephant.
Somchai:
What elephant behaviors are you interested in?
Student:
Making sounds.
Somchai:
How does an elephant sound?
Student:
Phan phan.
Somchai:
From your observation, tell me about elephant sounds?
Student:
It makes not much sound. (Second observation from December 15, 2009)
When some groups of students finished exploring animals before the appointed time, they had free time to explore others animals or do whatever they wanted. He found that his students had a lot of questions about the behavior of some animals they had never seen before. Therefore, he always encouraged them to find answers from a variety of media in the zoo such as displayed information, the zoo curator, video, booklets, and brochures. After that he took his students back to the whole group of students to watch the elephant show. They ended the excursion with
193 having lunch before taking students back to school. After the trip, Somchai showed his positive views on using the zoo as learning resource as follows:
The school does not have a learning resource like this. In traditional styles of learning, the students always learn in the classroom by receiving knowledge from the teacher. The students have to believe all that the teacher tells them. By taking students to the zoo, students can see and touch real animals. (Post-excursion interview from December 15, 2009)
Learning Assessment
Teacher assessed student learning not only on scientific content knowledge but on all students’ achievement domains, including students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment.
From the initial interview, Somchai had his own views on assessing student
learning according to the zoo-based STSE approach which focused only on content knowledge. He stated that “the teacher can examine the student learning by asking questions. If when asking students what kind of animal an elephant is and they answer that it is mammal, then that shows their correct understanding.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009) The data from his lesson plans revealed that Somchai’s
planning was consistent with his views. From classroom observation, the findings showed that Somchai usually asked his students questions about what they were learning in order to examine their understanding. This is evidenced in his teaching about the respiratory systems of vertebrate animals, and is shown below: Somchai:
What do humans use for respiration?
Student:
Lungs.
Somchai:
Respiration with lungs. Fish living in the water use…?
Student:
Gills. (Initial classroom observation from July 30, 2009)
194 In addition, in his teaching in the topic of types of chemical agents, Somchai examined students’ learning from the work that the students handed in at the end of class. He also had multiple choice tests when they finished the lesson.
At the first meeting in the PD program, Somchai had more ideas about assessment for teaching and learning activities from his analysis of the National
Education Act and the National Science Curriculum Standard. As a result from doing this activity, he came to realize the importance of assessing students’ learning in all domains. This understanding of assessment was brought into his developed lesson plan according the zoo-based STSE approach. In his lesson plan, the data showed that he indicated that there were assessment methods of the students’ learning which covered all three aspects: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains.
From classroom observation, he changed his practice about assessing student
cognitive domain. He used to focus on the student answers but this time he also focused on asking his students how to find the answers, as the dialogue below shows:
Somchai:
This animal in third picture looks similar to the rhino, but it is not. What is it?
Student:
Tapir, isn’t it?
Somchai:
Nope, there are a lot of students who don’t know. Mark it, go searching, and tell me later!
Student:
Where will I search?
Somchai:
Where do you think?
Student:
Internet.
Somchai:
Not only internet, you can ask one who knows. (First classroom observation from December 9, 2009)
Regarding the assessment of students’ scientific process skills, he observed group work skills in the classroom as well as an exploration of animal behavior in the zoo. After his teaching practice, students also had chance to evaluate their work and
others. His students seemed to be excited because they rarely had a chance to evaluate their own work or other’s work before. For affective domain, he assessed the
195 students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment by asking students to create cartoon books about the effects of science, technology, society, and environment on current animal behavior. These cartoon books were shown by the students on parent day to share their ideas with others. In addition, Somchai also observed students’ interests and attention in his teaching. When the students did activities in the zoo, he informally asked his students their opinions about doing activities in the zoo. After they finished the excursion, he also asked his students to write their opinions in their worksheets. He found that many students were happy and had fun studying in the zoo, but some of them were tired because the weather was too hot, as follows:
I asked my students for their opinions about the zoo field trip. They told me that they were happy to learn about animals in the zoo. They got knowledge and they had fun. However, some students did not like this field trip. They felt very tired from the hot weather. (Post-excursion interview from December 15, 2009)
The teacher used various methods to assess student learning and provided students with chances to assess their own learning.
Before participation in the PD program, Somchai did not have views on giving his students a chance to assess their own learning. He stated that, “The teacher is the important person in assessing the students’ learning. There are many assessing methods such as asking questions, doing exercises, or observations.” (Initial interview from June 30, 2009)
At the first meeting in the PD program, Somchai had more ideas about learning assessment. He accepted that, “My learning assessment in this lesson plan was not
done to include various methods and situations.” (The first group meeting from August 15, 2009) Additionally, Somchai came to realize the importance of assessing students’ learning using various methods after he attended the fifth meeting. He explained that, “For assessment according to the STSE approach, there must be use of various methods
196 and not only tests or student assignments, but also observations, presentations, student self-evaluations and others.� (The fifth group meeting from September 12, 2009) This understanding of learning assessment was brought into his developed lesson plan according the zoo-based STSE approach. In his lesson plan, the data showed that he indicated that there were various methods such as observation, questioning, exercises,
and student evaluation for assessment of the students’ learning. In addition, formative and summative assessment methods were used in assessing student learning outcomes. From classroom observation, these assessment methods were employed in various ways. For assessment of student cognitive domain, he assessed these learning
outcomes during lessons in classroom and at the zoo from observing students answer questions and from examining their worksheets. Regarding the assessment of the students’ process skills, he observed group work skills during work in the classroom as well as exploration of animal behavior in the zoo. Typically, while students were
working on their tasks in the classroom, he walked around the room to view all groups. When students explored animal behavior in the zoo, he also walked from group to group. In providing students with a chance to assess their own group work skills, he informed students of the criteria for evaluation of their group work, as his statement below shows. I have criteria for you to evaluate yourself and your friends about helping in groups. If you have more participation, you will get five points. If you have lower participation, you might get four, three, two, or one point based on your interaction in groups. (First classroom observation from December 9, 2009) For affective domain, he observed how much his students paid attention in the
activities. He also walked around the class to observe that students were talking and consulting together. He also used cartoon books created by the students to assess their awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment on current animal behavior.
197 After his teaching, he stated that, “I have to have a clear goal before I observe my students. I do not observe all of them but I view most of them.” (Post-class interview from December 9, 2009) Therefore, these views and practices above could be
important evidence to show that he used more methods to assess student learning than before.
Students got more benefit from the zoo-based STSE approach than from his old style of teaching.
After his teaching practice, Somchai noted that his students obtained a lot of benefits from teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach. He explained that,
“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) Regarding the excursion 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.
Proudly, Somchai learned about the zoo-based STSE approach from some suggestions of the researcher and his direct experience in teaching. After he participated in the PD program, he obtained an understanding of the basic knowledge of the STSE approach. In addition, he also perceived the benefits of this teaching approach for his students. Therefore, he intended to continue using the zoo-based STSE approach in his future teaching, as the following demonstrates.
Participation in this program makes me know how to teach science based on the STSE approach which links to science, technology, society, and environment. My students like to learn with this approach. They told me that they had never learned with this approach before … this approach lets them find the answers by themselves. I will further use this approach in my teaching. (Interview after finishing the PD program from December 22, 2009)
198 Somchai moved back to work at his hometown in Sisaket province in the academic year of 2010. In his new school, there were only six teachers. This school
had never had a science teacher before. He was the only teacher there who teaches science. In his science teaching, Somchai revealed that he still used the STSE approach, as he states below:
This semester I will also use the STSE approach in my teaching. I have activities that link to students’ existing everyday lives, not only in parts related to themselves, but also in parts about the effects of science, technology, society, and environment on plants. My students can offer appropriate ways to solve these problems. (Interview after finishing the PD program from June 20, 2010) The Factors that Affected Somchai’s Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach
There were seven major factors, which had the potential to influence Somchai’s views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. Most of these factors were the same as Maree’s. They included the teacher’s academic background and experience of teaching, teacher’s characteristics, the limits of time, students’ learning styles, school administrators’ support, students’ entrance examinations, and media in the zoo. Teacher’s academic knowledge and experience of teaching Before participating in the PD program, Somchai always focused on content knowledge but did not focus on content related to STSE issues. He seemed to lack experiences in teaching concerning the promotion of the students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment. He also accepted that he was familiar with teaching by lecturing because of his study for a bachelor’s degree. This is similar to Maree’s experience and is shown as follows.
199 At the undergraduate level, I had to learn at the Faculty of Science where we focused more on science concepts than on teaching strategies. Therefore, I am good in concepts. (Informal interview from August 4, 2009)
In addition, Somchai did not know much about the objectives of science teaching according to the educational reform. He seemed to use the textbook as his manual of teaching. He revealed that he created a lesson plan which did not follow the Thai educational reform because his academic background did not concern much on knowledge about educational reform. However, he developed his understanding about the objective of science teaching from discussion with a science educator and the researcher. This was similar with Maree. His statements about this are shown below:
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)
Due to his lack of experience in the STSE instruction, he was confronted with the difficulty of controlling the time for teaching and his activities. This problem did not lead his students to his teaching goals. However, he learned by himself how to adjust his zoo-based STSE lessons to the nature of his students’ learning styles, as the following shows:
Because I did not have experience in science teaching based on the zoobased STSE approach I used much time in my teaching. With knowledge and experience, I learned that I have to make a good plan before teaching. … When I implemented my lesson plan, I knew that I had to adjust some activities for the best learning of my students. (Post-tried out class interview from November 20, 2009)
200 Teacher’s characteristics
Somchai was an inactive person. From classroom observation, before participating in the PD program, he rarely prepared his teaching. He always taught according to textbook or worksheet. His students always received content knowledge by lecturing. However, he focused on external motivation for his students’ attention in his lesson. That was the same as his motivation to participate in this program. Besides his motivation to receive some new experience of teaching, he also needed to get a certificate from the PD program. About this he says:
I agree to participate in this program because I want to receive new experiences to help me design learning activities. I also want to learn how to design science lessons that can be linked to the use of the zoo as a learning resource. When I finish this program, I get a certificate of this PD program, don’t I? If I get it, I will write it on my profile (Initial interview from June 30, 2009).
His characteristics were also expressed during participation in the PD program. He always kept quiet and rarely shared his ideas. However, when discussions occurred in the topics that he was interested, he had more participation. To deal with this characteristic, the researcher motivated him to share ideas by asking him directly about discussing topics. His response was good. Fortunately, Maree also encouraged him to discuss as well.
After he got knowledge about teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach, he seemed to be more active as the result of his awareness on the benefit of using this approach with his students. He was eager to search pictures about STSE issues to link to his lesson. Moreover, he always sent his drafts of his zoo-based STSE lesson in the topic of animal behavior to the researcher to receive some suggestions. In his practice, he provided his students with many pictures about animal issues and prepared questions that led to further activities. He tried to motivate his students to work in groups and share their ideas in various ways. He
201 also asked questions, gave extra scores, walked around the classroom, and observed students doing activities in the zoo. These details were supported with his statement below. I searched these pictures to motivate my students’ discussion about the effects of science, technology, society and environment on these animals’ behavior. I tried to be a learning facilitator who motivates them to do activities so they could construct their own knowledge because I sincerely wanted my students get the most benefit from my lesson (Interview after finishing the PD program from December 22, 2009).
The limits of time
Before participating in the PD program, Somchai rarely had any problems about the limitations of time because he used the lecturing technique. In addition, he had enough time to provide his students with questions for review of the content that the students used to learn. His statements about this are shown below. 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. I always finished my class with asking questions. I think that it is a good way to review what they have learned. (Informal interview from July 21, 2009)
As the result of exchanging experience with the teacher, who was an expert in teaching according to the STSE approach during participating in the PD program, Somchai learned how to be a good facilitator to enhance the student learning according to the zoo-based STSE approach. Eventually, he brought this idea to his classroom. Firstly, he started his class with sharing ideas about STSE issues related to the content of teaching. He took a long time to wait for his students to express their ideas. He seemed to feel terrible about this. Therefore, he decided to use extra scores to motivate them to answer. He found that this motivation made his students share more ideas.
202 However, he found that learning with the zoo-based STSE approach did not occur only in the classroom. He also promoted his students to search for some information related to the teaching content before discussing it in the class. Moreover, he himself also prepared many questions about teaching content, and promoted them to brainstorm and work in groups. These measures saved his time for discussion and making conclusions so much. He mentions these below:
I dealt with the limit of time by promoting them to search related information before doing the activity in the classroom. Therefore, they increased their thinking and sharing of ideas concerning the STSE issues both in groups and with me. (Informal interview from December 16, 2009) Students’ learning styles
After Somchai tried out his teaching according to the STSE approach, he thought that his students would get used to the teaching style in which teachers lead the lesson. Initially, they would keep quiet and not share any ideas about STSE issues. Somchai then thought that his students did not have enough knowledge about those issues. With his experience of teaching, he seemed to understand his students’ learning styles in that they need extra marks as learning motivation. Therefore, he combined his old style of teaching, that used the asking questions technique and giving extra marks to whoever answered correctly in class to the new style of teaching, with the STSE approach. It was successful for his students in motivating their interests as the following statement shows.
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%. Asking questions may enhance the students’ attraction most for doing further smooth activities. (Post-tried out class interview from November 20, 2009)
203 In fact, his motivation was only external motivation, but it worked out. His students were eager to express their ideas. He also was pleased with their greater participation. However, the data from observations showed that Somchai seemed to reduce his role for more student autonomy. In using the zoo as a learning resource, Somchai had viewed that the senior students of this school did not want to go to the zoo because they have already gone to the zoo quite often. Therefore, he had to develop activities related to students’ needs or interests. If his students get used to science teaching based on the STSE approach, using the zoo as a learning resource will not use so much time. The following passage indicates this. The senior students did not want to go to the zoo. … Their parents can take them to the zoo or they can go there by themselves because the zoo is very close to the school. … For teaching, if the students are familiar with this teaching style, they will know what to do and how to think for finding the answers, so the process of learning will be faster. (The seventh group meeting from September 22, 2009) School administrators’ supports When Somchai was asked about the administrators’ views on the possibility of science teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach, he responded that they agreed with his teaching based on the STSE approach and using the zoo as a local resource for student learning. They permitted Somchai to participate in the PD program, adjusted his teaching schedule, and provided the place for doing activities in their school.
For setting the zoo field trip, the school typically got funding from the Bangkok Metropolitan for outside classroom learning. They managed the budget for the entrance fee, transportation, and food. Furthermore, they assigned other teachers who did not have classes to help Somchai supervise his students during the trip. Therefore, he did not have any difficulties about management of the zoo field trip, as is shown on his statement below.
204 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) Students’ entrance examinations
Due to the grade level of students, Somchai selected the students of grade six to study according to the zoo-based STSE approach. Commonly, the students in this level were preparing to study at higher levels. The school administrators seemed to worry about their entrance examination tests. This was the reason why his teaching always emphasized content knowledge before he participated in the PD program. Fortunately, the school administrators also realized the importance of scientific process skills and scientific attitudes. When they perceived the objective of teaching, according to this approach, they did not hesitate to permit their teachers to participate in this PD program. Consequently, Somchai planned and implemented zoo-based STSE lessons in the easy way. However, they set a special class for tutoring the students. He also had the responsibility to teach that class as the following statement shows.
My school administrators expect our students to enter into the secondary school in greater numbers than last year. However, they opened their mind to let me teach according to the zoo-based STSE approach. 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)
Media in the zoo
Before participating in the PD program, when Somchai taught on the topic of animal life cycle, he intended to bring real specimens such as tadpoles or butterflies
205 to the classroom for the students to observe. Unfortunately, there were no tadpoles and butterfly larva at the time of teaching, so he used pictures of them for teaching instead of using the real specimens. When the researcher asked him to use the zoo as a learning resource, he agreed immediately. 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 below indicates.
Taking students to the zoo makes the students 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, Somchai was worried about using media in the zoo to promote student learning. He mentioned that his school was more appropriate for using the zoo as a learning resource than other schools because the school was near the zoo. The teachers in this school often took students to the zoo by walking there. They knew how to manage a safe trip. He also pointed out that he could link using technology to animal living habitats to discuss about teaching content related to animal behavior. However, he thought that the students might be bored to do activities in the zoo because they went to the zoo quite often. Moreover, he thought that teachers had to survey media in the zoo before designing a lesson plan because only some scientific content could link to media provided in the zoo. He revealed the limit of using the zoo as learning resource as follows: Some animals did not behave as in nature ‌ the zoo does not have all kinds of animals. For example, when I want to teach about reserved animals, there are some reserved animals here such as the Marbled cat, Malayan tapir, Sarus crane, Fea’s barking deer, and the Serow. Therefore, teachers who want to plan their lessons 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)
206 Common Findings and Discussions
I would like to illustrate the changes in the views and teaching practices of the two teachers over the PD program and the factors that constrained or facilitated the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. The findings across them were categorized into themes from a cross-cased analysis. The themes for these changes are presented below. The Changes of the Elementary Science Teachers’ Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach and the Influence of the PD Program
Objectives of Teaching 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 in their lesson plans. Moreover, they did not even know that enhancing the students’ awareness on the interactions among science, technology, society and environment is one of the teaching objectives according to National Education Act and the Manual of Science Learning Management under the Basic Education Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008). This finding is 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. Pedretti (1996) pointed out that during teaching students should be encouraged to critique science and technology issues, and raise awareness of societal and political forces for the development of science and technology.
However, during participation in the PD program, they gradually developed their views on enhancing students’ achievement including cognitive, psychomotor,
207 and affective domains. Moreover, they also mentioned about enhancing the students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment in their lesson plans as a goal of science teaching. Therefore, these views and practices are in line with the goals of science education, which is to understand the nature of scientific knowledge, technology, and the relationship between science, technology, and society (IPST, 2002a). Moreover, it relates to the aims 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).
Content of Learning
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, they perceived that the content of learning, according to the zoo-based STSE teaching approach, focused on the environment. This finding is similar to that of Chin (2000) who found that the teacher understood that the letter “E” in the STSE approach represented only environmental issues in society, and was only used to help students understand ecological concepts in Biology. However, the content in their lesson plans did not concern much on real life and local areas, as well as students’ interest, because they lacked the necessary knowledge about STSE issues. This is similar to the findings as found in Tedman’s (2005) research.
While participating in the PD program, they had views and practices on content of learning that were more concerned with the National Education Act in that it has to relate integration of scientific knowledge and skills, as well as knowledge, understanding and experience in management, conservation, and the utilization of natural resources and the environment in a balanced and sustainable manner depending on the appropriateness of each level of education (ONEC, 2003). In addition, they also had views and practices on content of learning more concerned
208 with the STS[E] approach in that science content is more than concepts which only exist for students to master on tests (NSTA, 1993).
Teaching Activities
Teachers used STSE issues related to teaching content for motivating students’ interests.
Before participating 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. Tedman (2005) argued that it is essential to use STSE issues in teaching activities to promote science concepts that are related to society in order to prepare students to become effective citizens in the future. At the beginning of the class period, they were more likely to focus on reviewing the content that students had learned in the last periods. Differently, learning activities based on the STS[E] approach did not focus on science concepts that have been discovered from scientists, but instead focused on science concepts that occurred in everyday life (Aikenhead, 1992; NSTA, 1993; Blunck and Yager, 1996; McShane and Yager, 1996).
As a result of the PD program, they recognized the benefits of using STSE issues to promote the development of scientifically and technologically literate citizens from the students’ taking action on real issues. Consequently, they agreed to use media such as pictures related to STSE issues to motivate student interest as part of their lessons. Therefore, their practices were similar with the approach taken by STS[E] teachers which provided opportunities for students to critique science and technology issues, and raise awareness of societal and political forces for the development of science and technology relating to ethics and moral reasoning, in order to connect science and values (Pedretti, 2003).
209 Teachers changed their roles from the information provider to a facilitator for students’ inquiry of knowledge as scientists.
Before participating in the PD program, both of them had views that 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 (Yager, 1996). However, from their initial practices, they acted as a transmitter of information by lecturing and asking questions to fulfill science concepts. The findings clearly showed that some of the teachers’ views and practices were not consistent. For doing experimental activities, the teachers played the role of teller to frame the students to do the experiment. Their students did not have a chance to design their own investigations. Although they assigned their students to work in groups, the characteristic of their tasks could be completed by individuals not working collaboratively. These teachers’ practices supported the claim that “the educational system places too much emphasis on technical knowledge and not enough on knowledge that helps students become knowledgeable and qualified citizens.” (Pillay, 2002).
As the PD program progressed, their views developed from their initial views as well as their practices changed from existing practices. For their developed views, both teachers agreed that students should learn science through hands-on and mindon activities based on inquiry processes. For practice, they allowed students to work in groups for planning, observing, note taking, and summarizing data together without constant teacher monitoring. They tried to promote the students to work with internal motivation, such as student’s curiosity, rather than extra scores and tried to motivate their students to work together in groups. During student work, both in the classroom and in the zoo, they always walked around to observe and guide their students while doing activities. These views and practices were concerned with the same features of STS[E] instruction in that 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, and both male and female students have equal roles in science teaching and learning. They can work collaboratively for
210 finding their own problem solutions (Aikenhead, 1992; Blunck and Yager, 1996; McShane and Yager, 1996; Yutakom, 1997; NSTA, 1993; Tsai, 1999).
Teachers somewhat led the presentations, discussions and conclusions, but had some links of what is learned to daily life more concerned with the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment.
Before participation in the PD program, they had their views and practices in didactic ways. They typically asked the representatives of each group to present their findings of their assignments. However, Maree’s students rarely expressed their opinions and conclusions of their learning together. The teachers always asked them questions to shape the key concepts from the learning activities. The role of students was only to answer the teachers’ questions and write down these concepts in their notebooks. They seldom set any situations for the students’ application of scientific knowledge to their daily life. This view was different from STS[E] teachers that provide adequate time for reflection and analysis on their work before presenting the teachers’ ideas. In addition, teachers also encourage students to challenge each other’s conceptualizations and ideas and extend frameworks of science teaching and learning to outside the lesson, the classroom, or the school in order to prepare reasonable and potential citizens for the future (NSTA, 1993; Yutakom, 1997; Pedretti, 2003).
Regarding their changes of views and practices on teaching, there were many important activities in the PD program to make the teachers become aware of social negotiation and taking action in real situations. Consequently, they changed some parts of their views and practices. They tried to reduce their roles about concluding the scientific concept with students. This finding supported the suggestion that for effective and successful STS[E] teaching it is important for teachers to have opportunities to observe and try activities which include STSE issues in their own classrooms (Lumpe et al., 1998). Most importantly, they did not forget to link some points of their knowledge to daily life. This practice involved the feature of the STS[E] approach which promotes students to make their own decisions about daily
211 situations in personal and political dimensions at local, provincial, and national levels (Akker, 1998; Pedretti et al., 2006).
Using Learning Resources
Teachers used the zoo as a learning resource more effectively to promote student learning.
Initially both of the teachers viewed that learning resources, both in and outside school, could promote student learning. In practice, they mainly used textbooks or themselves as learning resources to focus on scientific knowledge. Therefore, their practices did not relate to teaching based on the STS[E] approach, whereby teachers always use resources from outside the classroom (McShane and Yager, 1996; Yutakom, 1997; Pedretti, 2003) in order to consider the long-term needs of humanity with respect to environmental sustainability (NSTA, 1993; Pedretti, 1996, 2003). Although their schools had many excursions to promote learning outside classroom, they were not aware about using the benefit of students’ experience, from that informal setting, for the learning activities in the classroom. To support these practices, Griffin (2007: 37) found that many teachers had not emphasized the student learning processes and knowledge that students would get from outside classroom trips.
Due to their clear views on the positive results in using learning resources such as the zoo, they developed more purposeful and linked 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. 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.
212 Learning Assessment
Teachers used various methods to assess student learning in all domains including awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment and application of knowledge in daily life.
Before participating in the PD program, they had views and practices that attempted to assess their students’ learning in cognitive domains by mainly using questions, examining exercises, and observations. At the end of semester, they mainly used multiple-choice exams to examine the students’ understanding of the scientific concepts. 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 just for the purposes of grading students (Solomon, 1994: 148).
While participating in the PD program, they began to assess student learning which concentrated on not only cognitive and psychomotor domains but also affective domains concerning the awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment, and being good citizens. In practice, they always asked questions as formative assessment during class to examine student understanding, walked around the classroom and the zoo to observe group work and the sharing of ideas. They also gave chances to their students to evaluate their group work. 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 based on the STS[E] approach, not only by the teachers but also by the students (Yutakom, 1999). As results of implementation of zoo-based STSE lessons, both of the cases found that their students had developed in all domains of student achievement. This is the same as the outcomes that were
213 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 (Aikenhead, 1992; Sakdiyakorn, 1998; Jeteh and Portjanatanti, 2005; 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. The Factors that Affected the Elementary Science Teachers’ Views and Practices of the Zoo-Based STSE Approach
There were seven major 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 experience of teaching, teachers’ characteristics, the limits of time, students’ learning styles, school administrators’ support, students’ entrance examinations, and media in the zoo. The in-depth details of each factor are provided below.
Teachers’ academic background and experience of teaching
Before participating in the PD program, both of these two cases did not know much about the National Education Act. Their teaching styles typically were concerned with undergraduate knowledge. This has been confirmed by LoucksHorseley 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). As a result of the PD program, they could develop their views from doing activities in this program which provided positives outcomes of student learning with the zoo-based STSE approach. They tried to change their teaching by providing features of this approach in their activities. Therefore, it implied that these changes of their views affected changes of their teaching practices. This finding agreed with Tsai (2002) who found that
214 teachers’ beliefs regarding students’ learning are considerably linked to teachers’ actual teaching practices. However, although they learned the basic knowledge about the zoo-based STSE approach, they were not confident in teaching. They needed some actual teaching experience. After their teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach, they seemed to increase their perceptions about the feature of this approach. These are the same results as Tsai (2001), who found that teachers who 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. 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. 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. However, these two cases changed their characteristics to be more learning facilitators. They 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 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 thinking (Aikenhead, 1992; Yyutakom, 1997; Attachoo, 2001; Jeteh and Portjanatanti, 2005; Yager and Yager, 2006).
215 The limits of time
Before participating in the PD program, 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 teaching according to zoo-based STSE approach, they realized that time affected their teaching practice. 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. It is common that the teachers who do not have experience in STS[E] teaching will take more time to plan and practice (Lump et al., 1998; Chin, 2000; Tsai, 2001; Tedman, 2005; Pedretti et al., 2006). To deal with this factor 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 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 difficulty in promoting students to ask questions and share ideas. 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. However, 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
216 motivation of schools (Falk et al., 1998; 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, the teacher who selected the students of grade six to study according to the zoo-based STSE approach felt the effect of this factor more than the one 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. 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 zoo-based STSE lessons in the 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
These two cases worked in the schools where their school administrators supported them in teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach. 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 zoobased STSE approach. Indeed, there is research which shows that teachers who teach
217 science based on the STS[E] approach may have difficulty because 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 (Anderson and Zhang, 2003; Coll et al., 2003). Griffin (2007: 37) found that teachers felt that most school administrators are not aware about 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 depends on funds, transportation, and the number of students (OEC, 2005). Fortunately, the school administrators in this study also supported 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.
Media in the zoo
There were a variety of media provided in the zoo which helped these two teachers to design zoo-based STSE lessons. However, they thought that there were not enough animals and information about animals provided in the zoo. These ideas are supported from the OEC (2005), which found that many teachers perceived that learning in a zoo was different from learning in a classroom because students can study real animals and this changes the setting of learning. Students get information about zoos on television, advertisement boards, newspapers, and handouts, but they have been shown to want zoos to have more information regarding interesting wildlife animals. However, most teachers suggested that the zoo should have many kinds of animals and provide enough information about these animals.
Summary
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
218 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 experience of teaching, 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. In chapter VI, conclusions and recommendations of the research findings of this study are presented.
219
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter provides conclusions and implications of this study. There are three main sections of this chapter. The chapter starts with the conclusions of the study. The implications of the study are in the second part which discusses the results of the study related to professional development and teaching science according to the zoo-based STSE approach. At the end of this chapter recommendations for further research are discussed.
Conclusions of the Study
This study was designed to achieve the objective of exploring the current stages of the elementary science teachers’ views on science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach, and using the zoo as a learning resource for preliminary data to design a PD program. There were two phases of study: a survey research phase, and a case study phase. The first phase was undertaken in the first semester of the 2008 academic year. The aim of the survey was to examine the current views on science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach and using the zoo as a learning resource for 65 upper elementary science teachers who taught topics about animals in schools under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. In the second phase, the researcher selected volunteers from one school to participate in the program in the 2009 academic year by purposive sampling as previous mentioned. Eventually, two elementary science teachers from this school were asked by the researcher to be case studies for an in-depth study.
The conclusions for this research study were presented according to the three research questions: (1) What are the current states of the elementary science teachers’ views on science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach? (2) What are the current states of the elementary science teachers’ views on using the zoo as a learning resource? (3) How does a specially developed PD program
220 influence the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach? (3.1) What changes in elementary science teachers’ views and practices occur as a result of participating in the PD program? (3.2) What are the factors that constrain or facilitate the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach? The first and second research questions were examined in the phase I survey research and the third research question was examined in the phase II case studies. Therefore, the two parts are based on phases of the study and are presented below:
Phase I: Survey research 1) What are the current states of elementary science teachers’ views on science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach? For the elementary science teachers’ views on science teaching about animals based on the STSE approach, the findings showed that in general teachers’ views regarding the teaching objectives were mostly towards promoting students’ science concepts related to animals, rather than about promoting the students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment. Moreover, in terms of pedagogical approaches, most teachers expressed a desire for students to learn by completing worksheets as a task-oriented approach rather than the construction of the students’ own knowledge. Related to using the local learning resources for teaching about animal content, most teachers viewed that the surroundings, both in and outside the school, could be used as learning resources for teaching animal content, but the students’ tasks did not come from their own interest. Concerning the use of STSE issues in teaching animal content, pollution was a topic that the most teachers thought important. Some teachers used STSE issues as the main topic for driving the lesson. Regarding the application of knowledge in daily life, most teachers asked their students to apply animal knowledge to their daily lives by rearing their own pets at home. However, the activities did not relate much to taking action in the community. For learning assessment, most teachers focused on
221 knowledge more than scientific process skills. The findings can be summarized as follows:
- The teaching objectives rarely were concerned with promoting student awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment.
- Pedagogical approaches focused on task-oriented environments. Teachers rarely constructed STSE learning environments which used STSE issues to drive lesson for students to become good citizens.
- Learning assessment focused more on content knowledge. 2) What are the current states of the elementary science teachers’ views on using the zoo as a learning resource? For the elementary science teachers’ views on using the zoo as a learning resource, a lot of teachers wanted to link the use of zoos with school curricula and to promote student direct experience. However, there were some teachers who thought that using the zoo as a learning resource could promote lifelong learning. Concerning views on science content that could be linked to the zoo experience as a learning resource, most teachers thought about topics related to animals. Only a few teachers identified that all contents could be linked to using the zoo as a learning resource. For strategies of using the zoo as a learning resource in this study, most teachers used a moderately-focused strategy where there could be individual or group activities to help explore something in the zoo. Students had to complete worksheets. When the students went back to school, the teachers might ask the students to summarize their knowledge and report on what they had learned in front of the class. However, some teachers used focused strategies which focused on linking science content to using the zoo as a learning resource. For learning assessment, most teachers focused on student tasks related to the zoo visit. Key factors that affected the teachers’ use of the zoo as a learning resource included: lack of funds, difficulties with transportation, lack of teachers’ awareness, lack of educational information in
222 zoos, school administrators’ support, coordinative planning for zoo visit, and parents’ support. A summary of the findings can be shown as follows:
- The goals of using the zoo as a learning resource are rarely regarded for promoting students’ awareness of wildlife extinction in the current situation.
- Planning for linking of learning during the excursion to learning in the classroom is hardly addressed by the teacher.
- Use of activities that did not provide more learning autonomy during the trip.
- The program would be designed to reduce the factors related to using the zoo as a learning resource.
Phase II: Case studies
3) How does a specially developed PD program influence the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach?
This research question aimed to summarize how a PD program influences the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach. Regarding this research question, the findings are presented in terms of the changes that occur with the elementary science teachers’ views and practices during participation in the PD program, and the factors that constrained or facilitated the elementary science teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach.
223 3.1) What changes in elementary science teachers’ views and practices occur as a result of participating in the PD program?
Case I: Mrs Maree In terms of the objective of teaching science, Maree’s views and practices of the objectives of teaching focused on scientific knowledge and on skills as a course requirement before participating in the PD program. Concerning content knowledge, she did not provide a chance for her students to learn any content that they were interested in or integrate her teaching content to various disciplines. Regarding her teaching, there were some views that related to teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach which used current issues to motivate student interest and provided chances for students to conclude their findings by themselves. However, her activities were more likely to be teacher-directed. Moreover, she did not give her students chances to express their opinions and conclude their learning together. For using learning resources for teaching, her views related to teaching practice, according to the zoo-based STSE approach, were that the teacher had to use local resources, both of person and objects for linking to activities in classroom. However, she did not use any learning resources to extend her students’ learning to outside the classroom, school, or to practice in real life as good citizens of our country. Regarding assessment, she had her views about assessment which were aligned with the zoo-based STSE approach. In practice, she still focused on students’ cognitive aspect and did not give chance for students or parents to assess their learning.
During participation in the PD program, Maree learned a lot from the discussion so she had more views and practices of science teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach. In terms of objectives of teaching, she refined her teaching objectives in relation to the students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment. Moreover, her aims to promote students’ skills for discovery of knowledge were developed. For content of learning, she was concerned with content related to daily life rather than as concepts for testing. In addition, the content of teaching was concerned more with various
224 disciplines than before. For teaching activities, she used examples related to STSE issues and had discussions for motivating students’ interest. She reduced her role as lecturer and provided more opportunities for student participation in the activities. Her students had autonomy in working in groups for testing their own ideas. Moreover, students had opportunities to use the inquiry process in learning and took action on science-related issues to discuss and share their knowledge with others. For using learning resources, she extended learning beyond the classroom and the school to the zoo for students to answer questions. Concerning learning assessment, she increased her assessments of students’ achievement in terms of the affective domain including the awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment, as well as the application of knowledge. She also used various methods to assess student learning and gave students a chance to assess their own group work.
Case II: Mr. Somchai Before participating in the PD program, both of Somchai’s views and practices of the objectives of teaching were intended for his students to understand scientific concepts and scientific process skills. He was rarely aware of the affective domain in learning and did not emphasize that student awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment was important. With regard to Somchai’s teaching, although he had his views aligned to the zoo-based STSE approach, he was more likely to rely on lectures, using worksheets, and asking questions, and less likely to use hands-on activities. He also used extra marks to control the class. Concerning the use of learning resources, he had positive views on using some resources both inside and outside classroom for linking to classroom activities. In fact, he mainly used textbooks and reading sheets as student learning resources and did not prepare for the linking of knowledge from the zoo trip to learning in the classroom. Both his views and practices on the assessment of student learning emphasized more on content knowledge with various methods.
As a result of participating in the PD program, Somchai gradually increased his goals of teaching in terms of the affective domain which relates to society and the
225 environment as well as application of knowledge in daily life. He began providing his students with content of learning which related to various subjects and daily life, rather than as concepts for tests. In practices, he smoothly connected various disciplines with the content of science teaching better than before. For teaching activities, he used pictures related to STSE issues in the classroom in order to promote the students’ eagerness for finding information. His students engaged in group work to cooperatively find answers to their questions, as scientists might. Moreover, he changed his role from knowledge checker to be more of a learning facilitator. He also linked the students’ knowledge to daily life more concerning with the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment. However, he still used extra marks for external motivation of student learning and for controlling classroom. For using learning resources, he intended to use ones in the local area such as the zoo to promote his students’ learning. The activity in the zoo provided more learning autonomy based on students’ interest. Involving learning assessment, he assessed his students’ learning, not only on scientific content knowledge, but on all students’ achievement domains including students’ awareness of the interactions of science, technology, society, and environment. Moreover, he used various methods to assess student learning and provided students with chances to assess their own learning.
To conclude the change of these two cases, it can be said that these teachers developed their own views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach which resulted from PD program. However, there were some changes that combined with their old teaching styles in this approach. Their changes included such aspects as: - Focusing more on enhancing the students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society and environment. - Providing content of learning related to various subjects and students’ daily life. - Beginning use of the STSE issues related to teaching content and using these to motivate student interest.
226 - Changing their roles from the information provider to a facilitator for students’ inquiry of knowledge.
- Somewhat leading the presentations, discussions and conclusions, but had some links of what is learned to daily life more concerning with the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment.
- Using more learning resources in local areas, such as zoo curator, as well as media in the zoo and use them to promote students’ learning.
- Using various methods to assess student learning in all domains including awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment and application of knowledge in daily life.
3.2) What are the factors that constrain or facilitate the elementary science teachers’ 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 experience of teaching, teachers’ characteristics, the limits of time, students’ learning styles, school administrators’ support, students’ entrance examinations, and media in the zoo.
The teachers’ teaching styles typically were concerned with academic background and experience of teaching. Both of them did not know much about the National Education Act and the nature of science. Moreover, although they had learned the basic knowledge about the zoo-based STSE approach, they were not confident in teaching it. They needed some actual teaching experience.
For the teachers’ characteristics, Maree was active and enthusiastic would learn more about the zoo-based STSE approach. She always participated in doing activities, asked questions whenever she wondered, and shared her ideas during
227 discussions. She was in contrast with teachers who were not active and needed external motivations. For example in case of Somchai, he learnt about the zoo-based STSE approach slower than Maree. Therefore, the researcher had to give him many motivations and suggestions about developing and implementing of his zoo-based STSE lessons. For practice, the teachers who were active and enthusiastic prepared more questions to motivate students’ learning and discussion about science related STSE issues. Moreover, the students who learned with the active and enthusiastic teachers seemed to have more participation in activities.
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. However, when they taught science according to the zoo-based STSE approach, they realized that time affected their teaching practices. Therefore, they had to promote their students to be involved in the learning process. In regards to students’ learning styles, the students of the two cases still needed some support from the teachers in learning according to this approach. After they implemented their zoo-based STSE lessons for a few periods, their students were gradually familiar with it. Thus, the teachers could reduce their dominant roles and be facilitators. Concerning school administrators’ support, they provided the places for doing activities of the PD program in their schools and adjusted teaching schedules for these two teachers to attend the program fully. In addition, the school administrators supported the budget for the zoo excursion and determined the number of teachers to take care of the students to and from the zoo. They also contacted the zoo educator to deal with dates, times, and activities of learning in the zoo. If the teachers had not received any support from the school administrators, they would have not have got the chance to develop and implement their zoo-based STSE lessons effectively.
228 Student entrance examinations affected Somchai, who taught in grade six, because of the expectation for further study in the higher levels. This was the reason why the teaching style of Somchai always emphasized content knowledge before he participated in the PD program.
For media in the zoo, there were a variety of media provided which helped them in designing the zoo-based STSE lessons. However, not all scientific content could link to media provided in the zoo. The students in this school often went to the zoo as a field trip. To reduce their boredom, the teachers had to design activities which were different than usual.
Implications of the Study
Implications for Professional Development
PD programs help teachers conceptualize the ways to link theory and practice in the school context (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003). The teachers seemed to get much knowledge and direct experience from using more than one strategy, such as a workshop, a demonstration lesson, and reflection in this program. The 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. However, the findings of this study do not aim to generalize, but these may be useful to others to adjust this PD program to their own contexts. This PD program was also designed for promoting the teacher’s construction of new knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary to know the teachers’ prior knowledge. Regarding examining teacher’ prior knowledge about science teaching, the teachers in this study did not understand the goals of science teaching and the nature of science before participating in the PD program. These understandings are important because they affect their teaching practices. Therefore, this finding reflects that
229 institutions or universities that are involved in professional development should emphasize this.
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. Interestingly, the characteristics of STS(E) instruction include science-based inquiry activities that can promote the changes of their’ views and practices to be more constructivist in approach. They also understood how to promote their students’ learning.
In addition, teachers who teach in the same school can encourage each other for sharing and discussing ideas about the effectiveness of the new approach presented in the PD program. The feedbacks or comments from peer teachers or experts were important to make the teachers aware of their views and practices. In fact, teachers were not familiar with reflecting in and on activities that they did at the beginning of the PD program. The researcher had to encourage them about some issues for discussion. In addition, in the context of the participation in this study, the small number of science teachers who taught in the upper elementary levels was limited in terms of variation of ideas. Discussion was limited, even though there was one lower elementary science teacher who intended to participate in this PD program and contribute her experience. To deal with this issue, 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, and to provide a strong connection among teachers and educators, in order to provide further opportunity for teacher development. 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. The teachers still need to have ongoing support from the researcher to ensure they are in line with the new teaching approaches presented in the program. From the findings of this study, this PD program was not long enough to achieve the ultimate changes for these two
230 teachers. There were some features of their teaching that have to be supported for them to move from the teacher-directed STSE approach to the more student-directed STSE approach. Therefore, the next phase of the PD program would benefit from the continued efforts of teachers’ views and practices of the zoo-based STSE approach for long term development.
Implications for Science Teaching according to the Zoo-Based STSE Approach
For application of the zoo-based STSE approach to be done more fruitfully, there are many conditions emerged from the findings of this study. The effectiveness of promoting students’ awareness of the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment is concerned with teachers’ views and practices of the zoobased STSE approach. For using STSE issues to promote their students’ interests, the teachers had to prepare their students to be familiar with exchanging ideas. Actually, they felt very surprised when the teachers directly talked about the STSE issues. However, the students seemed to gradually participate in discussions or doing activities when their teachers used questions to guide student teaching. This is compared to only leaving the students to do the activities themselves. Therefore, teachers still play an important role in student learning at the beginning of teaching with this approach. They had to prepare their questions as well as change their roles to be more of a learning facilitator. 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.
Regarding the use of the local resources, such as educators and materials in the zoo, the school administrators are important people who provide the opportunity for the students’ excursion to the zoo by supplying funds and making decisions about the logistics of the trip. The success of teaching through the zoo-based STSE approach in this study is concerned with the support from the school administrators. They also provided funds and gave opportunities to teachers to decide the area of the excursion. In addition, the location of the zoo is not far from the school. When developing the zoo-based STSE lesson plans, teachers in this study were aware of
231 linking the students’ experience in the zoo to their learning in classroom. If the schools are surrounded by or near the zoo, their students can use the zoo as a learning resource themselves based on their own interest or the support from their parents. Moreover, it is possible that teachers could work with zoo educators both prior and during the trip to zoos to point out where and how to link curriculum and zoo knowledge.
Concerning learning activities, the teachers designed their activities related with STSE issues to students living in a world of globalization. These issues were about the effects of society on wildlife. From the findings of this study, the reason that the two teachers smoothly used and discussed STSE issues in their classrooms was due to their awareness of animal conservation. Their awareness might have emerged from their increasing views on the zoo-based STSE approach. Therefore, it is necessary to promote their positive views on this approach before promoting them to practice with it. In addition, the classroom environment can change from a teacher-directed process to be more a student-directed process.
For extension of going beyond the class period, the classroom, or the school, the teachers in this study worry about the limitations of time. In fact, students need enough time and support from their teacher until they have enough experience and necessary skills. However, teachers could effectively use the zoo as a learning resource because they surveyed the zoo before designing their activities. Moreover, they had known their students’ background before they implemented their zoo-based STSE lessons. Therefore, they could manage the amount of time for supporting students’ learning both in the classroom and in the zoo quite well. For promoting students’ scientific process skills, the teachers in this study used the zoo as learning areas for their students to use their skills for answering their interest questions. Because of the teachers’ effective lesson planning their students seemed to have meaningful learning in the zoo. They also used their collected data for summarizing. Finally, they could be aware that science content is more than concepts which are shown in textbooks or reading sheets.
232 For taking action, the teachers designed activities for students to apply their knowledge for discussion in the classroom as well as creating cartoon books or handbills about the animal conservation. Impressively, 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 related to learning content.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study points out some interesting issues for further studies. There were some changes that combined with the teachers’ old teaching styles in the zoo-based STSE approach. 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. While observing teachers who implemented the zoo-based STSE lesson plans, we found their students seemed to have some difficulties with this new style of teaching. 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. Furthermore, the researcher also should examine how the teachers who participate in that PD program collaboratively work with the zoo educator for designing the zoo-based STSE learning activities in the zoo as an alternative program for a school field trip.
233
REFERENCES
Aikenhead, G. S. 1988. “Teaching science trough a Science-Technology-SocietyEnvironment approach: an instruction guide.” SIDRU Research report 12: 1-91. ______. 1992. “Integrating STS into science education.” Theory into Practice 31(1): 27-35. ______. 1994. “What is STS science teaching?.” In J. Solomon and G. Aikenhead. (eds.). STS Education: International Perspectives in Reform. New York: Teacher’s College Press. ______. 2000. “STS in Canada: from policy to student evaluation.” In D.D. Kumar and D.E. Chubin. (eds). Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 49-89. ______. 2003. “STS Education: a rose by any other name.” In J. F. Peter. (ed.). A Vision for Science Education: Responding to the world. Cross, R.: Routledge Press.
______. A.G. Ryan and R. W. Fleming. 1989. Views on Science Technology Society (Online). http://www.usask.ca/education/people/aikenhead/vosts.pdf, November 1, 2008. Adler, P. A. and P. Adler. 1994. “Observational techniques.” In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. (eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
234 Akker, J. V. D. 1998. “The science curriculum: between ideals and outcomes.” In B.J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin. (eds.). International Handbook of Science Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Great Britain, 357-387. Anderson, D., B. Piscitelli, K. Weiler, M. Everett and C. Teyler. 2002. “Children’s museum experiences: Identifying powerful mediators of learning.” Curator 45(3): 213-230. ______, J. Kisiel and M. Storksdieck. 2006. “Understanding teachers’ perspectives on field trips: Discovering common ground in three countries.” Curator 49(3): 365-386. ______, K. B. Lucas and I. S. Ginns. 2003. “Theoretical perspectives on learning in an informal setting.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40(2): 177-199. ______, and Z. Zhang. 2003. “Teacher perceptions of field-trip planning and implementation.” Visitor Studies Today 6(3): 6-11. Aruninta, A. 2001. “Educational landscape for informal life-long learning.” Academic Journal of Architecture 1(2544): 126-138.
Astor-Jack, T., K. L. K. Whaley, L. D. Dierking, D. L Perry and C. Garibay. 2007. “Investigating socially mediated learning.” In J. H. Falk, L. D. Dierking and S. Foutz. (eds.). In Principle, In Practice: Museums as Learning Institutions. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 217-228.
Attachoo, P. 2001. Action Research: The Implementation of Science, Technology and Society (STS)/Constructivist Approaches in Teaching Science in Mathayomsuksa 1. Report to Kasetsart University Laboratory School, Bangkok. (in Thai).
235 Baimai, V. and W.Y Brockelman. 1998. “Biodiversity research and training program in Thailand.” Pure and Applied Chemistry 70(11): 2073-2078. Baird, J. R., P. J. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone and R. T. White. 1991. “The importance of reflection in improving science teaching and learning.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28 (2): 163 – 182. Bell, B. 1998. “Teacher development in science education.” In B.J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin. (eds.). International Handbook of Science Education. Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 681-693.
Barrington-Johnson, J. 2005. The Zoo: The Story of London Zoo. London: Robert Hale, 28. Bettencourt, A. 1993. “The construction of knowledge: a radical constructivist view.” In K. Tobin. (ed.). The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education. Washington, D.C: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press, Chapter 3. Blunck, S. M. and R. E. Yager. 1996. “The Iowa Chautauqua Program: A proven in-service model for introducing STS in K-12 classroom.” In R. E. Yager. (ed.). Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education. New York: State University of New York Press, 298-305. Boling, C. and S. Martin. 2005. “Supporting teacher change through online professional development.” The Journal of Educators Online 2 (1): 1-15 (Online). www.thejeo.com/BolingFinal.pdf, December 18, 2008.
Borich, G. D. 2007. Effective Teaching Methods: Research-Based Practice. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
236 Borko, H., J. A. Whitcomb and K. Byrnes. 2008. “Genres of research in teacher education.” In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre and K. E. Demers. (eds.). Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Enduring Questions in Changing Contexts. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 565-572. Borun, M., M. Chambers and A. Cleghorn. 1996. “Families are Learning in Science Museums.” Curator 39(2): 123-138.
Bouma, G. D. 2000. The Research Process. 4th ed. Melbourn: Oxford University Press. Bryan, A. L. and M. M. Atwater. 2002. “Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for science teacher preparation programs.” Science Education 86: 821-839.
Bryman, A. 2001. Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford U. Press.
Carin, Arthur A. 1997. Teaching Modern Science. 7th ed. New Jersey: Prentice/Hall, Inc. Carter, C. 1991. “Science-Technology-Society and access to scientific knowledge.” Theory into Practice 30(4): 27-279.
Chaihongkum, P. 2005. Current Situation and Problems in Teachers Development of Primary Schools in Accordance with the 6 th Educational Development Plan of Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. Master Thesis in Educational Administration, Kasetsart University. (in Thai).
Cheangkool, W. 1999. How to Reform Education ?: The Report of Thai Education in Years 2001/2002. Bangkok: The Institute of National Education Committee. (in Thai).
237 Chin, C-C. 2000. “Science teachers’ development of museum-based STS modulesWhat do their perceptions and practices tell us?.” Proceeding National Science Council ROC(D) 10(3): 155-125. Cho J. 2002. “ The development of an alternative in-service program for Korean science teachers with an emphasis on Science-Technology-Society.” International Journal of Science Education 24(10): 1021-1035.
Cohen, L., L. Manion and K. Morrison. 2000. Research Methods in Education. 5th ed. New York: Routledge Falmer. Coll, R. K, S. Tofield, B. Vyle and R. Bolstad. 2003. “Free-choice learning at metropolitan zoo.” Paper Presented at the Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (Philadephia), PA, March 2326. Crider, S., C. Passmore and D. Anderson. 2009. “Learning on zoo field trips: The interaction of students’, teachers’, and zoo educators’ agendas and practices.” Science Education 94(1): 122-141.
Crotty, M. 1998. The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. 1st ed. Australia: Allen & Unwin. Darlene, D. 2001. “A trip to zoo: Children’s words and photographs.” Early Childhood Research & Practice 3(1): 1-25.
Day, C. 1999. Developing Teachers the Challenges of Lifelong Learning. London: Falmer Press.
Denzin, N. K. 1989. Interpretive Analysis: Qualitative Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
238 Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln. 1994. “Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research.” In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. (eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 1-17.
Department of Education Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA). 2010. Website of the Schools under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. (Online). http://www.bangkokedu.in.th., January 28, 2008. (in Thai).
Dierking, D., J. H. Falk, L. Rennie, D. Anderson and K. Ellenbogen. 2003. “Pollicy statement of the “Informal science education” Ad Hoc Committee.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40(2): 108-111.
Educational Research Division. 1999. Analyzing Research Reports about Teaching and Learning Science. Bangkok: Ministry of Education. (in Thai). Falk, J. H., T. Moussouri and D. Coulson. 1998. “The effect of visitors’ agendas on museum learning.” Curator 41(2): 107-120. ______ and L. M. Adelman. 2003. “Investigating the impact of prior knowledge and interest on aquarium visitor learning.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40(2): 163-176.
______ and L. D. Dierking. 2000. Learning from Museum: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Fraenkel, J. R. and N. E.Wallen. 2003. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Gallagher, J. J. 1991. “Uses of interpretive research in science education.” In J. J. Gallagher. (ed.). Interpretive Research in Science Education. NARST Monograph 4, 5-17.
239 Griffin, J. 2004. “Research on students and museums: Looking more closely at the students in school group.” Science Education 88(Suppl.1): S59-S70. ______. 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. ______ and D. Symington. 1997. “Moving from task-oriented to learning-oriented strategies on school excursions to museums.” Science Education 81(6): 763779. Guskey, T. R. 2002. “Professional development and teacher change.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 8(3/4): 381-391
Hatch, J. A. 2002. Doing Qualitative Research in Educational Settings. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Heath, P. A. 1992. “Organizing for STS teaching and learning.” Theory into Practice 31: 53–58.
Henn, M., M.Weinstein, N. Foard. 2006. A Short Introduction to Social Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Henry, C. H. 2000. “Visitors relate to museum experiences: An analysis of positive and negative reaction.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 34(2): 99106.
Jackson, W. 1995. Methods: Doing Social Research. Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., Scarborough, Ontario.
240 Jeteh, A. and N. Portjanatanti. 2005. “Effects of learning unit on food and nutrient through Science, Technology and Society approach of mathayomsuksa three students in basic educational extending opportunity school.” Songklanakarin Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 17(2): 184199. (in Thai).
Jurawatanaton, M. 2003. The Policy for Producing and Developing Teachers. Bangkok: The Institute of National Education Committee. (in Thai).
Kaewdang, R. 1998. The Collection of Education Articles in the Years 19971998. Bangkok: The Institute of National Education Committee. (in Thai).
Khongkanan, S. 1998. Teaching Science Using the Science, Technology and Society and Constructivist Approaches with Grade 3 Students at Kasetsart University Laboratory School Academic Year 1998. Report to Kasetsart University Laboratory School, Bangkok. (in Thai).
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. (in Thai). Kim, M. 2005. “Ethics of pedagogy in world-becoming: Contemplations on scientific literacy for citizenship.” Spring 71(3): 52-58. Kisiel, J. F. 2003. “Teacher, museums and worksheets: A closer look at a learning experience.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 14(1): 3-21. ______. 2005. “Understanding elementary teacher motivations for science fieldtrips.” Science Education 89: 936-955.
241 Kitkanjanat, S. 1999. Needs for Teachers’ Instructional Improvement in Elementary Schools under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. Master Thesis in Educational Administration, Kasetsart University. (in Thai). Kortland, K. 1996. “An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue.” Science Education 80(6): 673-689.
Krathwohl, D. R. 1997. Methods of Educational and Social Science Research: An Integrated Approach. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc. Lappan, G. 2000. “A vision of learning to teach for the 21st century.” School Science and Mathematics 100(6): 319-326. Lawson, B. 2007. Understanding Young Children’s Agendas, Experiences, and Learning from a Field Trip to a Zoo. Master Thesis, University of British Columbia.
Loucks-Horseley, 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.
Lincoln, Y. S. and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Lindemann-Matthies, P. and T. Kamer. 2006. “The influence of an interactive educational approach on visitors’ learning in a Swiss zoo.” Science Education 90: 296-315.
242 Lumpe, A. T., J. J. Haney and C. M. Czerniak. 1998. “Science teacher beliefs and intentions to implement Science-Technology-Society (STS) in the classroom.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 9: 1–24. Lutz, M. 1996. “The congruency of the STS approach and constructivism.” In R. E. Yager. (ed.). Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education.
New York: State University of New York Press.
Martin, V. 2002. “Documenting your work.” In T. Greenfield. (ed.). Research Method for Postgraduates. 2nd ed. London, Arnold, 209-217. Mbajiorgu, N. M. and A. Ali. 2003. “Relationship between STS Approach, scientific literacy, and achievement in Biology.” Science Education 87:3139. McShane, J. B. and R. E. Yager. 1996. “Advantages of STS for minority students.” In R. E. Yager. (ed.). Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education. New York: State University of New York Press.
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. (in Thai). Melber, L. M. 2001. “Why are they doing that?: Animal investigations at the local.” Science Activities 37(4): 10-14.
Merriam, S. B. 1988. Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Ministry of Education (MOE). 2008. The Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008). Bangkok: Kurusapa Ladprao Publishing. (in Thai).
243 Moussouri, T. 1997. Family Agendas and Family Learning in Hands-on Museums. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of Leicester.
National Economic and Social Development Board. 2006. The Tenth National Economic and Social Development Plan. Bangkok: Suksapan Panitch. (in Thai). National Science Teacher Association (NSTA). 1990. “Science/ Technology/ Society: A new effort for providing appropriate science for all (The NSTA position statement).” Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 10(5&6): 249-250. ______. 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. Ngamkeeree, S. 2006. “Solving science learning problems using ScienceTechnology-Society approach for classroom research.” Educational Research Journal 5(1): 34-42. (in Thai). Noymai, I. 2004. “Organizing field trips for integrated learning.” Journal of Education 16(1): 1-14.
Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP). 2004. Thailand’s Biodiversity (Online). http://www. chm-thai.onep.go.th /Publication/ThaiBiodiv/ThailandBiodiversity_eng.pdf, January 6, 2008. ______. 2008. “Community map: Product of the children.” Thailand’s Nature and Environment 4(1): 16-19.
244 Office of the Education Council (OEC). 2000. Learning Reform: LearnerCentered Approach. Bangkok: OEC. (in Thai).
______. 2001. Learning Process from Community and Nature. Bangkok: Wattanapanit Printing Co., Ltd. (in Thai).
______. 2005. Research Report about Instruction with Life-Long Learning Resources: Zoo. Bangkok: OEC. (in Thai).
______. 2007. The Guildines of Learner-Centered Instruction: Teaching and Learning from Learning Resource. 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. (in Thai). Orion, N. 1993. “A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum.” School Science and Mathematics 93(6): 325-330. Osborne, J. 2000. “Science for citizenship.” In M. Monk and J. Osborne. (eds.). Good Practice in Science Teaching. Open University Press: UK.
Palys, T. and C. Atchison. 2008. Research Decisions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. 4th ed. Nelson Education Ltd.
Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.
245 Pedersen, J. E. 1990. The Effects of Science, Technology and Societal Issues, Implemented as a Cooperative Controversy, on Attitudes toward Science, Anxiety toward Science, Problem Solving Perceptions and Achievements in Secondary Science. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska. 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. ______. 2005. “STSE education: Principles and practices.” In S. Aslop, L. Bencze, and E. Pedretti. (eds.). Analysing Exemplary Science Teaching: Theoretical Lenses and a Spectrum of Possibilities for Practice. Open University Press, Mc Graw-Hill Education. ______, L. Bencze, J. Hewitt, L. Romkey and A. Jivraj. 2006. “Promoting issuesbased STSE perspectives in science teacher education: Problems of identity and ideology”. Science & Education 17 (8-9): 941-960.
Permpipat, P. 2003. Science Learning Achievement and Abilities in Using Science Knowledge in Daily Life of Mathayom Suksa 2 Students Taught Through Science-Technology-Society Approach. Master Thesis in Science Education, Chaingmai University. (in Thai).
Pillay, H. 2002. Teacher Development for Quality Learning: The Thailand Education Reform Project. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
246 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. (in Thai).
Portjanatanti, N. 2003. The Instruction of Teaching of Biology Course Using Science, Technology and Society. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis in Science Education, Kasetsart University. (in Thai). Ratcliffe, M. 1997. “Pupil decision-making about socioscientific issues within the science curriculum.” International Journal of Science Education 19(2): 167-182. Rennie, L. J. and D.J. Johnston. 2007. “Research on learning from museum.” In J. H. Falk, L. D. Dierking and S. Foutz. (eds.). In principle, In Practice: Museums as Learning Institutions. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 57-73. Richardson V. and P. Placier. 2001. “Teacher change.” In V. Richardson. (ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan, 905-947. Roth, W. M. and T. Alexander. 1997. “The interaction of students’ scientific and religious discourses: Two case studies.” International Journal of Science Education 19 (2): 125-146. Rubba, P. A. and W. L. Harkness. 1993. “Examination of preservice and in-service secondary science teachers’ beliefs about Science-Technology-Society interactions.” Science Education 77: 407–431. Rudmann, C. 1994. “A review of the use and implementation of science field trip.” School Science and Mathematics 94(3): 138-141.
247 Sakdiyakorn, M. 1998. “The implementation of Science, Technology and Society (STS)/ Constructivist approaches in 3rd grade science classroom.” The Proceeding of 38th Kasetsart University Annual Conference: 254-263. (in Thai).
Sirimahasacon, B. and P. Kwangthong. 2004. Zoo School: Camping for Integral Learning. Bangkok: Bookpoint co. Ltd. (in Thai). Solomon, J. 1994. “The rise and fall of constructivism.” Studies in Science Education 23: 1-19. Stake, R. E. 2000. “Case studies.” In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln. (eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 435-454. Tairab, H. H. 2001. “How do pre-service and in-service science teachers view the nature of science and technology?.” Research in Science & Technological Education 19(2): 235-250. Tedman, D. K. 2005. “Science teachers’ views on Science, Technology and Society issue.” In S. Alagumalai, D. Curtis and N. Hungi. (eds.). Applied Rasch Measurement: A Book of Exemplars. Netherland: Springer. 227–249.
The Institute for Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST). 2002a. The Manual of Science Learning Management under the Basic Education Curriculum B.E. 2544. Bangkok: Karusapa Press. (in Thai).
______. 2002b. Thai Science Teacher Standards. Bangkok: The Institute of Promotion of Science and Technology Teaching. (in Thai).
______. 2008. The Manual of Science Learning Management under the Basic Education Curriculum B.E. 2551. Bangkok: Karusapa Press. (in Thai).
248 Thewphaingarm, A. 1998. “The effects and learning environment of implementing Science, Technology and Society (STS)/ Constructivist approaches in 2nd Grade. The Proceeding of 38th Kasetsart University Annual Conference: 264-272. (in Thai).
The Zoological Park Organization (ZPO). 2004. History of Thai Zoo. (Online). http://www.zoothailand.org/zpo/index_th.shtml, February 2, 2008. (in Thai).
Tippins, D., T. Koballa and B. Payne. 2002. Learning from Cases: Unraveling the Complexities of Elementary Science Teaching. Boston: A Pearson Education Company. Tobin, K., D. J. Tippins and A. J. Gallard, 1994. “Research on instructional strategies for teaching science.” In D. L. Gabel. (ed.). Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan. Tran, L. U. 2006. “Teaching science in museums: The pedagogy and goals of museum educators.” Science Education 91, 278-297. 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. Tunnicliffe, S.D. 1997. “School visits to zoos and museums: A missed educational opportunity?.” International Journal of Science Education 19(9): 10391056. Vaus, D. D. 2002. “Survey Research.” In T. Greenfield. (ed.). Research Method for Postgraduates. 2nd ed. London: Arnold.
249 Veal, W. R., M. F. Dussaillant and G. O. Roman. 2002. “Culturally and politically based ducation: A story of latin american science education development.” In P.A. Fraser-Abder. (ed.). Professional Development of Science Teachers: Local insights with Lessons for the Global Community. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Watson J. 2000. “Constructive instruction and learning difficulties.” Support for Learning 15(3): 134-140. Wellington, J. 1990. “Formal and informal learning in science: The role of the interactive science centres.” Physics Education 25: 247-252. Wilson, S. M. and J. Berne. 1999. “Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development.” In A. Iran-Nejad and P. D. Pearson. (eds.). Review of Research in Education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 173-209. 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. Yalowitz, S. 2004. “Evaluating visitor conservation research at the Monterey Bay aquarium.” Curator 47(3): 283-297.
250 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. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City. ______. 1999. “Science teaching experiences using STS approach.” Kasetsart Educational Review 14(3): 29-48. (in Thai).
______ 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. (in Thai.). Ziman, J. 1994. “The rational of STS education in the approach.” In J. Solomon and G. Aikenhead. (eds.). STS Education: International Perspectives in Reform. New York: Teacher’s College Press, 21-31. Zoller, U. and D. Ben-Chaim. 1994. “High school students’ and teachers’ STS outlook profiles: Are there gender differences?.” International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 25: 423-430.
251
APPENDICES
252
Appendix A Views on Teaching and Learning about Animals (VTLA) Questionnaire
253 Views on Teaching and Learning about Animals (VTLA) Questionnaire
The aim of this questionnaire is to explore current upper elementary science teachers’ views on teaching about animals and using the zoo as a learning resource. These responses in this questionnaire will be preliminary data that will be used to design a professional development program that will enhance elementary science teachers’ views and practices of a zoo-based STSE approach. Section One: Personal Data Direction: Put a tick in an appropriate bracket. 1. Sex
( ) Male
( ) Female
2. Age
( ) 20-30 years old
( ) 31-40 years old
( ) 41-50 years old
( ) 51-60 years old
3. Degree and major field ( ) Bachelor’s degree majoring in …………………………………… ( )
Master’s degree majoring in ……………………………………...
( )
Doctoral degree majoring in ……………………………………... ( )
Others …..........................................................................................
4. Science teaching experience ( ) Less than 5 years
( ) 5-10 years
( ) 11-15 years
( ) 16-20 years
( ) 21-25 years
( ) More than 25 years
5. The number of student per class ( ) 20-30 students
( ) 31-40 students
( )41-50 students
( ) 51-60 students
6. Animal topics that you teach in academic year 2008 ( ) Grade 4 ( ) First semester: topic……………………………………….. ( ) Second semester: topic…………………………………….. ( ) Grade 5 ( ) First semester: topic……………………………………….. ( ) Second semester: topic…………………………………….. ( ) Grade 6 ( ) First semester: topic………………………………………... ( ) Second semester: topic……………………………………...
254 7. Number of class periods per week in the academic year 2008 ( ) Less than 8 hrs
( ) 8-10 hrs
( ) 11-13 hrs
( ) 14-16 hrs
( ) 17-19 hrs
( ) 20-22 hrs
( ) 23-25 hrs
( ) More than 25 hrs
8. Other positions in the workplace ( )
None
( ) Academic tasks
( ) Administration tasks
( ) Education guidance ( ) Superintendent
( ) Registration and Assessment
( ) Recreation
( ) Head of grad level
( ) Student advisor
( ) Head of Science department ( ) Boy and Girl Scout or contributed activities ( ) Others……………………………………………………………………... 9. Experience of the using zoo as a learning resource ( ) Have gone at…………………………………………………………….... for………………………………………………………………................. ( ) Never because…………………………………………………………….. 10. The frequency of using zoo as learning resource ( ) One time per semester ( ) One time per year ( ) Not consistently
( ) Others………………………………………..
11. Professional experience about STSE approach or using the zoo as a learning resource ( ) Went at…………………………………………………………………….. ( ) Never went because………………………………………………………..
Section Two: Views on Teaching about Animals
Direction: Consider the questions and write your answers from your knowledge, beliefs, and opinions.
1. What are the objectives about teaching in animal content that you teach? …………………………………………………………………………………….. ……..……………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………..
255 2. Typically, how do you teach content about animals? Please explain to me more about your teaching procedures? 2.1 Launching part …………………………………………………………………………………….. ……..……………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.2 Learning part …………………………………………………………………………………….. ……..……………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.3 Summary part …………………………………………………………………………………….. ……..……………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. 3. What local learning resources do you always use to teach content about animals? …………………………………………………………………………………….. ……..……………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………..
256 4. From your answer in the last question, how do you use these local learning resources? …………………………………………………………………………………….. ……..……………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. 5. Do you use any STSE issues in your science class? If yes, please give me examples. …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 6. Form your answer in the last question, how do you use STSE issues in your teaching? …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 7. Typically, do you have any activities in which students apply their own knowledge about animals in daily life? If you have, please give me an example. …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 8. How do you assess your students’ learning about animals? …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………
257 Section Three: Views on Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
Direction: Consider the questions and write your answers using your knowledge, beliefs, and opinions.
1. What are the objectives of using the zoo as a learning resource? …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 2. For which science contents can you use the zoo as a learning resource? …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 3. How do you use the zoo as a learning resource? …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 4. How do you assess your students learning from using the zoo as a learning resource? …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………
258 5. What are factors that you think affect to you using the zoo as a learning resource? …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 6.
From your answer in the last question, how did these factors affect to your using the zoo as a learning resource?
…………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… Section Four: Views on Professional Development about a Zoo-Based STSE Approach Direction: Consider the questions and write your answers using your knowledge, beliefs, and opinions.
1. Would you like to participate in a professional development program for enhancing elementary science teachers’ views and practices of a zoo-based STSE approach? Why, or why not? …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 2. If you allow, how can I contact you? …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………
259
Appendix B Outline and Scope of the PD Program
260 Appendix Table B1 Outline and Scope of the PD Program No.
2.
Amazing Earthworm
August 29, 2009
3.
Cloning technology
August 25, 2009
4.
The STSE Government
August 29, 2009
5.
Using the Zoo as a Learning Resource
September 12, 2009
6.
Demonstration of Zoo-based STSE Lesson
September 19, 2009
7.
Demonstration of Zoo-based STSE Lessons
September 22, 2009
1.
Selection of Teaching Topic and
October 3, 2009
Activities Workshop on teaching science according to educational reform Workshop on the nature of science Workshop on the nature of technology Workshop on the interactions among science, technology, society, and environment Workshop on science teaching according to the STSE approach Workshop on using the zoo as a learning resource
Time 3 hours
4 hours 3 hours
3 hours
3 hours
3 hours
Workshop on demonstration of an example of a zoo-based STSE lesson plan
6 hours
Group discussions
3 hours
2.
Designing Teaching Frameworks
October 4-26, 2009
Group discussions
6 hours
3.
Presentation of the First Daft Of Lesson Plan
October 27, 2009
Group discussions and reflections
3 hours
4.
Adjustment of Lesson plan
October 28December 8, 2009
Group discussions and reflections
6 hours
Teaching before Zoo Excursion
December 9, 2009
Observations, interviews, and teachers’ reflections
1 hours
Zoo Excursion
December 15, 2009
Field trip, Observations, interviews, and teachers’ reflections
Teaching after Zoo Excursion
December 1622, 2009
Observations, interviews, and teachers’ reflections
based STSE Lesson Plans
Implementation of Zoo-
Date
August 15, My Science Teaching 2009 and Learning Style
1.
III
Topics
1.
Planning
Preparation Zoo-based STSE Lesson
II
I
Part
2.
3.
3 hours
1 hours
261
Appendix C Semi-Structured Interview Framework: Teachers’ Views on a Zoo-based STSE Approach
262 Semi-Structure Interview Framework of the Upper Elementary Science Teachers’ Views and Practices of a Zoo-Based STSE Approach Teacher’s name……………………………Date………………….Time………….. Direction: The following questions are distributed to the elementary science teachers who participated in the professional development program to enhance their views and practices of a zoo-based STSE approach. The researcher used five semistructured interviews during the implementation of the professional development program. They are shown below: 1. Before Participation in the PD program 1. Could you tell me about how you decided to participate in this PD program? 2. What are the objectives of teaching according to the STSE approach? 3. What are the key features of teaching activities according the STSE approach? 4. What do you know about learning assessment according the STSE approach? 5. In your opinion, what are the factors that affect teaching according the STSE approach? 6. What are the objectives of using the zoo as a learning resource? 7. What are the key features of activities for using the zoo as a learning resource? 8. How do you assess student learning when using the zoo as a learning resource? 9. In your opinion, what are the factors that affect using the zoo as a learning resource? 2. After Finishing the First Part of the PD Program 1. What did you learn about teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach? 2. What do you learn about teaching activities from the example of a zoo-based STSE lesson?
263 3. What factors affect you if you use the zoo-based STSE approach in your teaching? 3. During Participation in the Second Part of the PD program 1. How do you develop your lesson plans according to the zoo-based STSE approach? 2. What do you learn about developing lesson plans according to the zoo-based STSE approach? 3. Are you confident about teaching lessons according to the zoo-based STSE approach? 4. During Participation in the Third Part of the PD program 1. What did you learn from your teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach? 2. What part of your teaching do you think should be improved in the near future? How would you go about this? 3. What are the factors that affect your teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach? 5. After Participation in the PD program 1. What are the objectives of teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach? 2. What are the key features of teaching activities according to the zoo-based STSE approach? 3. What do you know about learning assessment according to the zoo-based STSE approach? 4. In your opinion, what are the factors that affect your teaching according to the zoo-based STSE approach? 5. Did you achieve your goals while participating in this PD program? 6. Will you teach using the zoo-based STSE approach next semester? How?
264
Appendix D Example of a Zoo-Based STSE Lesson Plan
265
Example of a Zoo-Based STSE Lesson Plan For the Topic of Animal Behavior
This lesson plan about animal behavior is a part of an instructional unit concerning animals as science subject in grade 4. This lesson plan is designed based on the National Science Curriculum Standards B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008) according to the following standards and indicators: Strand 1: Living Things and Family (Standard Sc 1.1)
Understanding basic units of living things; relationship between structures and functions of living things, which are interlinked; investigative processes for seeking knowledge; ability to communicate acquired knowledge that could be applied to one’s life and care for living things Grade Level Indicators (Grade 4)
Explain behavior of animals responding to light, temperature and touch, and apply acquired knowledge for useful purposes. Core Strand Science about Animal Behavior
- Animal behavior is the expression of animals in responding to light, temperature and touch. - Applications of acquired knowledge about animal behaviour are to set the appropriate environment for animal living and to develop manufacturing. Strand 8: Nature of Science and Technology (Standard Sc 8.1)
Application of scientific
processes
and
scientific
mind
in
investigation for seeking knowledge and problem solving; knowing that most natural phenomena assume definite patterns that are explainable and verifiable within limitations of data and instruments available during particular periods of time; and understanding that science, technology, society and the environment are interrelated. Grade Level Indicators (Grade 4) Pose questions about the issues, matters or situations to be studied as prescribed and in accord with their interests; Plan for observation and propose methods for exploration, verification, study and research, and form expectations
266
Grade Level Indicators (Grade 4) Pose questions about the issues, matters or situations to be studied as prescribed and in accord with their interests; Plan for observation and propose methods for exploration, verification, study and research, and form expectations of what is to be found from the exploration and verification; Select accurate and appropriate instruments for exploration and verification; Make a record of quantitative data, and present conclusion of results;
Pose new questions for
subsequent exploration and verification; Express opinions and conclusions about what is being learned; Make a record and clearly and directly explain results of exploration and verification. Present and display work through verbal presentation or write to explain the processes and results of their work for others to understand.
267 Example of a Zoo-Based STSE Lesson Plan Science Standard Topic: Animal Behavior
Grade 4 Times: 5 Periods
Objectives of Teaching: 1. Explain animals’ behavior in response to the environment 2. Identify the environment that causes animals to express their behaviors 3. Pose questions about animal behavior from student interests 4. Plan, observe, make a record, and analyze data about animal behavior 5. Give examples of applications of acquired knowledge about animal behavior 6. Participate in providing care and preservation of animals from STSE issues concerning animals 7. Work collaboratively in groups with hands-on and mind-on activities
Main Concepts 1. Animal behaviour is the expressions of animals whereby each animal has specific patterns for responding to the environment that motivate the animals to express their behaviours. Some stimuli are food, light, sound, heat, and so on. 1.1 Food is a stimulus that causes animals to express behavior such as moving towards it or using some organs to bring it to their body. 1.2 Light is a stimulus that causes animals to express behavior such as sleeping, staying in a dark area, or hunting for food. 1.3 Sound is a stimulus that causes animals to express behavior such as moving in or out from the origin of the sound. 1.4 Heat is a stimulus that causes animals to express behavior such as sun bathing, open their mouth, or staying indoors. 2. Applications of acquired knowledge about animal behavior are to set appropriate environments for animals to live and to develop manufacturing such as the management of crocodile or deer farms. However, all people should treat animals with love and mercy.
268 Learning Activities Before the Field Trip to the Zoo (2 Periods) 1. Launching Part of Lesson 1.1
Students are divided into groups of four or five with mixed genders and abilities.
1.2
Students in each group look at animals in the pictures which they bring from magazines or newspapers from home to class. They then exchange their ideas about animal behavior according to the following questions:
- What are some behaviors that animals in your group can express? - What are the causes that motivate animals to express their behaviors? - In your opinion, what is the animal behavior?
1.3
Each group of students writes ideas on a provided poster and presents their ideas about animal behavior.
1.4
The teacher sets the situation that the government would like to construct a new zoo in Bangkok. Many of animals in your group are provided to this zoo. Each group of students discusses the following issues:
- How would you feel if you were an animal in the zoo? - Who do you think should be responsible for the animals in this situation? - In your opinion, what is the appropriate way to deal with this situation?
1.5
Each group of students presents and shares their ideas about each issue. The teacher links student ideas to make agreement for studying animal behavior at the zoo because this zoo provides many kinds of animals. Students can obviously learn about animal behavior.
1.6
The teacher informs students about the goal of the zoo excursion and the schedule of activities before going to the zoo.
269 1.7
Each group of students selects one animal that they are interested in studying at the zoo. When the students have already selected their animals of interest, the teacher motivates them to search for the basic information about these animals using various kinds of learning resources such as the library, internet, or a zoologist, and record their findings in worksheet I.
2. Teaching Part 2.1
Each group of students brainstorms about questions about behaviour of the interest animal and writes on the provided posters. Their questions may be as follows:
- How does it eat, move, or make sounds? - What are the causes that motivate the animal to express its behavior?
2.2
-
Is its behaviour the same as other animals?
-
How can we apply knowledge about its behavior in daily life?
-
What are the factors that affect its behavior?
Each group of students brings a poster to attach on the blackboard and presents their questions. After that, students and the teacher help to group their questions. Their questions might be divided into three groups: questions that can suddenly answer without searching from any learning resources; questions that are only answered from observing animals in the zoo; and questions that are answered using other learning resources such as books, the library, or the internet.
2.3
Each group of students selects one question that is only answered from observing the interest animal in the zoo and plans how to answer these questions from using the zoo as a learning resource in worksheet II.
2.4
After finishing the planning, each group of students presents and shares their ideas about planning to study the interest animals’ behavior in the zoo with the whole class.
270 2.5
Students and teachers discuss about the important things that students should be aware of during the collection of data such as time for observation, managing duties in the group, essential instruments, or the details for records. Before leaving the class, the teacher motivates the students to find answers after class to other questions that they posed.
During the Field Trip to the Zoo (1 Day Field trip) 2.6
Students go to the zoo according to the schedule of the excursion. When they arrive at the zoo, they survey the animals in the zoo by taking the mini-train. Before exploring the animal behavior the teacher tells them how to behave at the zoo, and makes an appointment time and place to meet after they have finished their tasks.
2.7
Each group of students does activities according to the plan and makes a record of data in worksheet III.
2.8
Teacher gives them a chance to explore other animals that they are interested in the zoo before going back to the school.
After Field Trip to the Zoo (3 Periods) 2.9
Each group of students concludes and presents the results of their exploration of animal behavior in the zoo according the interest questions and their opinions about the activity.
2.10 Teacher divides the students into two groups (pro and con sides). Students use their information, about animal behavior that they searched for in the zoo, for debate in the topic of: “Zoo is the Area to Limit Animals’ Natural Behavior�. The teacher acts as the moderator to motivate students to express their ideas and suggestions for the application of their acquired knowledge in setting an appropriate environment for animals to live, and to develop manufacturing. 2.11 Each group of students makes classroom bulletin boards that show the findings of animal behavior in zoo and their application of knowledge to others.
271 3. Summary Part 3.1
The teacher shows the posters where the students wrote their ideas about animal behavior at the launching part of teaching
3.2
Students help to gather to adjust these ideas for making summaries of scientific concepts about animal behavior.
Media 1. Posters 2. Worksheet I: Who am I? 3. Worksheet II: Important Planning! 4. Worksheet III: Reveal the Secret of Animals! Learning Resources 1. Zoo 2. Other learning resources such as the library, the internet, zoologists, and so on Learning Assessment Topics 1. Understanding
Methods Consider their
of animal behavior answers to the
Tools
Criteria
The provided
After doing the activity,
posters
80% of the students can
questions about
answer the questions
animal behavior
more correctly than
before and after
before doing the
doing the activity
activity.
2. Scientific
Consider students’
Evaluation
Groups that got average
process skills
questions, planning
form of the
scores in these rages:
for collecting data,
students’
18–20 Excellent
making records,
scientific
14-17
Good
analyzing and
process skills
13-10
Medium
concluding data, and
and the
1-9
presentations about
worksheets
animal behavior
Unsatisfactory
272 Topics 3. Group working
Methods Evaluation of
Tools Evaluation
Criteria Groups with average
skills
students’ work by
form of
scores in these rages:
both students and
group work
teachers
18-20 Excellence 14-17
Good
13-10 Medium 1-9
Unsatisfactory
4. Awareness of
Observation of
- Debate in
Over 80% of students
animal
students’ debate and
topic of :
can express their ideas
conservation
making classroom
“Zoo is the
about animal behavior
bulletin boards
Area to Limit
and make suggestions
Animals’
for application of their
Natural
acquired knowledge to
Behavior”
set appropriate
- Classroom
environments for
bulletin boards
animals to live, and to develop manufacturing.
Note: The activities in this lesson plan can all be done in the zoo. The teacher can assign students to go to the zoo by themselves on the weekend if the zoo is not far from their living area. If the teacher cannot take students to the zoo, they can use other learning resources instead of the zoo, such as animal farms, natural parks, temples or communities that students live in.
273 Example of Worksheet I Who am I?
Name………………Surname…………………Class………………No………
Direction: Students record the basic information about the animals of interest according to the following topics.
1. The interest animal The red-shanked douc langur
2. The reason of selecting this animal to study It is killed by humans for food, used in traditional medicine, and the illegal wildlife trade. Therefore, the birth rate of this animal has gone down. Its behavior should be studied to find the ways to protect them.
3. Characteristics It is the most colorful primate. It is 61-76 cm tall and has a white tail that measures 56-76 cm long. The male is much larger than the female. The average body mass for an adult male is 10.9 kilograms, and for the female it is around 8.2 kilograms. It has golden face framed by white ruff. Its eyelids are a soft powder blue. The top of the head is reddish-black. Its body looks like it is wearing a gray shirt, black shorts, and it has white forearm length gloves. The hands and the feet are black. Males have a white spot on both sides of the corners of the rump patch but the females do not have these.
4. Life style They live in groups with an average size of 4 to 15. Males are dominant to females. Typically, it moves noisily from branch to branch, racing through foliage, swinging under branches and leaping with two feet together. When a group is disturbed, it can flee soundlessly through the trees away from danger. This monkey communicates using facial expressions. Mating takes place from August to December. The pregnancy lasts between 165 and 190 days. Females reach sexual
274 maturity at about 4 years, while the males reach it at 4-5 years. They have a life span of about 25 years.
5. Habitat It is found in a variety of habitats from lowlands to mountains. It can live in deciduous and rainforests in the mid to upper levels of the canopy. Generally, it is native to Southeast Asia, especially China, Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia.
6. Food Its diet is mostly leaves. It also consumes fruits, buds, petioles, flowers, bamboo shoots and seeds. It does not drink water, but rather it derives water from the food it eats.
275 Example of Worksheet II Important Planning! Group Members 1. Name……….....Surname…………Class…………No………Task………… 2. Name……….....Surname…………Class…………No………Task………… 3. Name……….....Surname…………Class…………No………Task………… 4. Name……….....Surname…………Class…………No………Task………… 5. Name……….....Surname…………Class…………No………Task………… Direction: Students plan how to explore animal behavior in the zoo according to the following topics.
1. Animal name The red-shanked douc langur
2. Interesting questions 1) What behavior can it express when we study it in the zoo? 2) How does it express its behavior? 3) What factors affect its behavior? 4) How can we apply knowledge about its behavior?
3. Selected questions to study at the zoo What factors affect its behavior?
4. Objectives of study To observe animal behavior and identify the factors that affect the redshanked douc langur behavior
5. Devices/Equipments Paper, pencil, pen, crayon, and stopwatch
276 6. Procedures 1) Determine the duties and tasks of each member such as keeping time, making notes, and drawing pictures 2) Observe and note what are in the cages 3) Select one of the red-shanked douc langurs to study 4) Describe the characteristics of the selected red-shanked douc langur 5) Start observing what it expresses every 5 minutes and make notes 6) Stop observation after 30 minutes 7) Analyse data to identify the factors that affect the red-shanked douc langur behavior 8) Summarize and identify the factors that affect the red-shanked douc langur behavior
277 Example of Worksheet III Reveal the Secret of Animals! Group Members 1. Name……….....Surname…………Class…………No………Task………… 2. Name……….....Surname…………Class…………No………Task………… 3. Name……….....Surname…………Class…………No………Task………… 4. Name……….....Surname…………Class…………No………Task………… 5. Name……….....Surname…………Class…………No………Task………… Direction: Students explore animal behavior in the zoo according to the following topics.
1. Your animal of interest
The red-shanked douc langur
2. Drawing of your interest animal and the environment in its cage
Descriptions There are 15 red-shanked douc langurs which comprise thirteen adults and two infants. This cage is 4 meters wide, 5 meters long, and 4 meters high. There are many ropes which stretch from the cage. Moreover, there is one big branch of tree placed from one side to another side of cage on the middle of the cage. At the ground of this cage there are trays containing fresh leaves and three small logs.
278 3. Select one animal to observe and describe its characteristics The selected red-shanked douc langur is female. It has a yellow face, white hair cheeks, white tail, black fingers and toes. It has two frontal bands over the eyes which are dominated by red over black. Its body is gray with hairs of black, white, and gray.
4. Students observe the selected animal every 5 minutes for a total of 30 minutes and record data in the table below. Table topic: The behavior of red-shanked douc langur within 30 minutes
Time
Observed Behaviors It is sitting on the ground of the cage next to two
11.00-11.05 am.
others. After that it grabs some leaves in the tray and puts those leaves in its mouth and chews them. It uses its arms and legs to move to one big branch of
11.05-11.10 am.
the tree then sits on that branch and looks out of the cage. When there are some visitors talking with loud voices
11.10-11.15 am.
near the cage, it leaps with its arms outstretched over its head to one rope for jumping from place to place. After that it pushes off with its legs and lands on two feet. It walks to the group of red-shanked douc langurs that
11.15-11.20 am.
are eating. It finally sits and eats some leaves together with that group. When the sun shines on the eating area, it changes
11.20-11.25 am.
areas to eat. After finishing eating, it plays with other red-shanked douc langurs by running around the cage. When a visitor eats some food near its cage, it uses one
11.25-11.30 am.
hand to try to get some. When it does not get food, it jumps to another side of the cage.
279 5. Conclusions and discussions Factors that affect the red-shanked douc langur behavior are food, sound, light and heat. Food is a stimulus that causes it to move to eat. Loud voices of visitors make it jump in the cage because it is afraid of danger. Sunlight is also a stimulus that causes it to be alerts for finding some food to eat. However, the heat of sunlight causes it to move from the eating area to another side of cage that does not have sunlight.
6. What are your opinions about doing this activity in the zoo? (The answer of this item depends on students’ opinions such as having knowledge about animals, promoting group work, having fun, being tired and so on.)
7. What are your opinions about providing animals in the zoo? (The answer of this item depends on students’ opinions. The teacher can use this answer for discussion or debate)
280 Evaluation Form of Students’ Process Skills
Topic…………………………… Date……………………….. Class ……………… Direction: Teacher evaluates each group of students on process skills according to the criteria in the table and puts scores in the blank spaces.
Topics 1. Questioning 1.1 Questions are clearly identified and formulated in a manner (4) 1.2 Questions are clearly identified (3) 1.3 Questions are implied (2) 1.4 Questions are unclear or absent (1) 2. Planning 2.1 Clear step by step description of exploration procedures as well as mention and showing of devices or equipments (4) 2.2 Step by step description that misses not more than one key detail but mentions and shows devices or equipments (3) 2.3 Step by step description that misses not more than two key details as well devices or equipments are mentioned but not shown (2) 2.4 Description lacks of more than two key details, no mention of devices or equipments (1) 3. Making record 3.1 Description contains clear details and shows evidence of careful study using multiple senses when appropriate (4) 3.2 Description contains quite clear details and shows evidence of careful study but are relegated to one sense (3)
1
Group Number 2 3 4 5
281
Topics
Group Number 1
2
3
4
5
3.3 Description contains quite clear details but lacks intricate detail (2) 3.4 Description lacks clarity and detail (1) 4. Conclusions and discussions 4.1 Descriptions are based on results and clearly explained (4) 4.2 Descriptions are based on results (3) 4.3 Descriptions are unclear but relate to the data (2) 4.4 Descriptions are unclear or unrelated to the data (1) 5. Presentation 5.1 Presentation is clear, effectively focused and organized(4) 5.2 Presentation is quite clear, focused and organized (3) 5.3 Presentation is unclear but has some focus and organization (2) 5.4 Descriptions are unclear and lack focus and organization (1) Total (20 scores)
Note: ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………
282 Evaluation Form for Group Work Topic…………………………… Group……………………….. Date…………. Group Members 1. Name………...................Surname…………...........Class…………No…… 2. Name………...................Surname…………...........Class…………No…… 3. Name………...................Surname…………...........Class…………No…… 4. Name………...................Surname…………...........Class…………No…… 5. Name………...................Surname…………...........Class…………No…… Direction: Students and the teacher evaluate students’ group work according to the criteria below and put scores in the blanks Criteria: (1) Unsatisfactory
(2) Medium
(3) Good
(4) Very Good
Scores of Each Group Member
Student 5
Student 4
Student 3
Student 2
Student 1
Teacher Evaluation Student 5
Student 4
Student 3
Student 2
Topics
Student 1
Student Evaluation
1. Sharing ideas altogether 2. Acceptance of the ideas of others 3. Intention and enthusiasm 4. Responsibility 5. Participation Total
Suggestions: ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………
283
Appendix E Field Note
284 Field Note Teacher’s name……………………………………………………………………… Subject…………………...Topic.............................................Class………………… Date....................................Time………………The number of class period………
Physical environment …………………………………………………………………………………………… …...……………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… …...……………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… Activities Launching part
Opinion
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
. ............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
......... ....................................
285 Learning Part
Opinion
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
Summary Part
Opinion
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
.......................................................................................
..............................................
Note …………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………
286
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA NAME:
Mr. Sasithep Pitiporntapin
DATE OF BIRTH:
December 1, 1983
PLACE OF BIRTH:
Bangkok, Thailand
EDUCATION:
2005 B.S. (Biology) with First Class Honors, Kasetsart University, Thailand 2006 Grad.Dip. (Teaching Science Profession) Kasetsart University, Thailand 2009 International Research Internship, the University of British Columbia, Canada
SCHOLARSHIPS:
2005 – 2011 Scholarships for studying in B.Sc., Grad. Dip. and Ph.D. from the Project for the Promotion of Science and Mathematics Talented Teachers (PMST), under the management of the Institute of Promotion of Science and Technology Teaching (IPST), Thailand. 2009 The scholarships for research funding from the Graduate School, Kasetsart University, Thailand
1