11 SES 02, Science and Quality of Education
Science, one of the greatest cultural achievements of Western society, fails to engage the interest of young people (Osborne & Hennessy, 2003:9). Technology is one of the means by which young people could be interested in learning science. ICT offers the opportunity for active engagement to participate in science activities, using different technological possibilities. Digital technologies are an inseparable part of today's learning process (European Commission, 2018). Europe needs to develop and innovate school education. There is a need for schools to adapt to the changing context, in which they operate, including the digital era and the increasing diversity among pupils (European Commission, 2016). The European Commission works on several policy initiatives, for example, to elaborates the Action Plan on Digital Learning in order to modernise education and training, provides funding for research and innovation in order to promote digital technologies used for learning and measures the progress on digitization of schools. The idea is how to help individuals, educational institutions and education systems to better adapt for life and work in an age of rapid digital change (European Commission, 2018).
The development of Standards for Students and Educators by International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) shows how the guidelines of usage technology have changed over time: from 1998 - Learning to use technology, 2007 - Using technology to learn, till 2016 - Transformative learning with technology (ISTE). This means that the quality and efficiency of the usage of technology in science education also should change.
But the problem is as note M. Fullan and M. Langworthy (2014) that the school focused first on student learning goals, second on precise pedagogy, and third on how technology could enable and accelerate learning in high level standards.
The present reseach is related to find out the role of technology in qualitative science teaching/learning. Authors have chosen the target group of science teachers and students because science teachers are smart and “savvy” users of instructional technology. It is self-evident that teachers use different digital resources to help students explore and learn, support collaborative classroom projects, and develop formative assessments. They also use the Internet and webinars to help them increase their content knowledge, prepare for a lesson, or share ideas with others. Technology has modified the method of learning and teaching (Byers, 2016).
The usage of ICT in science is divided into four broad areas: data handling, information, communication and exploration (European Schoolnet, 2016)
Technology tools such as computers, probeware, data collection and analysis software, digital microscopes, hypermedia/multimedia, student response systems, and interactive white boards can help students actively engage in the acquisition of scientific knowledge and development of the nature of science and inquiry (Guzey & Roehrig, 2009). Science resources: from virtual labs to computational tools, there are dozens of options for integrating technology into the science curriculum (Byers, 2016). The mentioned kinds of learning certainly attract students as a representative of the digital generation for whom the learning takes place by using technologies intuitively in their everyday life (Punie, Zinnbauer, & Cabrera, 2008). It is possible that using such technologies makes learning of the student more interesting, effective and more qualitative.
Therefore, in order to clarify issues of technology usage it was important to put forward two research questions:
1. What differences and similarities exist in the usage of technology as a resource by teachers and students in science teaching/learning?
2. What are factors which does impact teacher activities in teaching by using of technology?
A pilot study by using the questionnaire developed in ERASMUS+ project ‘International Diploma for Teacher in Education (eSTEM)’ was conducted in December 2017 with the aim to clarify the science teachers’ and secondary school students' views on science education. There were developed two questionnaires: one for teachers and one for students with similar items. The data have been obtained by using of closed-open items using 5-point Likert scale in online platform of QuestionPro. Quantitative data was used to determine the statistical significance of the Mann-Whitney U test between two independent samples and Spearman's correlation analysis to determine the relationships between the criteria. The survey was structured in two parts: general and conceptual. The respondents' profile (general part of survey) consisted of: • Statuss (teachers, students) • Level of education completed • Teaching experience in STEM schools • Grade level, etc. Conceptual part of the survey were identified such issues as: • Curriculum • Teaching Methods & Strategies • Students' learning/ Teacher’teachnig • Teaching Aids • Assessment • School environment & support (facilities), etc. The pilot study involved 230 respondents (81 teachers and 149 students). Teacher profile consists of: • Gender: female - 70, male - 11; • Subject: Science – 11, biology – 19, Chemistry – 13, Physics – 17, Math – 30, Geography – 6, Technology – 15, Others – 3; • Age: 20-24 – 9, 25-30 – 6, 31-40 – 7, 41-50 – 21, 51-60 – 33, 61-65 – 8, <70 – 1; • Education level: Diploma – 33, Diploma (professional) – 14, Bachelor – 10, Master – 51, PhD – 1, Others – 2; • Experience: >1 Year – 2, 1 - 3 Years – 5, 4 - 6 Years – 3, 7 - 10 Years – 6, 11 - 20 Years – 13, 21 - 30 Years – 22, <30 Years – 30; • Grade: 5th grade – 13, 6th grade – 14, 7th grade – 9, 8th grade – 12, 9th grade – 17, 10th grade – 31, 11th grade – 31, 12th grade – 33; • Direction: No direction – 55, Humanitarian – 15, Science – 29, Others – 11. Student profile consists of: • Gender: female - 70, male - 11; • Requirement for joining STEM school: Average mark – 70, Passing test in science, mathematics, engineering and technology – 9, Passing IQ test – 1, Passing a personal interview – 31; • Direction: No direction – 2, Humanitarian – 1, Science – 58, Secondary school – 24, Gymnasium – 120, Others – 15. • Grade: 10th grade – 54, 11th grade – 49, 12th grade – 46.
There are no differences between teachers and students views of such technology used in science education as Internet for searching of information; Computer adapted microscope; Tools for data capture, processing and interpretation: data logging systems; online discussions: chat rooms, e-mail, e-conference etc. and tablets. There are differences in usage of (ρ=0.002) Computer laboratory simulations (multimedia software for simulation of processes and carrying out virtual experiments; Online programs (e.g. Prezi, etc.) for presentations and handouts; Microsoft Office applications during lessons; Desktop publishing; MOOCs; A variety of means (models, drawings, graphs, etc.) to present phenomena; Interactive board; Voting consoles; Educational computer games; E-learning resources; (ρ=0.002) Electronic grade book, (ρ=0.003) e-folio; Mobile computerclass; (ρ=0.006) Smartphones, (ρ=0.007); Other internet resources (DB, video, animations). Unfortunaly, there is less evidence of use newer technologies: tools for data capture, processing and interpretation – data logging systems, and computer adapted microscope, as well online discussions: chat rooms, e-mail, e-conference etc. It means, that the influence of ICT in science education are still largely tentative. Assessing the use of ICT teachers demonstrated a more critical attitude than students. This raises the question - do students use technology smarter than teachers or is students self-esteem higher? The institutional and personal factors impact the use of ICT. Institutional factors are: lack of technology and infrastructure provision (r=0.89); Computer and software moral depreciation (r=0.92); Co-operation with teachers of other subjects (r=0.91). Teaching using ICT puts 21th century demands on teachers and very important for integration technologies in classroom is teachers motivation as one of the personal key-factor. Others: Costs required for the purchase, use and maintenance of a personal computer (r=0.76), Too much of the information must be mastered in order for the technology to be efficiently used in the classroom (r=0.72); Prolonged use of technology causes health problems (r=0.78).
1.Becta ICT Research (2004). What the research says about using ICT in science. Rretrieved from http://39lu337z51l1zjr1i1ntpio4.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/wtrs_18_science.pdf 2.Byers, A. (2016) Science Teachers “Speak Up” About Technology in the Classroom. Retrieved from http://nstacommunities.org/blog/2016/09/08/science-teachers-speak-up-about-technology-in-the-classroom/ 3.European Commission (2016) Improving and Modernising Education. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0941&from=EN 4.European Commission (2018) Digital Learning & ICT in Education. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/policies/digital-learning-ict-education 5.European Schoolnet (2016) ICT in STEM Education - Impacts and Challenges: Setting the scene. A STEM Alliance Literature Review, Brussels, Belgium 6.Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. MaRS Discovery District. 7.Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/science/teaching-science-with-technology-case-studies-of-science-teachersdevelopment-of-technology-pedagogy-and-content-knowledge 8.Osborne, J., & Hennessy, S. (2003). Literature review in science education and the role of ICT: Promise, problems and future directions. Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk/research/lit_reviews.htm 9.Punie, Y., Zinnbauer, D., & Cabrera, M. (2008). A review of the Impact of ICT on Learning. Working paper prepared for DG EAC. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), JRC, European Commission. Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47246.TN.pdf
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- 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.