Session Information
27 SES 07 B, Tasks, Tools, and Conceptualisation in Mathematics and Sciences
Paper Session
Contribution
During the last decade the Czech educational system has undergone a curricular reform. One of the most important changes it introduced was the emphasis on pupils’ key competencies. Our research focuses on one of the most important of them – the problem-solving competence, specifically in the area of Science education. We believe that as primary Science lessons focus mostly on pupil's close surroundings, they are especially suitable for including problem-oriented tasks (further POT) and thus developing problem-solving competence. When analysing the tasks, we must see them in the broader context of the learning situation as a whole, i.e. consider also pupils’ and teacher’s previous knowledge, experience and skills and other observable characteristics of the classroom situation. A learning situation based on a POT is called a problem learning situation (further PLS). That means that our study concentrates on PLS in a primary Science instruction.
There is a lot of research showing that Problem-Based Learning (PBL) as an educational approach can effectively develop problem-solving competence (e.g. Strobel, & van Barneveld, 2009; Gijbels et al., 2005). That is why when identifying PLSs among other learning tasks in instruction; we take into account the PBL approach.
Even though PBL promotes pupils’ autonomy, the learners should be taught some basic steps in solving problem-oriented tasks. Based on available studies (cp. Delisle, 1997; Edens, 2000; Segers, 1997; Schmidt, 1983; Torp & Sage, 2002; Zumbach, Kumpf, & Koch, 2004 etc.), we distinguish 8 phases of a PLS. These phases provide an analytical frame for a more detail investigation of PLSs and their use in a primary Science education.
Phase 0 – Problem structuring – Teacher judges external and internal situational conditions and designs the problem.
Phase 1 – Initiation – Teacher poses preparatory tasks connected to the issue developed in POT and motivates pupils.
Phase 2 – Analysing the POT
Phase 3 – Searching for information
Phase 4 – Synthesizing findings
Phase 5 – Summarizing the solution
Phase 6 – Presenting the solution
Phase 7 – Reflecting on the solving process
These phases form a theoretical model which represents a didactic application of a traditional problem-solving cycle. The phases can be divided into two groups: (a) Phases focused on solving of POT as such (Phases 2, 3 and 4); and (b) Phases that develop and support the solving of POT (Phases 1, 5, 6 and 7). We suppose that those lessons that use phases focused on solving POT more develop the problem-solving competence better. However, the effects are strongly influenced by the concrete realization of the phases, thus also by classroom interaction and communication.
Classroom interaction has its specific rules, e.g. a pupil cannot speak without the teacher´s instruction (c.f. McHoul, 1978), a common pattern of communication is IRF (initiation, response, follow-up; Sinclair, & Coulthard, 1975). In Science instruction especially follow-up may be slightly different to what is usual in other subjects (c.f. Chin, 2006).
The presentation will follow two aims: (1) to give a brief overview of how the phases of the problem learning situation are represented in the research sample (concentrating on the core of a PLS, i.e. phase 2); (2) to deeply analyse phase 2, focusing on taking participants' turn, adjacency pairs and repair during the analysis of POT.
The research questions are as follows: What is the frequency and length of the Phase 2 in context of the whole PLS? What does the organisation of phase 2 look like (from a conversation analysis point of view)?
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Delisle, R. (1997). How to use Problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandria: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Edens, K. M. (2000). Preparing for the 21st century through problem-based learning. College Teaching, 48(2), 55–60. Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Bossche Van den, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 27–61. Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International journal of science education, 28(11), 1315–1346. McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in society, 7(2), 183–213 Segers, M. (1997). An alternative for assessing problem-solving skills: The overall test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 373–398. Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards and analysis of discourse: The English usedby teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, H. G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17(1), 11–16. Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 44–58. Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. Los Angeles: Sage. Torp, L., & Sage, S. (2002). Problems as possibilities: problem-based learning for K-16 education. Alexandria: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Zumbach, J., Kumpf, D., & Koch, S. (2004). Using multimedia to enhance problem-based learning in elementary school. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2004(1), 25–37.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.