Enhancing the Popularity and the Relevance of Science Teaching in Portuguese Science Classes

8/8/2019 Enhancing the Popularity and the Relevance of Science Teaching in Portuguese Science Classes

1/16

Enhancing the Popularity and the Relevance of Science

Teaching in Portuguese Science Classes

Ceclia Galvo & Pedro Reis & Sofia Freire &

Paulo Almeida

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract PARSEL Project emerged from the urgent need to overcome the problem of lack

of scientific literacy in the population, which should be a priority in a society where science

occupies a central place. Indeed, nowadays for any citizen to participate in a responsible

and informed way in society he has to be scientifically acknowledgeable. Nevertheless, not

only are scientific levels low in the general population, but also there is an increasing

number of students who avoid science and technology courses and related professions.

Within this context, PARSEL aims at raising science and scientific courses popularity andrelevancy as well as at enacting teachers professional development. In order to achieve

these goals, the PARSEL group developed 54 pan-European modules, which were tested

and evaluated by several teachers in several European countries and Israel. Teachers

maintained a close relationship with the university, were highly encouraged to appropriate

the modules and to adapt them to their local conditions and, also to discuss and share their

experiences. In Portugal, modules were tested by a group of eight teachers, and their

students. This paper presents data concerning teachers evaluation. Data was collected by

means of interviews, observation and written documents and reveals that teachers positively

evaluated PARSELs impact on their own professional development. Furthermore, they

considered modules as well as the teaching-learning approach essential for making science

learning relevant and popular for their students.

Keywords Science education . Teachersprofessional development. Popularity . Relevancy

Introduction

The history of science education is marked by tension and conflicting positions regarding,

among others, the place that science education should occupy within the global curriculum,the goals and aims that it should pursue and the teaching methods that should be adopted

Res Sci Educ

DOI 10.1007/s11165-010-9184-3

C. Galvo : P. Reis : S. Freire (*) : P. Almeida

Instituto de Educao da Universidade de Lisboa, Edifcio C6, Piso 1, Sala 6.1.20, Campo Grande,

1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal

e-mail: [email protected]


2/16

(DeBoer 1991, 2000; Flick and Lederman 2006). Answers provided to these questions are

framed by particular social and political contexts.

Nowadays, we live in a unique social, political and scientific context that influences the

answers provided to the questions above. Mention should be made that although science is

the foundation of occidental societies and occupies a hegemonic place within it, it facessome difficulties (Osborne and Dillon 2008). Indeed, despite scientific knowledge that has

emerged from humans intellectual effort to explain the natural world, nowadays the limits

of science are much broader than those imposed by the natural world. Not only is science a

means through which to solve problems emerging from society (NRC 1996; Osborne and

Dillon 2008), but also some of the products of science trigger social, political and ethical

problems, the solution for which lies outside science and for which there is no immediate

answer (Martins 2003). As a result, citizens are being called to participate in the decision

making process concerning socio-scientific issues (Driver et al. 1996). Paradoxically, the

general population reveals low levels of scientific literacy (Autio et al. 2007; European

Commission 2004; Miller 1997; UNESCO-ICSU 1999) and, in addition to this, younger

generations show a disinterest in studying science and pursuing careers related to science

(European Commission 2004).

So, present needs concerning science education are considerably different from

those that led to its inclusion in the general curriculum in the nineteenth century

(DeBoer 1991, 2000). Nowadays it is acknowledged that science education should aim

at developing certain key competencies, such as substantive, procedural and

epistemological knowledge, reasoning and reflection, argumentation and communica-

tion competencies, as well as scientific and life long learning attitudes, among others

(DeBoer2000; Galvo et al. 2006; Minstrell 2000; Osborne 2003; Osborne and Collins2001). Besides it is recognized that science education should aim at changing students

attitudes in relation to science in order to engage students with science careers

(Minstrell and van Zee 2000; NRC 1996).

In accordance with these ideas, the Portuguese Government has introduced several

changes in school curricula, namely with the science curriculum (Law n 6/2000, of

18th January). The science curriculum proposes a set of learning experiences that

should be provided to all students and is organized around competencies (Galvo and

Freire 2004; Galvo et al. 2006; Law n. 6/2001, of 18th January). Furthermore, it

emphasizes a constructivist approach to teaching and learning and values the

endorsement of critical thinking strategies, the creation of inquiry learning environ-ments, and the promotion of self regulated learning based on problem solving and

decision-making. As a result, the new science curriculum facilitates experiences with

new pedagogies (Galvo et al. 2002).

PARSEL emerged within this political, social and scientific context and it was

recognized as a fundamental means to support curriculum change. Its main goal was to

create new curricular material (modules), which could facilitate the development of a new

approach to teaching-learning science, which would make science subjects relevant and

popular in the eyes of the students (Holbrook2008). As such, another goal was to change

teachers

practices in accordance with recent science education thought.In order to promote curricular change, it is important to produce new curricular material

that facilitates the rehearsal of new practices and new teaching-learning approaches

(Martins et al. 2006). However, that is not sufficient; teachers need to be assisted in that

process. Indeed, changing curriculum implies changing teachers conceptions and practices,

changing students and parents beliefs concerning education and science education and even

changing the educational system, for instance national assessment systems (DeBoer 2000;

Res Sci Educ


3/16

Dochy et al. 2005; Osborne 2003; Osborne and Collins 2001). Furthermore, teachers have

to be involved with the changes; they have to understand them and have to appropriate new

competencies in order to be able to implement them (DeBoer 2000; Fullan 2001; Osborne

2003). So, imposed top-down curriculum change does not work. Professional development

plays an essential role in this process.New curricular material can work as a starting point for teachers to leave their safe areas

and dare to develop new practices. However, collaborative work with teacher training

institutions can build safe spaces, where teachers feel comfortable to try new strategies, to

meet difficulties and challenges and to explore solutions. So, small programs that involve

the collaboration of a small number of teachers and a relationship with teacher training

institutions, that allow for the creation of reflecting spaces, can be a powerful motor of

change (Blonder et al. 2008; Loucks-Horsley et al. 1998; Puttman and Borko 2000; Reis

and Galvo 2009).

This was the essence of PARSEL. Along with the production of innovative material,

PARSEL involved teams of teachers willing to participate in its implementation and in

evaluating the material and the proposed approach. Evaluation would consider the

modules impact on students, difficulties with implementation, solutions found to

overcome it and changes introduced in the modules. After modules have been built and

implemented, it is now worth knowing teachers perspectives about it and its impact on

learning, relevancy and popularity. How do teachers evaluate these modules? What

were its impacts in their own conceptions and practices? A significant issue frequently

mentioned in scientific literature is that to promote curricular change teachers need to

acknowledge that their old practices and models do not work, and they need to observe

the (positive) impacts that the new approaches have on their students (Osborne 2003).So, in the evaluation process it is also important to understand how teachers perceive the

impacts of the modules on their students; namely, what concerns relevancy, popularity

and learning.

With this paper we will analyze these issues. But before presenting methods and results,

we will give a brief description of PARSEL and its main concepts, using one of the

modules (A big problem for Magellan: Food Preservation) to illustrate it. This module was

built in the context of a Socrates project that aimed at developing teaching-learning

material that would facilitate the development of linguistic and scientific competencies,

through the use of the internet (Freire et al. 2008). Afterwards, it was adapted to conform to

PARSEL criteria. Its goal was to promote learning considering methods of food preservation and its implications for students life and also to promote reflection on the

relationship between science evolution and social practices (Galvo et al. 2008 for a deeper

look at the implementation process of this module).

Introducing PARSEL

PARSEL (Popularity and Relevance of Science Education for Scientific Literacy) is based

on three key ideas: relevancy, popularity and a three stage model, which play an importantrole in raising students motivation for learning sciences, as well as improving learning

(Holbrook 2008). Relevancy concerns the perception that activities or studied topics are

meaningful and relate to ones concerns, questions and problems. Students know why they

are studying science, they understand the purpose of it and its usefulness (Holbrook 2008).

Popularity has to do with emotional issues: students like science topics or activities and

want to keep on studying sciences and to learn more about it (Holbrook 2008).

Res Sci Educ


4/16

Basically, PARSEL aimed to make science interesting in the eyes of the students,

and as a result, to make them get engaged with its study. Several studies show that

school science is among the least interesting school subjects (Osborne and Collins

2001; Swarat 2008). Students explain their disinterest in science subjects pointing to its

degree of difficulty and its lack of relevancy. In addition, they mention the superficialteaching approach used, that encourages rote learning of scientific facts, and discourages

questioning, discussion and examination of those facts (Osborne and Collins 2001). On

the contrary, issues that make science subjects most interesting are: enjoyment,

amazement by the unknown and the unexplored, and opportunity to question and to

find answers to their own preoccupations (Baram-Tsabari and Yarden 2005; Osborne and

Collins 2001; Swarat2008). Relevancy, discussion and practical activities that are student

centered, and also include some degree of experimentation and research, and some degree

of control and choice are further issues associated with interest (Osborne and Collins

2001; Schraw et al. 2001; Swarat 2008). These issues were considered in the construction

of the PARSEL modules.

The three stage approach facilitates achieving these goals. According to this

approach, all modules should begin with a first stage Scenario construction, followed

by a second stage Inquiry-based problem solving and end with the third stage (Socio)

scientific decision making. This is a teaching approach that assumes that all learning

should be contextualized and it should aim at making clear the relationship between

science and society, by beginning with a social issue that deserves a scientific look and

by making students connect scientific knowledge to the problem in order to make a

decision. By contextualizing the activity, the teacher is making it relevant for the

students and, expectedly, raising students

interest with the topic (Osborne and Collins2001; Schraw et al. 2001; Swarat 2008). This is a particularly important issue, as

frequently interest shown by some topics or lack of interest for other topics, are a result

of students uninformed choices. Students may not be able to recognize the importance

of some topics for understanding relevant phenomena (Jenkins and Nelson 2005) and

teachers can work as key elements in making that connection and in showing the

relevancy of certain topics (Jenkins and Nelson 2005; Osborne and Collins 2001). That

work can be done in the stage of scenario construction. At this moment, the teacher

establishes a connection with some problem or students concerns. It is also at this point

that the teacher diagnoses students previous knowledge and identifies needs for

accomplishing the activity. For instance, A big problem for Magellan: FoodPreservation starts by making students go back and immerse themselves in the XV &

XVI centuries and to wonder what life was like overseas during that time. Students read

two texts describing these issues. This stage ends by introducing the problem: Imagine

you were the captains vessel assessor and your mission consisted of guaranteeing food

preservation during the trip. What actions should you take? (Appendix).

The Inquiry-based problem solving stage consists of implementing a research activity in

order to solve the problem. The activity has a practical character and can involve search,

experimentation, simulation, graphs reading and interpretation, among others (www.

PARSEL.eu). Considering the module A big problem for Magellan: Food Preservation,students have to search for pertinent information in order to plan and to implement an

experiment, for solving the problem. In addition, another characteristic is that the practical

activity has to have a clear goalto solve a problem in order to make a decision. This is an

important issue, as studies show that learning experiences that are authentic, meaningful,

challenging, and based on choice and agency of the students not only increase the intrinsic

motivation of students to learn science (Koballa and Glynn 2007; Yair 2000), but also

Res Sci Educ
http://www.parsel.eu/http://www.parsel.eu/http://www.parsel.eu/http://www.parsel.eu/


5/16

improve attitudes toward science and learning (Sherz and Oren 2006). Besides,

literature points out that inquiry enhances students scientific literacy, facilitates the

construction of complex cognitive competencies and the development of life long

learning attitudes, and improves motivation for science (Minstrell 2000), which were

goals foreseen by PARSEL. So, by developing meaningful practical activities, whichwere student centered, involved problem solving and decision making and that considered

students questioning and discussion, the modules could not only make science classes

more popular and relevant but also facilitate the development of complex competencies in

accordance with an education through science interpretation of science education (www.

PARSEL.eu). Indeed, according to this idea, science education should aim at developing

cognitive, procedural, attitudinal, communicational and social competencies, along with

the construction of substantive knowledge as well as an understanding of the nature of

scientific knowledge.

Lastly, the third stage consists of making a decision. In the case of A big problem for

Magellan: Food preservation, students present the results of their investigation and their

decision about which methods are better for preserving food. This stage is also

acknowledged as extremely important, as by asking the students to make a socio-

scientific decision concerning the presented problem, the teacher is creating conditions for

students to argue, to present their positions and to communicate their results, which are

essential in helping students to consolidate ideas, in promoting understanding and in the

construction of new meanings (Abel et al. 2000). Furthermore, by having to explain the

initial problem considering the evidences they have collected and by having to

communicate and to justify their explanation to the peers and teacher, students have to

establish a connection between their goal and methods, which will further enhance theirunderstanding of the nature of science (Bybee 2006; Flick and Lederman 2006). In the case

of this specific module, by comparing old and recent methods of food preservation, students

have to establish a parallel between old and current preservation methods, and reflect on the

relationship between science and social issues, and on the impact that science evolution has

on daily social practices. This is another important step for making students aware of

science in their own lives and to get involved with it (Jenkins and Nelson 2005; Swarat

2008).

Methodology

Participants

Initially, the Portuguese team was formed by six teachers, with different professional and

training experiences and backgrounds, as can be observed in Table 1. During the

implementation phase, two other teachers joined the initial group. One of them (a philosophy

teacher) developed collaborative work with the biology teacher in implementing two

modules. The other teacher (Lara) heard about the modules from one of the PARSEL teachers

and decided to implement it in one of her classes.The selection of teachers was one of convenience. One important requisite was that teachers

would be willing to participate in PARSEL. An important aspect of the implementation process

was that teachers were encouraged to choose appropriate modules. Furthermore, the six initial

PARSEL teachers had a relationship with the Portuguese university team (from the Institute of

Education), as they were either Ph.D or Master students in the teacher training institution or had

participated as students supervisors in the context of school of internships.

Res Sci Educ
http://www.parsel.eu/http://www.parsel.eu/http://www.parsel.eu/http://www.parsel.eu/


6/16

Teachers implemented 14 modules, which involved 234 students, from which 11.5% were

enrolled in the 9th grade, 10.3% in the 10th grade, 33.8% in the 11th grade and 27.8% in the 12thgrade of regular education. Some students (16.7%) were enrolled in the 12th grade of a second

chance program. Mention should be made that most students were enrolled in science programs,

with the exception of the ninth grade students who were following the basic curriculum of

science.

Data Collection Methods

The Portuguese team collected data through four types of methods: participant

observation, written documents (from teacher and students), inquiry by interview of

teachers and of some students and inquiry by questionnaire of students (either semanticdifferential or a questionnaire). These varied methods not only facilitate the collection

of complementary data, but also its triangulation (Patton 1990). In this paper, we will

consider only data collected by way of interviews, as our goal is to understand teachers

perspectives about their own experiences and the impact of PARSEL on students.

Interviews were carried out in different periods of the school year, as teachers

implemented the modules. All the interviews were conducted after the modules

implementation. Unstructured interviews were also performed during discussion meetings

for PARSEL and during participant observation.

Data Analysis Methods

According to an interpretative approach (Erickson 1986), we used a method of content

analysis (Milles and Huberman 1994) for studying type and quality of answers given in

the interviews. It was an iterative process, of reading and re-reading data to assign

meaningful pieces of text to categories. Initial categories were based on our starting

Table 1 Socio-demographic and professional characterization of teachers

Name of

teachers

Initial training Academic degree Years of professional experience

(approximately)

Alice Geology Science Education Master (still to be concluded) 3 years

John Geology Science Education Master (still to

be concluded)

3

Margaret Physics and

Chemistry

Science Education Master 7

Science Education Ph.D (still to be

concluded)

Oscar Chemistry Science Education Master 15

Science Education Ph.D (still to be

concluded)

Saul Geology Science Education Master 20Science Education Ph.D (still to be

concluded)

Clara Biology Graduation in Biology 30

Francis Philosophy Graduation in Philosophy 30

Lara Chemistry Graduation in Chemistry ?

Res Sci Educ


7/16

questions, but through the process of re-reading they were further explored and specified,

and some categories emerged from the data itself. Exploring categories repeatedly and the

connections between them allowed us to acknowledge the complexities of teachers

perceptions in what concerns their conceptions, practices and their perceptions of

students. Categories of analyses considered in this article were: (a) Conceptions aboutwhat concerns science education and PARSEL goals; (b) Teachers professional

development; (c) Teachers perceptions of the modules impacts on students.

Results

Conceptions about What Concerns Science Education and PARSEL Goals

Most participant teachers were familiar with the recent discussion about science

education, its contradictions and tensions, as most of them were enrolled in master or

Ph.D programs in the area of science education.

So, most teachers expressed the importance of the STS-A dimension in science

education, the importance of contextualizing scientific knowledge, the importance of

introducing issues related to the nature of science, and the importance of the idea of

science education as a means to develop complex competencies. Generally speaking,

teachers think that science education should aim at developing procedural, communi-

cation and reflective thinking competencies, as well as developing positive attitudes

towards science. One teacher mentions that

This issue of first having to learn how to observe. They usually present some

difficulties with it And then having to create their own project () And then

developing their own research. And then interpreting data. Quite often, making

mathematical registrations (it was not the case, but it could have been). I think that

this is all important. (Alice, interview from October 2008)

Developing students knowledge about social and technological aspects of science

should be another central goal of science education, as it will facilitate informed and well

founded decision making concerning daily issues. According to one of the teachers,

Mainly because, I think, that this STS dimension is more salient in science education.And they can apply scientific knowledge better, without being limited by their

opinion: just because they think yes or no. And then, this also helped me a lot. It help

me understand the importance of scientific literacy and the importance for them to

talk good science. So, I think this is the goal: they become able to apply scientific

knowledge in their lives. And this project made me see this very clear. (John,

interview from July 2008)

According to the other teacher

I think that the social relevancy that PARSEL emphasizes is essential for the studentsto understand that what they learn at school is not really separated from their daily

lives. It is connected with the outside world. There is a context from where the topics

emerge. (Saul, interview from May 2008)

Although their conceptions slightly differ and present different elaboration levels, all the

teachers agree that PARSEL was an important means for achieving what they consider to be

Res Sci Educ


8/16

the goals of science education. Even those teachers who were not so closely aligned with a

university had a sense that PARSEL could help achieve science education goals, no matter

what that means for them. As one teacher states Science education goals are PARSEL

(Lara, interview from October 2008).

According to the teachers, PARSEL is a great means to achieve those aims, not only bythe nature of the activities proposed but also by the teaching-learning model exposed. As

two teachers explain:

Because we have to have access to information But that information cannot be

presented in an decontextualized way, it cannot be scientific information solely, it has

to be contextualized. So, that we will be able to make founded and conscious

decisions in relation to issues pertaining ourselves. (Saul, interview from May 2008)

These activities emphasized connection to daily issues. And this promotes students

scientific literacy. We were able to alert students in relation to some situations.Otherwise we wouldnt be able to do that. I could present a list with all the

characteristics of planet Mars but they wouldnt pay attention. But by implementing

this activity they learnt something about Mars and when they need they will know

where to find additional information. So I think science education should get to

students. They have to learn how to learn. (Margaret, interview from July 2008)

Along with an emphasis on contextualizing and connecting science to daily issues, other

teachers stressed the global vision conveyed by science. As one of them mentions,

students can easily understand that science is not as compartmentalized as they perceive it

at school. This is of great value. They can build a vision of a unified Science, where thetopics are interconnected (Clara, Interview from July 2008)

Professional Development

Generally speaking, teachers considered that PARSEL was worthy in terms of professional

development. All the teachers mentioned that they had learned a lot. However, the novelty

element was perceived differently by each teacher. Some of the teachers mentioned that

PARSEL had the merit to introduce them to new ideas and practices in what concerns

teaching-learning strategies. For instance, John states that

I got a little obsessed by the three stage model (obsessed in a positive light, I mean). I

think that the first stage allow the students to perfectly understand what they are

going to do next. That was something that had never occurred to meits importance.

Before, I would introduce one topic and that was it. They were supposed to

understand what they were doing, while they were doing. But, the first stage. That

motivates. They know what they are going to do next class. And everything becomes

much more easy. (John, interview from July 2008)

Another teachers states that,

() This model can help us, as it has three periods. I became aware of the importanceof making an evaluation. Activities need to be evaluated. And then having time for an

introduction or a scenario. After, the action. And finally, the evaluation. It is

important to evaluate the activity. (Clara, interview from July 2008)

According to Clara and Francis, PARSEL was also important because they had the opportunity

to work with the students differently. They used writing and cooperative work which facilitated

Res Sci Educ


9/16

greater autonomy in students, and allowed students to develop new attitudes in relation to science.

In addition, they developed a more holistic look at their students, a look less centered on academic

performance and school grades. According to Clara,

After reading the stories we were very happy, as so many personal things

emerged from it. We have known these students for 2 years and we were not

enchanted by them anymore. We were always looking at their grades, and we

were worried with their grades. But with PARSEL we became aware that these

students merit value, in spite of their grades, in spite they had lowered their

grades this year. We become aware that they can do other valuable things. (Clara,

interview from 2008)

Concerning other teachers, it was not so much about introducing them to new

practices, but making explicit the tacit knowledge. Some teachers mentioned that they

used to do PARSEL, but they were not aware that they were doing it. So by

participating in PARSEL they were able to review some of their practices and to

improve them. The three stage model was particularly valued. According to two of the

teachers,

Because, at least for me, I realized that before introducing one activity it is important

to contextualize it and then evaluate it. OK, we did an activity, but what were its

results? It is very important to assess the activity. So, the division according to the

three stages is great. (Margaret, interview from June 2008).

() and the three phases, making them clear to the students I think that those

stages help students in developing their own work. Mainly that. Because I used towork according to a similar scheme, but I dont think that I was this clear. This

model Lets divide our work in three stages I think I will make it more clear in

the future. (Oscar, interview from June 2008)

So, PARSEL was important in making explicit their tacit knowledge about teaching and

in reassuring teachers own practices. According to teachers, some characteristics of

PARSEL facilitated this process.

Collaborative work with University was mentioned by the majority of the teachers as an

important dimension of PARSEL. According to some of them, the collaborative work was

important as they usually felt isolated in their teaching. Frequently, they had a sense ofworking on their own, with no opportunities for discussing teaching strategies and methods

as well as ideas, doubts and difficulties. This sense of isolation is clearly seen in one of the

teacher who wasnt enrolled in any formal professional development program. As that

teacher stresses

Production of new material is very important. But, dont leave us. Connection

between university and school has to continue. If not It is like someone from

the top developing something that we are going to implement, but if there is no

dialogue, there is no learning. () Project can become autonomous, but

connection between university and school has to continue. That is a very

important issuecollaborative work. So, dont stop the collaboration after all

material had been developed. If that happens after all, everything will be

meaningless. The people who planned these materials were thinking of something.

And that cannot be solely registered on paper; one should be able to discuss it.

(Clara, interview from July 2008)

Res Sci Educ


10/16

This need to implement something that was validated at the university level is a real

preoccupation of these teachers, as many of them developed their practices in groups

which were not so open to innovation. As one of the teacher explains,

I felt more assured. And I reflected again and re-did some of my strategies. It is

important for us, who are working directly with the students, that we feel supported.

We work by ourselves, lonely. It is important that I came to realize that after all

someone validates the kind of work that I am developing with my students. (Oscar,

interview from June 2008)

Therefore, the relationship with the university was a means to make them feel secure

with the innovations. Additionally, by being encouraged to introduce modifications in

the modules in order to adapt it to curricular and student constraints and to discuss it,

PARSEL created a space where teachers felt self-assured. Being able to evaluate

modules and give feedback about its implementation to the university team was indeed

a characteristic of PARSEL explicitly valued by one of the teachers.

Furthermore, by being involved with PARSEL these teachers accessed a set of teaching-

learning materials which were already validated and which was also coherent with their

own views about teaching science.

I liked to use these modules as they are different, and they help our students with making

questions and solving problems. I would like to use it again next year. () It is new

material. It is not that kind of material that we can easily find. Besides, it is difficult to

think and develop this kind of material with all the things we have to do. This material is

ready. It is easy to apply. It is ready to use. (Alice, interview from October 2008)

This seems to be an important point, as some of the teachers mention that they dont

always do what they think they should do as a result of time and school context constraints.

By having available validated material, they can use it more easily.

Teachers Perceptions of Modules Impacts on Students

As already stated, teachers were teaching in different schools, different subjects and school

levels. Besides, some of the teachers were working with their students for some years and their

students were already familiar with no traditional teaching approaches. However, other teachers

were working for the first time with their classes, and their students were not used to innovativestrategies. So although all the teachers were enthusiastic about PARSEL, their initial expectations

in what concerns students reactions to it were varied. Margaret had good expectations, as her

students were used to this kind of teaching-learning strategies and activities. According to her,

this is the only way to work with her students, who are enrolled in second chance classes, are

low-achieving students and not motivated at all for school and academic learning. On the

contrary, other teachers were expecting not so positive reactions from their students. According

to these teachers, their students are used to a traditional type of teaching, based on rote learning of

decontextualized facts or based on training exercises, which has been efficient in helping them

have good grades. Oscar describes how difficult it was to introduce new teaching-learningstrategies in one of his classes and the students reactions to it at the end of the school year.

() But they end up valuing some of my methodologies. And some of the students even

told me that they should have had those methodologies earlier in their school career. I

remember the best student in school telling me: All my life I knew how to operate weight

and mass, but I never knew what that meant (Oscar, interview from June 2008)

Res Sci Educ


11/16

Despite that many students enjoyed PARSEL and learned important things with it, at

the end of the implementation process teachers still perceived some ambivalent

positions from some of the students. On one hand, students liked PARSEL, while, on

the other hand, some of the students still revealed preoccupation with national exams

and still held the belief that traditional teaching is better for achieving better grades.This is an important issue, as many of the students were pre-university students, for

whom grades are extremely important.

They validate PARSEL, but at the same time they are worried with the national exam.

And they are critical in what concerns my methodologies. They think that I should

adopt more traditional methodologies so that they are in better positions to better

perform in the national exam (Oscar, interview from June 2008)

Nevertheless, despite resistance from some students, in the end teachers found that

students really enjoyed the modules. As one teacher mentions,

I think that the students resist a lot to innovations. They resist to Biology. And then,

to new things They are hard working students. They like the school book, their

note book the things that I clearly write on the blackboard. That is how they used

to work. Laboratory work or building and planning a research I thought that

things would not work well. But at the end, I think that it worked. Students were

interested with the activities. (Alice, interview from October 2008)

Many teachers explained the enthusiasm of the students by the joyful dimension. For

instance, one of the teachers mentions that They loved the module Magellan. They

really liked it. They even brought some masks. They brought swords and hats. They werereally engaged with it (Alice, interview from October 2008). Besides this, teachers

mention other dimensions to explain students engagement with the modules. According

to the teachers, the type of activities, such as, laboratorial work, role-playing, and

searching in order to find an answer to a question, also played an important role in

engaging students. According to one of the teachers,

They reacted pretty well. They liked a lot of the activities, as they were able to search,

to reflect, to make self-assessments They reacted pretty well to all the activities.

(Margaret, interview from June 2008)

The discussion was also perceived by the teachers as important for raising interest in thestudents. Even though all of these issues related to the teaching-learning strategy, one aspect

highly emphasized was the relevance of the modules for students lives.

I used a text about the topic hunger in the world for motivating students. I created a

little bit of suspense with it. Afterwards, I introduced the topic genetically modified

food. Their school book had a lot of information about the topic. But the interesting

part is that after classes, at lunch time, students were looking for me to ask: Teacher,

what is your position? Do you agree with genetically modified food? All the students

were really engaged, discussing the topic. And then, students told me that at home, at

dinner time, they discussed the topic with their parents So they got really involvedwith the module. I do not know if it was the theme or the methodology (John,

interview from July 2008)

According to Margaret, relevancy was much more important than the type of the activity.

She explains that she had implemented one module, whose activity was prescriptive.

Students didnt like the activity, but nevertheless they found that module extremely

Res Sci Educ


12/16

relevant. And that perception made them engage with the activity, even in the face of their

difficulties.

So, relevancy raised interest and motivation in students and that is one dimension that

can explain the success of the modules, according to the teachers. In addition, by relating

the modules to their daily lives, students started to recognize the importance and usefulnessof science in their lives. As one of the teacher explains,

Some of the students said: -Ah! After all there is a solution for this problem (gas

emission). Problems can be solved! They thought that they would have to use gas

cars forever. So the module gave them hope, for analyzing a situation that we always

think is catastrophic. (Oscar, interview from June 2008)

Finally, most teachers emphasized the importance of PARSEL in learning complex

competencies, as students developed competencies such as search for significant

information for answering a question (which implies analysis and synthesis), critical

thinking, communication, and argumentation. In addition, many teachers stressed that

students started to look at daily social issues with a more critical eye.

I remember that some days after discussing radioactivity, one of the students brought

to the class news from a newspaper. Do you see, teacher? For me this is significant.

It means that students became sensitized about what goes on in media. (Margaret,

interview from June 2008)

Final Considerations

Teachers made positive evaluations concerning PARSEL, not only concerning their own

professional development, but also concerning the impact that they perceive on students.

Interestingly, some of the teachers were expecting negative reactions from the students as

students are used to a traditional approach to teaching science, an approach that has worked

efficiently in making them achieve good grades. However, traditional approaches to

teaching science are associated with superficial learning and disinterest with science and

science subjects (Osborne and Collins 2001).

How then can we solve the incongruence of a system that emphasizes students interest

with science and science subjects as a means to improve science learning and students perceptions (and eventually, also teachers perceptions) regarding what works better for

achieving good grades?

Several Portuguese teachers involved with PARSEL mentioned that students enjoyed

PARSEL modules, that they proved important in developing key competencies and in

raising interest in science. But some of the teachers also clearly expressed that their

students reactions to the modules were as such as they were perceived as discrete learning

experiences, as experiences that wouldnt last all year long or as they were implemented at

the end of the school year, after delivered curriculum had been completed.

We live in an extremely competitive society that poses demands on teachers

accountability and on students achievements (as measured by school grades). How can

we facilitate teacher development by taking into consideration this context, i.e., their own

beliefs about what works better and the pressures from their own students concerning

this point?

Res Sci Educ


13/16

One way is to provide students with innovative, positive, learning experiences (as

the ones described) and to provide teachers with the means to systematically analyze

students reactions to their own innovations. Literature illuminates how teachers

perceptions of the impact of the new ideas and practices on their students can play an

important role in facilitating their professional development (Osborne 2003). Not onlythose positive perceptions validate their new ideas, but they also release teachers from

the pressure to maintain legitimate old practices that have proved to be efficient,

namely, in assuring good grades to the students (Carlone 2003). That was particularly

evident with some of the teachers of the present study whose students are pre-university

students.

Another way is to provide teachers with simple, readily available ideas and

materials, coherent with previous ideas, that they can make their own in a process of

adapting it to their local conditions (Ogborn 2002; Simon et al. 2006). Additionally,

teachers need to experience safe spaces where they can rehearse new practices, deal with

new conceptions and with difficulties that might arise from it. Indeed, literature (Loucks-

Horsley et al. 1998; Puttman and Borko 2000; Reis and Galvo 2009) suggests that it is

essential to create networks between universities and teachers, where they can exchange

ideas and experiences and can find theoretical explanations of their own practices and

validate some of their previous educational experiences. These points were clear in this

project. The close relationship with the university team and also the familiarity with some

of the guiding general ideas purposed by PARSEL, created a sense of belonging to the

project (Ogborn 2002) that validated and reassured the teachers new practices and played

an essential role in their professional development. Indeed, teachers were able to look at

their own conceptions, to revise it, and adjust it to PARSEL and also to deal withstudents resistance to change because they felt secure within the group and because they

felt bonded with each other in a common project.

Mention should be made that teachers involved with PARSEL were typically highly

dynamic and motivated for change and they also identified with PARSELs philosophy.

Only this way, they were able to get involved with the modules, and to adapt it to their

context, and were motivated to share their own experience not only with partners but also

(which is of most importance) with peers at school. This might be an important means for

local dissemination: teachers willing to share the PARSEL project and their own

experiences with peers.

A last point concerns ownership. Literature is rich in examples pointing out theimportance of involving teachers with desired changes in order to successfully

implement it (Fullan 2001; Ogborn 2002; Osborne 2003), as this study also shows.

Indeed, making teachers owners of the modules, by letting them choose which ones

to implement and to introduce changes in order to deal with local constraints was a

positive characteristic of the project. By having to make founded curricular decisions

and to deal with difficulties, teachers were empowered to deal with difficulties they will

meet in the future. But will the teachers be able to manage difficulties and pressures

after the project is over? How will they use the modules? Will they apparently change

without really changing? Once more, this issue calls for the responsibility of teachertraining institutions in developing collaborative relationships as an essential path for

promoting desired changes and it also raises questions concerning the quality and the

nature of that collaborative relationship. How could that relationship be maintained and

used to solidify changes?

Res Sci Educ


14/16

Appendix

Using the 3-Step Parsel Model to Give a TeachingLearning Outline Associated with the

Module A Big Problem for Magalhes (Magellan): Food Preservation

Step Teachinglearning approach Teachinglearning outline

1. Setting the

scene

Material presented through a real life title

and scenario. (1 lesson)

1. Teacher sets the scene by describing sea

life during Portugueses Discoveries

period.

2. Students become familiar with the

scenario, by reading two small texts

about Portugueses Discoveries.

3. Teacher presents the problem: Imagine

you are the captains vessel assessor and

your mission consists of guaranteeing

food preservation during the trip. What

actions should be taken?

2. Inquiry-

based

Problem

Solving

Teacher guided, Student-centred material

includes Problem Solving, Nature of Sci-

ence and Conceptual Science Learning

(and consolidation of the conceptual learn-

ing through adequate feedbackassess-

ment). (2 lessons)

1. For solving initial problem, students,

allocated into groups, have to:

(a) Seek information from the internet,

(b) prepare a small research on food

preservation,

(c) write a report with the proposed solution

(guidelines for preserving food during

a sea trip),

(d) share their results with the class.

2. Teacher guides the students during the

research phase, by providing students

with interesting websites.

3. Teacher guides the students during the

experimental phase, by orientating

hypothesis formulation, research plan

development, data collection and finalreport about results.

4. By continuously assessing students work,

teacher can understand what terms and

concepts are being used and its

correction, as well as the quality of the

research carried out by the students.

Through adequate feedback, teacher

enhances students learning, as students

can reformulate or re-orientate their own

actions and thinking.

3. Socio-

Scientific

Decision

Making

Teacher guided, Student centred material

includes reasoned socio-scientific decision

making (and consolidation of the concep-

tual learning through adequate feedback

assessment). (1 lesson)

1. Each group writes a text with the

information and knowledge it gained

about methods of preserving food. The

text should compare nowadays situation

with the one lived by the Portuguese on

the sea travelling era on the 16th

century. Then, each group communicates

to class their findings.

Res Sci Educ


15/16

Step Teachinglearning approach Teachinglearning outline

2. Having sought information about food

preservation and by having developed a

small investigation about it, studentsdevelop chemistry knowledge about

substances and reactions and become

aware of how science and social issues

interweave in our daily lives and how

scientific knowledge has evolved during

the centuries and how it impacts on

social, daily, practices.

References

Abel, S. K., Anderson, G., & Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Inquiring into

concepts of sound in third grade. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and

teaching in science (pp. 6579). New York: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Autio,O., Kaivola, T., & Lavonen, J. (2007). Context-based approach in teaching science and technology. In

E. Pehkonen, M. Ahtee & J. Lavonen (Eds.), How Finns learn.

Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005). Characterizing childrens spontaneous interests in science and

technology. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 803826.

Blonder, R., Kipnis, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Hofstein, A. (2008). Increasing science teachers

ownership through the adaptation of the PARSEL modules: a bottom-up approach. Science Education

International, 19(3), 285302.

Bybee, R. W. (2006). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),

Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 114). Dordrecht: Springer.

Carlone, H. (2003). Innovative science within and against a culture ofachievement. Science Education, 87

(3), 307328.

DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.

DeBoer, G. (2000). Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its

relationship to science education reform. Journal Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582601.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., Bossche, P., & Struyven, K. (2005). Students perceptions of a problem-based

learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 8, 4166.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people s images of science. Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittroch (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119161). New York: Macmillan.

European Commission. (2004). Europe needs more scientists. Report by the high level group on increasing

human resources for science and technology in Europe. Brussels: Author.

Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Introduction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific

inquiry and nature of science (pp. ixxviii). Dordrecht: Springer.

Freire, A. M., Baptista, M., Cruz, N., Nunes, T., & Vilela, C. (2008). European science teachers: Scientific

knowledge, linguistic skills and digital media (PEC)Teacher CD (COMENIUS 2.1 action, financed

by Socrates project, 226641-CP-1-2005-1-ES-COMENIUS-C21), [CD-ROM]. Universidade de Lisboa.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). London: Routdlege Falmer.

Galvo, C., & Freire, A. (2004). A Perspectiva CTS no Currculo das Cincias Fsicas e Naturais em

Portugal. In I. Martins, F. Paixo, & R. Vieira (Eds.), Perspectivas Cincia-Tecnologia-Sociedade na

Inovao da Educao em Cincia. Actas III Seminrio Ibrico CTS no Ensino das Cincias. Aveiro:Universidade de Aveiro.

Galvo, C. (Coord.), Neves, A., Freire, A. M., Lopes, A. M., Santos, M. C., Vilela, M. C., et al. (2002).

Cincias Fsicas e Naturais. Orientaes Curriculares para o 3 Ciclo do Ensino Bsico. Lisboa:

Ministrio da Educao, Departamento da Educao Bsica.

Galvo, C., Reis, P., Freire, A., & Oliveira, T. (2006). Avaliao de Competncias em Cincias: Sugestes

para Professores do Ensino Bsico e do Ensino Secundrio. Lisboa: ASA.

Res Sci Educ


16/16

Galvo, C., Reis, P., & Freire, S. (2008). A big problem for magellan: food preservation. Science Education

International, 19(3), 267273.

Holbrook, J. (2008). Introduction to the special issue of science education international devoted to PARSEL.

Science Education International, 19(3), 257266.

Jenkins, E. W., & Nelson, N. W. (2005). Important but not for me: students attitudes towards secondary

school science in England. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(1), 41

57.Koballa, T. R., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In S. K.

Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 103124). New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional development for

teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Martins, M. I. (2003). Literacia Cientfica e Contributos do Ensino Formal para a Compreenso Pblica da

Cincia. Aveiro: Universidade de Aveiro.

Martins, I. P., Veiga, L., Teixeira, F., Tenreiro-Vieira, C., Vieira, R., Rodrigues, A. V., et al. (2006). Educao

em Cincias e Ensino Experimental: Formao de Professores. Lisboa: ME-DGIDC.

Miller, J. D. (1997). Civic scientific literacy in the United States: A development analysis from middle-

school through adulthood. In W. Grber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacyan international

symposium. Kiel: IPN.Milles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

Minstrell, J. (2000). Implications for teaching and learning inquiry: A summary. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee

(Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 471496). New York: American

Association for the Advancement of Science.

Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. (2000). Introduction. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry

learning and teaching in science (pp. xixx). Washington: Corwin Press.

NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy Press.

Ogborn, J. (2002). Ownership and transformation: teachers using curriculum innovations. Physics Education,

37(2), 142146.

Osborne, J. (2003). A Educao Cientifica na Sociedade de Hoje: Questes, Dificuldades e Dilemas. Gazeta

de Fsica, 1219.Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus-

group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441467.

Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. King s College London:

The Nuffield Foundation.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage.

Puttman, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research

on teaching learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 415.

Reis, P., & Galvo, C. (2009). Teaching controversial socio-scientific issues in biology and geology classes: a

case study. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 162185. Available at http://ejse.

southwestern.edu/volumes/v13n1/v13n1.pdf.

Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom.

Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211224.Sherz, Z., & Oren, M. (2006). How to change students images of science and technology. Science &

Education, 90(6), 965985.

Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in

the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(23), 235260.

Swarat, S. (2008). What makes a topic interesting? A conceptual and methodological exploration of the

underlying dimensions of topic interest. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 12(2), 126.

UNESCO-ICSU. (1999). Declarao sobre a Cincia e o Uso do Saber Cientfico. Paris: UNESCO.

Yair, G. (2000). Reforming motivation: how the structure of instruction affects students learning experience.

British Educational Research, 26(2), 191210.

Res Sci Educ
http://ejse.southwestern.edu/volumes/v13n1/v13n1.pdfhttp://ejse.southwestern.edu/volumes/v13n1/v13n1.pdfhttp://ejse.southwestern.edu/volumes/v13n1/v13n1.pdfhttp://ejse.southwestern.edu/volumes/v13n1/v13n1.pdf

Documents

Enhancing the Popularity and the Relevance of Science Teaching in Portuguese Science Classes