Affiliation:
1. University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Abstract
This research explored upper-secondary school students’ approaches when they engage in planning and conducting science experiments. Approaches to science experiments are important because they provide insight into students’ scientific reasoning and their enactment of scientific methods. An explanatory mixed-methods design was employed to determine and explain students’ approaches to science experiments. Data were generated by administering a 15-item Approaches to Science Experiments Questionnaire (ASEQ) on 211 participants and interviewing a smaller sample of 33. The linear approach was predominant while the divergent approach was least adopted by the participants. The teaching-learning context, substantive and procedural knowledge lead to specific approaches and the emergence of subcategories of the three broad approaches. Capable students engaged in a self-directed iterative approach while external help resulted in an assisted iterative approach. Rigid and contrived linear approaches were a result of time constraints, substantive and procedural shortcomings. Scattergun and blanking divergent approaches emerged from extreme weaknesses in substantive and procedural knowledge. Assessing practical skills through long-term projects is recommended to focus more on developing students’ scientific reasoning and process skills. Research with the ASEQ in other teaching-learning cultures, observing students in action and analysing their write-ups could provide deeper insights into approaches to science experiments.
Keywords: science experiments, divergent approach, iterative approach, linear approach, mixed methods.
Reference48 articles.
1. Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069071749305
2. Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035 –1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21036
3. Bernard, P., Dudek-Różycki, K., & Orwat, K. (2019). Integration of inquiry-based instruction with formative assessment: The case of experienced chemistry teachers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(2), 184-196. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.184
4. Biggs, J. B. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong: Some comparative studies. Educational Research Journal, 6, 27-39.
5. Byrne, B. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3 ed.). Routledge.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献