Archives
Current issue
About
About us
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Journal History
Publisher
Follow us: Twitter
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licencing
Publication Fees
Fee Waiver Policy for Doctoral Students
EJMSTE Language Editing Service
More
Statistics
Special Issues
Special Issue Announcements
Published Special Issues
RESEARCH PAPER
Integration of Science Disciplinary Core Ideas and Environmental Themes through Constructivist Teaching Practices
1
North Carolina State University, USA
Online publication date: 2020-02-02
Publication date: 2020-02-02
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2020;16(5):em1838
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
A descriptive, mixed methods study investigated learning outcomes and processes of integrating environmental education (EE) and science education (SE). Specifically, this study examined the impact of EE-based constructivist science teaching approach on students’ science achievement scores, environmental self-efficacy, course completion rate, and perceptions of their learning experiences. Participants of the study (N=46) included students in a Physical Science course at one public high school in a southeastern state of the United States. Data sources included the students’ final exam scores, standardized unit test scores, self-efficacy measurements, course completion data, and student written reflections. Data analysis indicated that students with an EE-based constructivist science teaching approach (N=23) performed higher on science achievement tests and developed statistically higher environmental self-efficacy than those in a traditional teaching classroom (N=23). More students passed the final exam (96%) and the mean final exam score was four points higher (82) in EE-based constructivist teaching approach classes. Students who were in the EE-based constructivist science teaching approach classroom tended to perceive their learning experiences in more positive ways.
PEER REVIEW INFORMATION
Editor: Dr. Wan NG
REFERENCES (52)
1.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
Ardoin, N. M., Bowers, A. W., Roth, N. W., & Holthuis, N. (2018). Environmental education and K-12 student outcomes: A review and analysis of research. The Journal of Environmental Education, 49(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/009589....
3.
Austin, B., & Schmidt, N. (2010). Pedagogy, Environmental; Education, and Context: Promoting Knowledge Through Concept Mapping. In A. M. Bodzin, B. S. Klein & S. Weaver (Eds.), The Inclusion of Environmental Education in Science Teacher Education. (pp. 225-236). Dordrecht; New York: Springer. Retrieved from http://www2.lib.ncsu.edu/catal....
4.
Banet, E., & Ayuso, G. E. (2003). Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 373-407.
5.
Baviskar, S. N., Hartle, R. T., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541-550.
6.
Bodzin, A., Klein, B. S., & Weaver, S. (2010). The inclusion of environmental education in science teacher education. Springer Science & Business Media.
7.
Banilower, E., Cohen, K., Pasley, J., & Weiss, I. (2010). Effective science instruction: What does research tell us? Second edition. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
8.
Burrowes, P. A. (2003). A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works: Lord’s constructivist model put to a test. The American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 491-502.
9.
Bybee, R. W. (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 211-221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972....
10.
Choi, J., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 53-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0230....
11.
Cobern, W. W., Gibson, A. T., & Underwood, S. A. (1995). Valuing science literacy. The Science Teacher, 62(9), 28-31.
12.
Cooper, J. L. (1995). Cooperative learning and critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 7. Retrieved from https://proxying.lib.ncsu.edu/....
13.
Cooper, L. Z. (2013). Student reflections on an LIS internship from a service learning perspective supporting multiple learning theories. Retrieved from https://proxying.lib.ncsu.edu/....
14.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
15.
Cuevas, H., & Fiore, S. (2014). Enhancing learning outcomes in computer-based training via self-generated elaboration. Instructional Science, 42(6), 839-859.
16.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
17.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New Your, NY: Kappa Delta Pi. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594....
18.
Glaze, A. (2018). Teaching and learning science in the 21st Century: Challenging critical assumptions in post-secondary science. Education Sciences, 8(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsc....
19.
Greeno, J., & Engestrom, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In K. Sawyer (Ed). The Cambridge Handbook of The Learning Sciences (2nd ed.) (pp. 128-147). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Hogan, K. (2002). Pitfalls of community-based learning: How power dynamics limit adolescents’ trajectories of growth and participation. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 586. Retrieved from https://proxying.lib.ncsu.edu/....
21.
Hollweg, K. S., Taylor, J., Bybee, R. W., Marcinkowski, T. J., McBeth, W. C., & Zoido, P. (2011). Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy. Environmental Education. Washington, DC: NAAEE. http://www.naaee.net.
22.
Howard, M. (2015). Science fiction meets scientific inquiry: A task-technology fit/computer-based training framework and a meta-analysis of virtual reality applications for intervention, training, and therapy purposes – ProQuest Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.pr....
23.
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.
24.
Hurley, T. V. (2017). Experiential teaching increases medication calculation accuracy among baccalaureate nursing students. Nursing Education Perspectives, 38(1), 34-36.
25.
Iamarino, D. L. (2014). The benefits of standards-based grading: A critical evaluation of modern grading practices. Current Issues in Education, 17(2). Retrieved from https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.....
26.
Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Moore, T. J. (Eds.). (2016). STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education. New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Lee, E. A., & Brown, M. J. (2018). Connecting inquiry and values in science education. Science & Education, 27(1-2), 63-79.
29.
Lieberman, G. A. & Hoody, L. L. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. San Diego, CA.
30.
Lieberman, G. A. (2013). Education and the Environment: Creating Standards-Based Programs in Schools and Districts(SEER). Harvard Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA. http://www.seer.org/pages/eic.....
31.
Lord, T. R. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 22-27.
32.
National Research Council. (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33.
National Research Council. (NRC) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded Edition. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning and Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34.
National Research Council. (NRC) (2005). How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom. Committee on How People Learn, A Targeted Report for Teachers, M.S. Donovan and J.D. Bransford, Editors. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
35.
North American Association for Environmental Education. (NAAEE) (2009). Excellence in Environmental Education: Guidelines for Learning (K-12). Northern Illinois University: National Project for Excellence in Environmental Education.
36.
Österlind, K. (2005). Concept formation in environmental education: 14-year olds’ work on the intensified greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer. International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 891-908.
37.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
38.
Plakitsi, K. (2010). Collective curriculum design as a tool for rethinking scientific literacy. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(3), 577-590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422....
39.
Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014) Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, volume II (pp 545-558). New York: Routledge. Retrieved from https://proxying.lib.ncsu.edu/....
40.
Sadler, T. D. (2011). Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science education. In Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom (pp. 1-9). Springer, Dordrecht.
41.
Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Bondell, H. D., Mertig, A. G., & Moore, S. E. (2013). Environmental, Institutional, and Demographic Predictors of Environmental Literacy among Middle School Children. PLoS ONE 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journa....
42.
Szczytko, R., Stevenson, K., Peterson, M. N., Nietfeld, J., & Strnad, R. L. (2019). Development and validation of the environmental literacy instrument for adolescents. Environmental Education Research, 25(2), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/135046....
43.
Tretter, T. R., & Jones, M. G. (2003). Relationships between inquiry-based teaching and physical science standardized test scores. School Science and Mathematics, 103(7), 345-350.
44.
UNESCO, U. (1977). The Tbilisi declaration. In Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education (pp. 14-26).
46.
Volk, T. L., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1984). A national survey of curriculum needs as perceived by professional environmental educators. The Journal of Environmental Education, 16(1), 10-19.
47.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
48.
Wals, A. E., Brody, M., Dillon, J., & Stevenson, R. B. (2014). Convergence between science and environmental education. Science, 344(6184), 583-584.
49.
Wang, H., Hong, Z., Liu, S., & Lin, H. (2018). The impact of socio-scientific issue discussions on student environmentalism. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12), em1624. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmst....
50.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.
51.
Wilcox, J. (2011). Holding ourselves to a higher standard: Using standards-based grading in science as a means to improve teaching and learning. Iowa Science Teachers Journal, 38(3), 4-11.
52.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994) Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1305-8223 |
| ISSN: | 1305-8215 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
