-

Abstract

This study examines how Science is taught in the secondary and high school levels in Romania. In order to identify how Science is taught, 82 teachers were assessed on their teaching methods, homework assignments and students’ evaluation in physics, chemistry and biology. Further, teachers were asked to mention what type of lifelong programmes they have attended. The major finding in this study is that teachers make little use of experiments and scientific investigations, in the favour of theoretical learning. One explanation can be the fact that the highest weight in continuous teacher training was assigned to psychology, pedagogy, educational management and computer assisted instruction and reduced attention was attributed to the didactic training in science subjects. This investigation raises questions about the effectiveness of teaching Science in secondary and high school levels in Romania, and proposes some recommendations regarding teaching science and science teacher training.

Keywords

• Teaching science, teacher training, students‘ assessment.

How Science is taught in the Secondary and High School Levels in Romania?

Abstract

Başlıkta belirtilen suala cevap bulmak için, 82 fizik, kimya ve biyoloji öğretmenine öğretim yöntemlerine, ödev derslerine ve öğrencileri ne şekilde değerlendirdiklerine dair sorular sorulmuştur. Ayrıca, bu öğretmenlerden ne gibi sürekli oluşturma programlarına katıldıklarını da belirtmeleri rica edilmişti. Bu araştırmanın başlıca neticesi şudur ki, öğretmenler kurama ağırlık vererek, öğrencilerini bilimsel deney ve araştırmalara çok az derecede içeriyorlar. Bu durumun izahını fen öğretmenlerin başlanğıç ve sürekli oluşturma programlarında psikoloji, pedagoji, eğitim idareciliği ve bilgisayar aracılığı ile öğrenim dalları en önemli yerleri tutmaktalardır. Fen derslerinin öğretim alanındaki hazırlıkları güncelleştirme gereksinime bu programlarda lazım olan önem verilmemektedir. Uluslararası uygulanan testlerde Romen (ve başka ülkelerden de) öğrencilerin yetersiz puan aldıklarını da göz önünde tutarak, bu araştırmamızda fen derslerinin etkiliğini sual altına almakla beraber, fen derslerini öğretme ve fen öğretmenlerini oluşturma sorunları ile alakalı bazı öneriler de ileri sürülmektedir.

Keywords

• Fen öğretmesi, öğretmen oluşturması, öğrenci değerlendirmesi.

References

1. Apostu, O., et al. (2009). Formarea professională continuă în România. Mihaela Jigău (coord.), Institutul de Științe ale Educației. Centrul Național de Resurse pentru Orientarea Profesională. București: Editura Afir.
2. Banca Mondiala/World Bank (2007). România. Notă privind politicile educaționale. [Available online at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTROMANIAINROMANIAN/Resources/EducationPolicyNoteRomanian.pdf ], Retrieved on August 12, 2012.
3. Baram-Tsabari, A. & Kaadni, A. (2009). Gender dependency and cultural independency of science interest in an open and distant science learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10 (2), 1-22.
4. Bishop, K., & Denley, P. (2007). Learning science teaching. developing a professional knowledge base. UK: Open University Press. McGraw-Hill Education.
5. Brock., C., Lapp, D., Flood, J., Fisher, D., & Han, T. (2007). Does homework matter? An investigation of teacher’s perceptions about homework practices for children from nondominant backgrounds. Urban Education, 42 (4), 349 – 37
6. Buchberger, F., Campos, B.P., Kallos D., & Stephenson, J. (2000). Green Paper on Teacher Education in Europe. Fakultetsnamnden for lararutbildning, Umea University. [Available online at: http://tntee.umu.se/publications/greenpaper/greenpaper.pdf], Retrieved on August 9, 2010.
7. Ciascai, L., & Haiduc, L. (2011). The study of natural sciences and teacher training. In E. Eisenschmidt & E. Löfström (Eds.), Developing quality cultures in teacher education: expanding horizons in relation to quality assurance (pp. 285-303), Eduko, Talin: OÜ Vali Press.
8. Cooper, H., Robinson, C., & Patall, E. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987 – 2003. Review of Educational Research, 76 (1), 1-62.

9. Christidou, V. (2011). Interest, attitudes and images related to science: Combining students’ voices with the voices of school Science, teachers, and popular science. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 6(2), 141-15
10. Dillon, J., & Mannning, A. (2010). Science teachers, Science teaching. Issues and challenges. In J. Osborbe, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in Science teaching. What research has to say. Second edition. (pp. 6-19). London: McGraw Hill. Open University Press.
11. Eisenschmidt, E., & Löfström. E. (2008).The significance of the European Commission’s policy paper ‘Improving the quality of teacher education’: Perspectives of Estonian teachers, teacher educators and policy-makers. In B. Hudson, & P. Zgaga (Eds.). Teacher education policy in Europe: a voice of higher education institutions (pp. 4362). Umeå: University of Umeå, Faculty of Teacher Education.
12. European Comission (2011). Science Education in Europe: National Policies, Practices and Research. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA P9 Eurydice). [Available online at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice] Retrieved on September 1, 2013.
13. Ghaye, T. (2011). Teaching and learning through critical reflective practice. a practical guide for positive action. Second edition. London & New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
14. Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth-and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context (NCES 2009–001), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
15. Gott, R., & Mashite, J. (2005). Practical work in science A task-based approach? Teaching Science. Ralf Levison (Ed.), London and New York: Routledge in association with The Open University.
16. Greenwald, R., Hedges L.V., &. Laine, R.D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361-96.
17. Handsen, D.T. (2008) Values and purpose in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, J. McIntyre, & K.E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of Researche on Teacher Education. Enduring Questions in Changing Contexts. Third Edition. (pp. 10-26). New York and London: Co-published by Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group and the Association of Teacher Educators.
18. Hillier, Y. (2005). Reflective teaching in further and adult education, Second Edition. London, New York: Continuum. Hussar, K., Schwarts, S., Bioselle, E., & Noam, G. (2008). Toward a systematic evidence-base for science in out-ofschool time: the role of assessment. Program in education, afterschool & resiliency. UK: Harvard University and McLean Hospital, Noyce Foundation.
19. Iucu, R. (2005). Formarea cadrelor didactice (Teachers’ training). Bucuresti: UNICEF.
20. Martin, M.O., et al. (2008). TIMSS 2007 international science report: findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
21. Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G.M. (2012). Timss 2011 international results in science. USA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
22. Marzano, R.J. & Brown, J.L. (2009). A handbook for the art and science of teaching. USA: Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD
23. Miclea, M., David, D., Funeriu, D., Florian, R.V., Ciuparu, D., Ionac, M., et al. (2007). România educatiei, România cercetarii. Raportul Comisiei Prezidențiale pentru analiza și elaborarea politicilor din domeniile educației și cercetarii, București, 06 iulie 2007.
24. Miles, R.L., & Stapleton, J.N. What About Becoming a Science Teacher? [Available online at: http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/milesetal.pdf], Retrieved on June 1, 2012.
25. Ministry of Education, Research and Youth. (2008). Education development. National Report on Romania. Bucuresti: Ministry of Education, Research and Youth.
26. Moreira, M.A. (2011). Why concepts, why meaningful learning, why collaborative activities and why concept maps? Aprendizagem Significativa em Revista/Meaningful Learning Review – V1(3), 1-11. [Available online at: http://www.if.ufrgs.br/~moreira/v1n3a1.pdf], Retrieved on November 9, 2013.
27. National Research Council. (1997). Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28. National Research Council (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. Norton, L.S. (2009). Action research in teaching and learning: A practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities. London & New York: Routledge. Taylor and Francis Group.
30. Noveanu, G., Noveanu, D., Singer, M., & Pop, V. (2002). Invaţarea matematicii şi a ştiinţelor naturii. Studiu comparativ (1).Bucureşti: S.C. Aramis print S.R. L., Consiuliul Naţional pentru Curriculum, 21-25.
31. OECD. (2005). Teachers matter. Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD. [Available online at: http://books.google.ro/books], Retrieved on June 1, 2010.
32. OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results: What students know and can do - student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Volume I). PISA, OECD Publishing.
33. OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do - student performance in mathematics,reading and science (Volume I), PISA, OECD Publishing.
34. Potolea, D., & Ciolan, L. (2003). Teacher Education Reform in Romania. A Stage of Transition.Institutional approaches to teacher education within higher education in Europe: Current Models and New Developments. In Moon, B., Vlasceanu, L., & Barrows, L. (eds) (2003). Bucharest: UNESCO. [Available online at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001322/132297eb.pdf], Retrieved on June 1, 2012.
35. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Santerre, L. (2006). La part de l’école dans le développement d’une culture scientifique et technique. In A. Hasni, Y. Lenoir, & J. Lebeaume (Eds), La formation à l'enseignement des sciences et des technologies au secondaire: dans le contexte des réformes par compétences. (pp.41-56 ) Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
37. Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ attitudes to science. In J. Osborne, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in Science Teaching. What research has to say. Second edition (pp. 238-258).New York: McGraw Hill. Open University Press.
38. Snoek, M., & Žogla, I. (2009).Teacher education in Europe.Main characteristics and developments. In A. Swennen & M. van der Klink (Eds). (pp 91-102). Becoming a teacher. Theory and practice for teacher educator. ATEE: Springer.
39. Vatterot, C. (2009). Rethinking homework. Best practice that support diverse needs. USA, Alexandria: ASCD.
40. Van Velzen, C., Bezzina, C., & Lorist. P. (2009). Partnerships between schools and teacher education institutes. In A. Swennen, & M. van der Klink (Eds). Becoming a teacher. Theory and practice for teacher educator. (pp. 59-74). ATEE: Springer.
41. Vlăsceanu, L. (Eds). (2002). Reforma curriculara în România. Continuitate și schimbare (Curriculum reform in Romania: continuity and change). Iași: Polirom.