CHAPTER 9
Issues in Science Learning: An International Perspective
Student science learning lies at the heart of the interplay among science education research, policy, and practice. Science education, especially as it is practiced in schools today, is strongly influenced by several important forces. In response to these driving forces, various research-informed reform efforts in science education have been undertaken in countries all around the world in recent years. It is of both practical significance and theoretical interest to look at the impact of these driving forces on a broad array of contexts, practices, and outcomes regarding science learning across different countries.
PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER
The main purposes of this chapter are to (a) identify some of driving forces for science education reform in the twenty-first century, (b) examine the conditions of science learning in select countries, and (c) suggest research problems for further investigation.
Student science learning is a major concern for the science education enterprise and is influenced by science curriculum, instruction, and evaluation. Research on science learning involves other topics such as inquiry, cooperative learning, learning environment, gender issues, curriculum reform, science teacher preparation, and professional development. However, the focus of this chapter will be student science learning from an international perspective. Studies on student science learning involve a range of subject areas, student characteristics, physical settings, and learning environments. A range of theoretical perspectives, including historical, cultural, societal, linguistic, and human perspectives, on science learning have been adopted, using research methods that are quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of the two. Many of these aspects are dealt with in other chapters of this Handbook.
Science learning in each country occurs in a wide range of educational, social, cultural, and political contexts; significant changes have been observed over the years. Science education reforms in many countries have involved changes in the philosophy of education, instructional goals, curriculum materials, instructional practices, and teacher education. A historical account of the contexts, processes, and outcomes of student science learning in different countries is beyond the scope of this chapter. Instead, we shall focus our attention on results that have been obtained in the recent decade from large-scale cross-national studies on student science learning.
This chapter provides an overview of the current condition of science learning from an international perspective. The emphasis is not on specific and detailed accounts of the state of science learning in individual countries. What interests us here is describing the contemporary issues of student science learning worldwide and making recommendations for research studies needed to inform the problems. Because the policies and practices of science education vary significantly across country boarders, the issues related to science learning differ in each country.
This chapter begins with a school-based model of science learning and a brief historical background of research on science learning internationally. The chapter proceeds to a review of some driving forces for the reform of science education worldwide. With these driving forces in mind, a broad overview of the current conditions, major problems, and reform measures related to science learning in various countries around the world is given. Following that overview, the contemporary issues of science learning worldwide are discussed in further detail. The chapter ends with some concluding remarks and recommendations for future research on science learning, as viewed from an international perspective.
A MODEL OF SCHOOL-BASED LEARNING IN SCIENCE
In order to organize the information in this chapter, it is desirable to have a model of school-based learning in science from an international perspective. The model is meant to provide a representation of the relationships among important factors associated with student learning at school. The model can be used as a guide for identifying research problems and formulating research questions. A number of school-based learning models have been proposed (Huitt, 1995; Proctor, 1984; White, 1988). A modified version of Huitt's model is the organizer for this chapter.
Huitt's (1995) model includes four categories: Context, Input, Classroom Processes, and Output. Huitt emphasized the importance of context variables such as school characteristics, family, community, state and federal government, TV/movies, and the global environment, because he realized that our world is rapidly changing from an agricultural/industrial base to an information base. In his model, the input variables include two subcategories: teacher characteristics and student characteristics. Teacher characteristics include values and beliefs; knowledge of students and of the teaching/learning process; thinking, communication, and performance skills; personality; and teacher efficacy. Student characteristics include study habits, learning styles, age, gender, race, ethnicity, motivation, and moral/socio-emotional/ cognitive/character developments. The classroom processes variables include teacher behavior (planning, management, and instruction), student behavior (involvement, success on academic tasks), and other processes such as classroom climate and student leadership roles. The products or output of school learning include student achievement and other desirable skills. The structure of Huitt's model is similar to the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model of curriculum development and evaluation (Stufflebeam, 2000), although the purposes and foci are different.
For this chapter, I developed a modified version of Huitt's (1995) model of school-based learning that includes an additional component—Driving Forces (see Fig. 9–1). This added element demonstrates explicitly that, from an international point of view, there are important forces that may influence student science learning through Contexts, Inputs, and Processes of school learning. Figure 9–1 emphasizes some of the variables relevant to student science learning as discussed in this chapter. School science learning takes place in a wide context involving family, school, community, and society. It also takes place under the influence of various backgrounds, including educational policy, historical and sociocultural development, scientific and technological development, and international conditions. Input variables important to learning processes and outcomes include the science curriculum, instructional facilities and resources, teacher characteristics, and student characteristics. The importance of processes such as student learning approaches, engagement, metacognition, perception of the context, and interaction with teachers and other students has been well documented. As for student learning outcomes, a meaningful understanding of scientific facts, concepts, principles, and theories is of course essential. Other learning outcomes, such as a better understanding of the nature of science, improved inquiry skills, and international awareness and experiences, are also important for a scientifically and technologically literate person in the twenty-first century.
FIGURE 9–1. A school-based model of science learning.
The arrows in Figure 9–1 indicate possible influences of the variables in one category on those in the others. Figure 9–1 suggests the direct influence of Driving Forces on the Contexts, Inputs, and Processes of learning. Driving Forces influence Products indirectly through these variables. Likewise, student learning products or outcomes are indirectly influenced by the Contexts and the Inputs of learning. Arrows pointing toward the left in the model indicate that student learning outcomes might, to a certain extent, influence the contexts, inputs, and processes of learning.
The model of school-based learning shown in Figure 9–1 emphasizes both internal and external factors that might affect student learning outcomes. It is meant to provide broad conceptual categories while indicating possible relationships. The variables in the major categories were obtained by synthesis of the research literature. More detailed diagrams could be drawn to show how student conceptions of learning might affect their approaches to learning and, consequently, their levels of understanding (Entwistle, 1998, 2000). Of course, there are limitations to the proposed model. The scheme for separating the variables into main categories is tentative; different authors may want to group the variables quite differently for different purposes. Some variables may belong to more than one category; for instance, student study skills can be taken as an aspect of student characteristics in Inputs, while at the same time it can be considered as part of Products. Although the model could be improved, for instance, by the use of more explicit conceptual and operational definitions for the variables, it will be suitable for the purposes of this chapter.
SITUATING RESEARCH ON SCIENCE LEARNING IN AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Significant change in research on student science learning has taken place since the middle of 1970s. The initial focus of these research studies was probing student understanding of natural phenomena and science concepts. The empirical findings, theoretical interpretations, and instructional implications were published in a great number of research reports, papers, books (Driver, Squires, Rushworth, & Wood-Robinson, 1994; Mintzes, Wandersee, & Novak, 1998; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; White, 1988), and review articles (Duit & Treagust, 1998; Wandersee, Mintzes, & Novak, 1994). Results of these studies have led to research interest in constructivist approaches to teaching and learning in science. The impact of this research on science instruction, science curriculum reform, and teacher professional development is widely recognized.
van den Akker (1998) presented a historical overview of science curriculum development from an international perspective. He summarized recent initiatives and trends worldwide in improving the science curriculum. These initiatives include the development of national guidelines for science education, the emphasis on teaching key conceptual issues in depth instead of covering ever-increasing amounts of information, scientific literacy for all students, alignment of curriculum and assessment, providing more encouragement and support for teacher professional development, and the rapidly growing influence of information and communication technology. In addition, there has been an increasing emphasis on lifelong learning combined with greater emphasis on skills in problem-solving, inquiry, information and communication, and a preference for active, investigatory, and independent forms of learning. The common label for the approach characterized by these interrelated aspects is “learning to learn” (van den Akker).
Keeves and Aikenhead (1995) reviewed the historical growth of science education over the previous century and discussed developments in science curricula during recent decades in an international context. They identified five scientific and societal changes with important consequences for education, including the provision of a more general education for students at the secondary level, the recognition of the need for lifelong education, the need for each individual to acquire the skills of effective independent learning and inquiry as part of learning how to learn, the emergence of science-related social issues, and the impact of technological change. In reporting these changes, Keeves and Aikenhead made several recommendations for improving the teaching and learning of science, which are very similar to those that van den Akker (1998) suggested.
The effectiveness and appropriateness of science curriculum and science instruction for science learning have long been major interests for science education researchers. However, a distinct trend worldwide regarding research on student science learning took place in the mid-1970s. Student science learning became the research focus for a great number of research studies. Initially, much of the research interest was on student understanding of natural phenomena and science concepts. Subsequently, concerns about students’ conceptions of learning, of the goals of science learning, of the nature of science, and of the subjects to be studied, and concerns about student learning and problem-solving skills have received further attention. As a result of these research efforts, constructivist approaches to the teaching and learning of science have gained wider acceptance (Tobin, 1993). The impact of this body of research on science education policy, science curriculum, science instruction and assessment, and science teacher professional development is noteworthy around the world. Constructivist notions of science teaching and learning appear to be one important factor for understanding science learning from an international perspective.
DRIVING FORCES FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION REFORMS WORLDWIDE
A new wave of science education reform has taken place in countries all around the world in recent decades. New goals of science education for citizens of the twenty-first century have been formulated and new science curricula developed, with the use of a number of strategies based on research findings and theoretical understandings about student science learning. In order to identify the conditions and problems of science learning from an international perspective, it is worthwhile to examine the driving forces that have influenced the direction and development of science education reform worldwide. Some of the most important of these are constructivist views of science learning, cross-national studies of student science learning, globalization, and advances in information technology.
Constructivist Views of Teaching and Learning Science
In spite of some debates and criticisms (Matthews, 1998; Osborne, 1996), Mathews (2000) stated that constructivism is undoubtedly a major theoretical influence in contemporary science and mathematics education, and few would dispute Fensham's (1992) claim that “the most conspicuous psychological influence on curriculum thinking in science since 1980 has been the constructivist view of learning” (p. 801). Numerous empirical studies on student science conceptions have led to the popularity of constructivist views of science teaching and learning. Based on these works, theoretical formulations of student science learning have been proposed, and suggestions for instructional interventions and teacher professional development aimed at facilitating student conceptual change and meaningful learning have been made (Bennett, 2003; Driver et al., 1994; Fensham, Gunstone, & White, 1994; Mintzes et al., 1998; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Tobin, 1993; White, 1988).
From an international perspective, constructivist notions of teaching and learning have had strong influences on science policy in recent years. For instance, the U.S. National Science Teachers Association (2003) Standards for Science Teacher Preparation, the mathematics component of the Curriculum Profiles for Australian Schools (Australian Capital Territory Department of Education and Training, n.d.), and the National Curriculum in England (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2002) were influenced by constructivist thoughts. Cobern (1996) argued that science education research and curriculum development efforts in non-western countries could benefit by adopting constructivist views of science and science learning. Cobern's main point was that constructivist views led researchers to expect that students in different cultures will have somewhat different perspectives on science. He suggested that science education research should inform curriculum developers to make science instructional materials more sensitive to culture. Direct adoption of science textbooks, or their minor revisions, from one country to another may not work. For many non-western countries, it is a challenge to develop culturally sensitive science curriculum materials while trying to strike a healthy balance between the local culture and western science.
Cross-National Studies on Student Science Learning
In addition to constructivist notions of science teaching and learning, the latest wave of science education reform has been influenced by the results obtained in a number of recent cross-national studies on student science learning, including Trends of International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and Science and Scientists (SAS). The results obtained by these studies provide valuable information on the states of science learning in participating countries. The studies have generated much interest among policymakers, science educators, science teachers, parents, and the general public in countries around the world. A brief description of these international comparative studies in science education is given below.
The National Academies Press (NAP) homepage (http://www.nap.edu/) provides a list of international comparative studies in education, including large-scale assessment and case studies. For science and technology (as well as for mathematics) education, a prominent example is the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), conducted in 1995. Subsequent iterations of the same study changed the word “Third” into “Trends.” The study is now referred to by the year it was conducted. Hence the original TIMSS becomes TIMSS 1995, TIMSS-R becomes TIMSS 1999, and TIMSS 2003 remains TIMSS 2003. TIMSS is one of several studies sponsored by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (Background information and downloadable reports and data files are available at http://timss.bc.edu/.) TIMSS provided not only assessment of student learning outcomes, but also information about the home, classroom, school, and national contexts within which science learning takes place.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has a large education sector that publishes various reports (available online at http://www.oecd.org). The OECD recently developed its own set of studies of student achievement, under the acronym of PISA. PISA works with some 40 OECD countries together with some non-OECD countries. PISA assesses in three domains: reading literacy, mathematical literacy, and scientific literacy (OECD, 1999, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c). It aims to define each domain, not merely in terms of mastery of the school curriculum, but in also terms of important knowledge and skills needed in adult life. PISA assesses students who are approaching the end of compulsory education (about the age of 15) and the extent to which they have acquired the knowledge and skills that are essential for full participation in society. The first assessment took place in 2000, with results published in 2001; PISA has continued thereafter, in 3-year cycles. Each cycle looks in depth at a major domain, to which two-thirds of testing time is devoted; the other two domains provide a summary profile of skills. Major domains by cycle are reading literacy in 2000, mathematical literacy in 2003, and scientific literacy in 2006.
The Science and Scientists (SAS) Study explored various aspects of relevance to the teaching and learning of science and technology (Sjøberg, 2000). Some 30 researchers from 21 countries collected data from about 10,000 pupils at the age of 13. The countries involved, in alphabetical order, were Australia, Chile, England, Ghana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Japan, Korea, Lesotho, Mozambique, Nigeria, Norway, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Russia, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Trinidad, Uganda, and the United States. The purpose of the SAS-Study was to provide empirical input to debates over priorities in the school curriculum as well as the pedagogies that are likely to appeal to the learners.
Globalization
Progress in transportation and the use of the Internet result in frequent economic, social, and cultural exchanges internationally. There is now an increased interdependence and interrelationship among different countries around the world. Globalization is raising questions about the content, objectives, and approaches to science learning. Hallak (2001) pointed out that educational content should be designed “to meet both national demand and international concerns” (p. 3). For example, in order to get along with people from different cultural backgrounds, students should be taught to respect and understand their history and customs. In order to be well-informed citizens of the world, students should be equipped with necessary communication skills and the capability to read and speak foreign languages. Student learning experiences in science should be designed to include these important components. On the other hand, there are concerns for trying to maintain a balance between globalization and localization. For instance, Zembylas (2002) noted a number of tensions resulting from the struggle to preserve local values while incorporating global trends into the science curriculum of developing countries.
To meet the challenges of rapid globalization and the pursuit of economic and social developments in the new century, Cheng (2000a) proposed a new paradigm of school education. It is built on the concepts of contextualized multiple intelligences (referring to technological, economic, social, political, cultural, and learning intelligences), globalization, localization, and individualization in schooling, teaching, and learning. His paradigm included the formulation of a new aim for science education (Cheng, 2000b): “to support students particularly through science learning to become citizens who will be engaged in lifelong learning and will creatively contribute to the building up of a multiple intelligent society and a multiple intelligent global village” His paradigm included the formulation of a new aim for science education (Cheng, 2000b): “to support students particularly through science learning to become citizens who will be engaged in lifelong learning and will creatively contribute to the building up of a multiple intelligent society and a multiple intelligent global village” (available online at http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/issue_2/foreword/index.htm).
Advances in Science, Technology, and Information Technology
Rapid development of science and technologies in the previous century resulted in not only the changing face of science, but also significant changes in industrial structures and employment markets (Hurd, 1998). These advances had noticeable influences on other aspects of society, both politically and economically. Hurd noted that some changes in the nature, ethos, and practice of science have taken place. For instance, traditional science disciplines such as biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science have become fractionated into a large number of research fields; instead of physical sciences, life sciences have become the center of attention in the twenty-first century. The fields of scientific/technological research are increasingly hybridized; science is becoming more holistic, blending the natural and social sciences.
There is an increasing awareness of the importance of knowledge to the economic and technological development of our societies. Promoting creativity and reaching for excellence in science and technology are national policy goals for increasing international competitiveness. Solid and successful science education is expected to make significant contributions toward this end. For citizens of the twenty-first century, scientific and technological knowledge and skills are crucial for actions and decisions. Meaningful and responsible participation in society assumes the ability to judge evidence and arguments associated with the socio-scientific issues that appear on the political agenda. A broad understanding of the nature, content, and methods of science and technology by the general public is important. It is imperative that students are interested in science subjects and that they have a broad understanding of basic scientific principles and ways of thinking. A comprehensive list of attributes that will enable students to adapt to the changing world of science and technology and its impacts on personal, social, and economic affairs was presented by Hurd (1998).
Advances in information and communication technologies (ICTs) have caused a revolution in living. Commercial products and services relating to ICTs, such as mobile phones, digital cameras, notebook computers, and DVDs, have found their way into all parts of our daily lives. ICT not only changes our lifestyles, but also offers tools to facilitate both teaching and learning in different settings, by incorporating a wide variety of instructional strategies, such as peer tutoring, and cooperative learning. Students and citizens of the twenty-first century need to know and be able to use ICT wisely and fruitfully. However, ICT requires considerable investment in equipment and infrastructure. Substantial costs for maintenance, training, software development, and technical support can be expected. Accessibility to ICT equipment and facilities affects the opportunities to learn at the student, school, and school district levels. Advances in ICT bring along the threat of a widening gap between developed and developing countries, with disparities in access to knowledge and information that reinforce existing disparities in resources (Lewin, 2000).
As shown in Fig. 9–1, these Driving Forces are predicted to influence the Contexts, Inputs, and Processes for student science learning. Thus, it is evident that student science learning in the 21st century will be different from the previous century in the following ways:
- Research on science learning has led to better theoretical understandings about student learning processes. Policy-makers, curriculum developers and school teachers are becoming better informed in their efforts to improve teaching and to facilitate student science learning.
- With results obtained from recent cross-national comparative studies such as TIMSS, PISA, and SAS, researchers in various countries can examine the conditions of student learning in science, identify goals and content areas that need to be strengthened, develop and adopt more powerful instructional strategies, and provide more supportive learning environments.
- Demand to enhance the relevance of science learning to students’ daily lives will increase as we prepare students to function competently and successfully as members of communities at local, national, and international levels.
- The emphasis on science education to foster scientific and technological literacy for all students will increase. A wide variety of tools, resources, environments, and locations now offer new opportunities for learning science both formally and informally.
In order to provide an overview of student science learning outcomes and their influencing factors, some findings from recent cross-national studies including TIMSS, PISA, and SAS will be described. Next, the current condition of science education in a few selected countries will be described, to illustrate the kinds of problems and issues different countries face.
FINDINGS FROM RECENT CROSS-NATIONAL STUDIES ON SCIENCE LEARNING
Results obtained from recent cross-national studies including TIMSS, PISA and SAS provide valuable information on the current conditions of science learning worldwide. These results are described in the following sections.
TIMSS
The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (now renamed as TIMSS 1995) was conducted in 1994–1995 at five grade levels (3, 4, 7, 8, and the final year of secondary school) in more than 40 countries. Extensive information about the teaching and learning of mathematics and science was collected from thousands of teachers and school principals, and more than half a million students. TIMSS also investigated mathematics and science curricula in participating countries through an analysis of curriculum guides, textbooks, and other curricular materials.
The TIMSS 1995 science achievement results for students at the primary, middle school, and high school levels were summarized by Martin, Mullis, Beaton, Gonzalez, Smith, and Kelly (1997); Beaton et al. (1996); and Mullis et al. (1998), respectively. Eighth-grade boys had significantly higher achievement than girls in about half of the participating countries, particularly in earth and physical science. The overwhelming majority of fourth-graders in nearly every country indicated that they liked science. Having educational resources in the home (e.g., computer, dictionary, own study desk, and 100 or more books) was strongly related to science achievement in every country. Students in most countries reported spending between half an hour and an hour studying or doing homework in science. In most countries, the challenge of catering to students of different academic abilities was the factor teachers mentioned most often as limiting how they taught their mathematics and science classes. Other limiting factors included a high student/teacher ratio, a shortage of equipment for use in instruction, and the burden of dealing with disruptive students.
Information from the 1995 TIMSS assessment on school contexts for learning mathematics and science (Martin, Mullis, Gonzales, Smith, & Kelly, 1999) included school characteristics, policies, and practices organized around five major topics: roles and responsibilities of schools and school principals, school organization and staffing, organization for learning mathematics and science, school resources, and school atmosphere. The combined results for three grade levels were discussed for a range of school factors and how they varied across countries. Another interesting report by Martin, Mullis, Gregory, Hoyle, and Shen (2000) presented analyses of the TIMSS 1995 eighth-grade data aimed at helping understand what makes some schools more effective than others. The results showed that school and classroom variables were related to average school achievement, even after adjustment for the home background of the students in the school. However, the strong relationship that persists between the average level of home background and adjusted student achievement also serves as a reminder that, in many countries, home background, schooling, and student achievement are closely intertwined, and that teasing out the influences of the various contributing factors remains a major challenge.
TIMSS 1999 was designed as a replicate of TIMSS 1995 at the eighth-grade level (Martin et al., 2000). Of the 38 participating countries, 26 also participated in the TIMSS 1995, which enabled these countries to measure trends in mathematics and science achievement. Six content areas were covered in the TIMSS 1999 science test: earth science, life science, physics, chemistry, environmental and resource issues, and scientific inquiry and the nature of science. Chinese Taipei and Singapore had the highest average performance, closely followed by Hungary, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. Other countries that performed well included the Netherlands, Australia, the Czech Republic, and England. Lower-performing countries included the Philippines, Morocco, and South Africa.
Boys were found to have significantly higher average science achievement than girls in 16 of the 38 countries in TIMSS 1999. This was attributable mainly to significantly higher performance by boys in physics, earth science, chemistry, and environmental and resource issues. The gender gap in science achievement was especially apparent among high-performing students, with 29% of boys on average across countries in the top achievement quarter, compared with 21% of girls.
The TIMSS 1999 report also included information on students’ home environment and attitudes toward science (Martin et al., 2000). The level of home educational resources varied considerably across countries. On average, students from homes with a high level of educational resources had higher science achievement than students from homes with fewer resources. The association between home educational resources and science achievement is well documented in TIMSS. Low average student achievement in some of the less wealthy countries most likely reflects the low level of educational resources in students’ homes. However, there are also other influences at work. The TIMSS 1999 results indicated that, in almost every country, there was a positive association between educational expectations and science achievement. Eighth-grade students internationally had high expectations for further education. On average across countries, more than half the students reported that they expected to finish university.
To investigate what students think of their abilities in science, TIMSS created an index of student self-concepts in the sciences (Martin et al., 2000). The results indicated that eighth-grade boys generally had more positive self-concepts in science than girls. This difference was most pronounced in countries where the sciences are taught as separate subjects. Although girls in such countries had a more favorable science self-concept in biology, this was outweighed by a more favorable self-concept for boys in physics, and to a lesser extent in earth science and chemistry.
TIMSS 1999 also created an index of attitudes toward the sciences in order to gain some understanding about eighth-graders’ views about the utility of science and their enjoyment of it as a school subject (Martin et al., 2000). The results showed that, although student attitudes toward science were generally positive in countries where eighth-grade science is taught as a single subject, they were less positive in separate science countries. Attitudes were most positive toward biology and earth science, and least positive toward physics and chemistry. Eighth-grade boys generally had more positive attitudes toward science than girls, particularly in physics, chemistry, and earth science. Girls had more favorable attitudes toward biology.
In comparing achievement across countries, it is important to consider differences in students’ curricular experiences. Students’ opportunity to learn the content, skills, and processes tested depends to a great extent on the curricular goals and intentions inherent in each country's policies for science education. A distinction between intended, implemented, and attained curricula was made in TIMSS 1999 (Martin et al., 2000). Results indicated some discrepancies in a number of countries between the intended curriculum in science and the implemented curriculum as reported by teachers. There were many cases of topics intended to be taught to all, or almost all, students, for which teachers reported lower coverage. Interestingly, there were even more cases in which teachers reported greater topic coverage than would be expected from the intended curriculum. In all countries except Australia, Canada, and the United States, specifications for curricular goals in science existed at the national level. In 21 countries, science was taught in the eighth grade as a single general subject. In the other countries, separate courses were offered in the different science subjects.
Science teachers reported spending almost one-quarter of their class time, on average, on lecture-style presentations to the class. They reported devoting substantial percentages of their class time to student experiments (15%) and teacher-guided student practice (14%). Almost 40% of eighth-grade students in general science countries were in classes where teachers and students reported a high degree of emphasis on conducting science experiments. In contrast, emphasis on experiments was reportedly much less in separate science countries, particularly earth science and biology. Less than 10% of eighth-grade students in general science countries, and half this percentage in separate science countries, reported frequent use of computers in science class. Although there was great variation across countries, about a quarter of the students reported Internet access at school. Despite this access, only 12% on average used the Internet to obtain information for science projects on even a monthly basis (Martin et al., 2000).
Knowing basic facts and understanding science concepts received major emphasis in the official eighth-grade curricula of most participating countries, with at least moderate emphasis placed on application of science concepts. Few countries gave major emphasis to using laboratory equipment or performing science experiments, but there were some notable exceptions. Top-performing Singapore, Korea, and Japan were among the 10 countries that reported major emphasis on both. The increasing importance of technology in school curricula was reflected in the major emphasis given by 12 countries and the moderate emphasis given by 14 to “science, technology, and society.” Thematic approaches were more common in science than in mathematics and received major emphasis in 13 countries. Multicultural approaches and integration of science with school subjects other than mathematics were the approaches least likely to be given major or moderate emphasis (Martin et al., 2000).
Teachers from countries in which eighth-grade science was taught as a general course were asked what subject matter they emphasized with their classes (Martin et al., 2000). In Canada, Italy, and the United States, earth science was emphasized in considerably more classrooms than in other countries. Biology was more likely than the other sciences to be emphasized in Italy and Tunisia. Countries where relatively high proportions of students had seen an emphasis on physics, chemistry, or both were Cyprus, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Korea, and South Africa.
Results from TIMSS 1999 showed that testing and assessment were widely used methods to support curriculum implementation. Belgium (Flemish) and Chinese Taipei were the only countries that reported having no public examinations in science to certify students or select them for university or academic tracks. Approximately two-thirds of the countries conducted system-wide assessments at two or three grades, primarily to inform policymakers about achievement of the intended curriculum. Instructional time designated in official curricula for science instruction increased from 11% at grade 4 to 16% at grade 8, on average across countries (Martin et al., 2000).
Internationally, 58% of eighth-grade students were taught science by female teachers and 42% by males. In most countries, at least 80% of eighth-grade students were taught science by teachers with a major in the appropriate science subject. However, teachers reported only a moderate level of confidence in their preparation to teach science. Almost 40% of students were taught by teachers who reported a low level of confidence in their preparation. Teachers’ confidence in their preparation was greatest for biology, and least for earth science, environmental and resource issues, and scientific methods and inquiry skills.
Students in schools that reported being well resourced generally had higher average science achievement than those in schools where across-the-board shortages affected instructional capacity in science some or a lot. According to their principals, nearly half the students were in schools where science instruction was negatively affected by shortages or inadequacies in instructional materials, budget for supplies, school buildings, instructional space, audio-visual resources, or library materials relevant to science instruction. Schools around the world expected help from parents to ensure that students completed their homework, to volunteer for school projects or field trips, and to help raise funds and to serve on committees. One-fifth of the students attended schools where principals reported that attendance was not a problem. However, 60% were in schools where principals reported moderate attendance problems, and 19% were in schools with some serious attendance problems. The overwhelming majority of eighth-grade students attended schools judged by principals to have few serious problems threatening an orderly or safe school environment.
PISA
As a triennial survey, starting in 2000, the aim of PISA is to assess the knowledge, skills, and other characteristics of 15-year-olds in principal industrialized countries and other countries around the world (OECD, 2003a). PISA assesses literacy in reading, mathematics, and science, as well as asking students about their attitudes and approaches to learning. In the first assessment, about 315,000 students in 43 countries completed pencil-and-paper tests in their schools and filled out questionnaires about themselves. Schools also provided background information through questionnaires.
Performance in scientific literacy was marked on a single scale with an average score of 500 points and a standard deviation of 100 points. The scale measures students’ ability to use scientific knowledge, to recognize scientific questions and identify what is involved in scientific investigations, to relate scientific data to claims and conclusions, and to communicate these aspects of science. About two-thirds of students across OECD countries scored between 400 and 600 points.
Performance in scientific literacy on PISA 2000 was summarized by way of countries’ mean scores (OECD, 2003a). Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong–China demonstrated the highest performance on the scientific literacy scale. Other countries that scored significantly above the OECD average were Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Mean scores in Belgium, France, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States were not significantly different from the OECD average. Except for the Czech Republic and Hungary, all low- and middle-income countries scored below the OECD average of 500 points. The range of average scores between the highest and the lowest performing countries was large: very high performing countries scored around one-half standard deviation above the OECD average, and the lowest performing countries performed 1–11/2 standard deviations below the OECD average.
Another aspect of student learning outcomes available from the results of PISA 2000 is student engagement at school. Student engagement at school is important because it can be seen as a disposition that allows one to learn, work, and function in a social institution. In the PISA study, student engagement was treated as an important school outcome in its own right. The report, Student Engagement at School— A Sense of Belonging and Participation (OECD, 2003b), examined PISA 2000 findings about the engagement at school of 15-year-old students. It looked at two measures: their sense of belonging in terms of whether they felt they fit in at school, and their participation in terms of classes and school attendance. PISA made it possible, for the first time in such a large international survey, to look at these characteristics alongside the performance of students in acquiring knowledge and skills.
The PISA survey found that significant proportions of students had low levels of engagement, possibly limiting their capacity to benefit from school and constraining their potential. One in four students felt that they did not belong in a school environment in at least one respect, and about one in five reported being regularly absent from school (OECD, 2003b). On the other hand, just over half of students belonged to groups that combined high engagement in school with average or high performance. Several key findings of this report are noteworthy. The prevalence of disaffected students (with a low sense of belonging or low participation) varied significantly across schools in each country. Engagement was found to link only weakly to students’ social background; thus there is hope for school policy and practice to help engage more students. In addition, students in schools with strong levels of engagement tended to perform well, showing that, overall, academic performance and engagement are complementary rather than competing alternatives. However, for individual students, it was found that performance and engagement did not always go hand in hand. A quarter of students were both highly engaged and high achievers, and a similar proportion of students were highly engaged with average achievement. Students with lower levels of engagement were spread among those with high, medium, and low performance. Approximately a quarter of foreign-born students, and students from the lowest socioeconomic status or single-parent families, were more likely to be disaffected. However, those from the quarter of families with the highest socioeconomic status were not much less likely than average to show low levels of engagement. Students attending schools with a concentration of students from families with low socioeconomic status were more likely to be disaffected, suggesting probable peer effects. On the other hand, on average engagement was higher at schools with a strong disciplinary climate, good student-teacher relations, and high expectations for students. This suggests that the culture of schools plays a key role.
In addition to student engagement at school, student approaches to learning are important aspects of their learning processes. Positive student approaches to learning are necessary for success in schools and can be taken as important learning outcomes of schooling (OECD, 2003c). Students need motivation, self-confidence, and learning strategies to allow them to drive and regulate their own learning activities. The PISA 2000 analysis has shed light on the relationship between different aspects of student approaches to learning and thus on the whole process that makes students into competent autonomous learners. These findings are summarized in turn.
Student Learning Approaches as a Predictor of Student Performance
One rationale behind efforts to improve student approaches to learning is that appropriate approaches to learning have positive effects on student performance. Students who can regulate their own learning set realistic goals, select learning strategies and techniques appropriate to the demands of the task at hand, shield themselves from competing intentions, and maintain motivation when learning (OECD, 2003c). The PISA findings show a high degree of correlation between positive learning approaches and strong performance. Students’ attitudes—their self-confidence and level of motivation—played an important role in adopting strong learning strategies. Positive attitudes were important for performance; they made it more likely for students to adopt fruitful learning strategies. Students’ approaches to learning affected performance over and above the effect of family background (OECD). In some countries, this was most obvious for motivational variables such as interest in reading and students’ self-efficacy. A large amount of the variability in performance was associated with student background: students from more advantaged backgrounds tended to have stronger characteristics as learners. To reduce social disparities in performance, it will be necessary to reduce the differences in student approaches to learning. However, only a fraction of the differences in student performance (about a fifth) were related to the variations in approaches to learning. Differences also depended on a range of other factors, including prior knowledge, capacity of the working memory, and reasoning ability. All of these factors facilitate the process of comprehension during reading; they free resources for deeper-level processing, such that new knowledge can be more easily integrated into the existing framework and hence more easily understood (OECD).
Student Learning Approaches as an Outcome
The PISA study established five student attributes that could be directly compared across cultures: students’ use of memorization strategies, self-concept in reading, mathematical self-concept, self-efficacy, and preference for cooperative learning. The OECD (2003c) report presented student profiles in terms of the average strength of these learning characteristics in each country, the degree to which students clustered into groups with strengths or weaknesses across characteristics, and the learning attributes of different subgroups of the population. Comparison of the mean values of learner characteristics indicates that country differences in this respect were relatively small. Also, the differences across schools were small when compared with differences within schools: relatively few schools succeeded in promoting particularly strong approaches to learning among their students. Attention thus needs to be focused on teaching practices within schools and on system-wide change to improve classroom practices. Cluster analysis identified a group of students with particularly strong motivation, self-confidence, and learning strategies in combination as compared with a group particularly weak on these attributes. Clearly, the latter group needs targeted support, not just to help them succeed at school, but also to equip them with learning attitudes and habits that will be important in their later lives. That this clustering effect is of similar strength in all of the countries surveyed demonstrates that no country can ignore the existence of students at risk for learning.
Relationships Between Different Learner Characteristics
Effective, self-regulating learners cannot be created by the fostering of cognitive strategies alone. Learners also need to have the motivation to deploy these strategies (OECD, 2003c). In all countries, students who controlled their own learning processes and adapted them to the task at hand were characterized by a high level of confidence in their own abilities. Students were more likely to use control strategies if they were motivated to learn by concrete incentives (e.g., occupational aspirations) or specific interests. Overall, about two-thirds of the differences in the degree to which students used self-regulating strategies could be explained by differences in motivation and self-concept. Because the attitudes and learning behaviors of students were closely intertwined, an integrated approach is needed to improve these characteristics as a whole.
SAS Study
Compared with TIMSS and PISA, the SAS Study operated on a less comprehensive and ambitious scale. The project Science and Scientist was an investigation of the interests, experiences, and perceptions relevant to the learning of science by children in many countries (Sjøberg, 2000). The SAS Study was an attempt to open up for a critical discussion how to approach science teaching and learning in ways that take into consideration the cultural diversity within a country as well as differences across countries and cultures. Gender-related performance was of particular importance in the SAS Study.
The project involved 30 researchers from 21 countries. Some 9,300 children at the age of 13 answered the questionnaire. The quality of the sample varied from country to country; thus, the results should be interpreted with care. The SAS questionnaire consisted of seven questions aimed at probing student attitudes and perceptions on matters such as scientists as persons, out-of-school experiences, things to learn about, what is important for a future job, science in action, scientists at work, and me as a scientist.
Children in developing countries articulated a more positive view toward science and technology than children in industrialized countries. Some children in industrialized countries (mainly boys) portrayed the scientist as a cruel and crazy person, whereas most children in developing countries saw scientists as idols, helpers, and heroes. The low interest for learning science and technology expressed by Japanese children was remarkable. Gender differences in learning different topics of science varied among countries, but were higher in the Nordic countries (and in Japan) than in other regions. The study also provided examples to illustrate how different contexts and applications appealed differently to girls and boys.
CURRENT CONDITIONS OF SCIENCE LEARNING IN SELECTED COUNTRIES
Results obtained from TIMSS, PISA, and SAS indicate that students’ learning outcomes and processes and the conditions of science learning at schools vary significantly both across countries and within a given country. Wide variations in science education practices, policies, and research in different countries are expected. Countries have different problems to be solved, and the ways in which they solve their problems may involve different purposes, approaches, and strategies. Thus it is helpful to know the current condition of science learning in different countries.
Science Education in Developing Countries
In 1990/1991, the International Institute for Educational Planning conducted a survey on the state of science education in 12 developing countries (Caillods, Gottel-mann-Duret, & Lewin, 1997). The countries selected included four African countries, three Latin American countries, two Arabic countries, and three countries from the Asia and Pacific region. Focusing on science at the secondary school level, the information collected included participation in science education, curriculum organization, the conditions of teaching and learning, teaching methods, cost of science education, student achievement in science, and the destination of school leavers. Detailed discussion on the state of science education in the selected countries can be found in work by Caillods et al. (1997).
In terms of educational inputs, most African countries face a lack of financial and human resources. Even in countries where essential resources appear to be available, much remains to be done to improve the quality of education and student achievement in science. The organization of curricula and the forms and degrees of specialization in science subjects differ among countries. Factors affecting science achievement include curriculum content, the amount of time devoted to science, availability and quality of textbooks, and subject knowledge and subject-related pedagogical skills of teachers. Certain conditions of science education, such as the qualification level of science teachers, have improved almost everywhere. Most countries have made tremendous efforts to increase the participation of students in science education (Caillods et al., 1997).
Based on the findings of this survey, Lewin (2000) noted four factors that shape the policy context for science education. The first identifies questions related to participation, the second notes the importance of financial constraints, the third explores the dimensions of supply and demand for science education, and the fourth draws attention to different needs for different groups. In this context, Lewin discussed the current status and main problems of science education in developing countries.
- There are large disparities among developing countries in gross enrollment rates at the secondary school level. Middle-income developing countries have a majority of children enrolled in the secondary grades. In contrast, some of the poorest countries have gross enrollment rates of between 5% and 10%. In many of the higher income developing countries and some of the low-income countries, female enrollment is greater than that for males. Participation rates at upper secondary are typically 30–50% of those at lower secondary, as a result of attrition, policies on mainstreaming, and availability of other options.
- The amount spent per secondary student in different countries varies significantly. The richest countries allocate more than $5000 per child per year; the poorest less than $50. Money allocated to science education per year in the poorest countries can be as low as $1 per child. Sustainable levels of resources are low in poor developing countries. These countries may have to select students to specialize in science who will have access to facilities similar to those in richer countries.
- Regarding the supply and demand in education and the labor market, the basic questions revolve around whether participation in science education is supply or demand constrained at different levels, and whether there is a case to increase supply or demand related to national development strategies on human resource development.
- Lewin also discussed the different needs of five groups of stakeholders: those who will become qualified scientists and engineers, those destined to work in sub-professional roles that require or benefit from a grounding in science, the remaining general school population, members of marginalized groups with special needs of one kind or another, and those in the informal sector.
Science Education in European Countries
Sjøberg (2002) described and analyzed some of the challenges facing science and technology education in European countries by relating these challenges to their wider social setting. Keeping in mind that problems and issues may be perceived differently from different perspectives, Sjøberg pointed out the following:
- Falling enrollment of students studying science. In many European countries, there is a noticeable decrease in the numbers of students choosing to take physics and mathematics. In many countries, there is also a growing gender gap in the choice of scientific and technological subjects at both the secondary and tertiary levels. Many countries have had a long period of steady growth in female participation in traditionally male fields of study, but this positive trend seems to have been broken in some countries.
- Critique of large-scale international comparative studies. Comparative research in education, such as TIMSS, is important. However, the test items tend to become decontextualized and rather abstract. Sjøberg (2002) suggested complementing the data from TIMSS-like studies with open-ended and culturally sensitive information and perspectives.
- Public understanding and attitude toward science. There is a political concern about how the general public relates to science, including the nature and level of public scientific and technological knowledge, attitudes and interests, and the degree of public support for scientific and technological research.
Sjøberg (2002) mentioned the widely the accepted notion that science curricula play important roles in developing and sustaining pupils’ interest in science, and in preparing citizens for the twenty-first century. Yet, there is broad agreement about the shortcomings of traditional curricula that prevail in most countries: that science is conveyed mainly as a massive body of authoritative and unquestionable knowledge; that there is a lack of relevance and deeper meaning for the learners and their daily lives; and that students do not make the commitments necessary to learn science.
Cases of Science Education Reform Worldwide
An international workshop on reform in the teaching of science and technology, held in Beijing in 2000, presented current trends and main concerns regarding science curriculum development and implementation in selected countries in Asia and Europe (Poisson, 2001). A total of 15 countries were involved, including China, France, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. Reports from each country focused on the following three aspects: (a) the status of teaching science and technology in the country under discussion, (b) the main problems that country confronts in teaching science and technology, and (c) the most recent science education reform implemented in the country. In order to illustrate the range of variation in the reports from different countries, I have decided to describe the results for China, France, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. The selection is somewhat arbitrary; it is meant to be illustrative of the range of conditions and reforms in science education worldwide.
China. Rapid development of science and technology coupled with substantial socioeconomic growth now poses unprecedented challenges to China. Efforts are under way to enhance the content and the delivery system to reform curriculum and instruction. The main problems in the Chinese science curriculum were reported by Poisson (2001). In terms of the instructional goals, the emphasis is on science, rather than technology, and there is undue stress on acquiring knowledge; the development of student ability to apply scientific skills and knowledge to problem-solving remains neglected. The curriculum is subject-centered and knowledge-centered. For classroom practices, recitation of science prevails over science as inquiry, and teachers fail to inculcate scientific attitudes, values, processing skills, and higher-order thinking skills in their students. The separation of science into major disciplines impedes the comprehension of the interconnectedness among physics, biology, chemistry, and earth science.
Relative to science curriculum reform currently under way in China, Poisson (2001) recommended changing curriculum objectives that overemphasize knowledge transmission. The stress should be on the education of physically and emotionally healthy citizens with good characters. Desire, attitude, and ability for lifelong learning among students need to be cultivated. The tendency to structure curricula crammed with many subjects having little or no integration should be changed. Efforts must be made to ensure qualities of comprehensiveness, balance, and selectivity during the structuring of curricula. Curriculum content should be relevant to modern society and promote the development of science and technology. There should be an emphasis on integrating formal education with informal education in form and content, and on avoiding overemphasizing receptive learning, rote memorization, and passive imitation in the teaching process. Learning activities such as active participation, cooperation, exploration, and discovery should be advocated to enable students to become independent learners. Textbook content should be related to students’ daily lives and be able to meet specific needs of students and schools in different areas. The variety and number of different versions of textbooks should be increased, and schools should be allowed to select their own textbooks. As for assessment, less emphasis should be placed on factual knowledge and rote memory. A new assessment system characterized by multiple methods that take into account both outcomes and processes is being established. In addition, there is an effort to replace the originally highly centralized system of curriculum management by establishing national, local, and school-level curriculum management policies. This will ensure the overall quality of basic education in China and improve its adaptability.
France. In France, science and technology teaching takes place at all levels of schooling, but to widely differing degrees (Malleus, 2001). It is intended that everyone should have science education up to the age of 16. Science teaching takes account of the need to educate future citizens. There is constant emphasis on scientific questioning and increasing progression from the concrete to the abstract. Practical work is an expensive requirement, but one the system strives to satisfy at all levels. Information technologies have become essential in modern science teaching. Changes in the curriculum are evidence that the education system is constantly adapting to societal changes, based on continuous assessment (Malleus).
A strong tradition in France in the teaching and learning of science was to value mainly abstract studies and mathematics. Until the 1960s, the teaching and learning of physics and chemistry in France had not changed for 30 years. Pupils tended to believe that science was final, perfect, removed from reality, and not to be questioned. The introduction of practical work into the school curriculum was a difficult task. It took nearly a quarter-century to change. Change occurred as a result of giving teachers examples of new and interesting experiments, convincing teachers that pupils should not be taught science the way they themselves were taught, leading schools to build laboratories and buy equipment, and lobbying national and regional decision-makers to invest in practical work. Nowadays, assessment of new types of abilities such as problem-solving is emphasized, and links to everyday life and the environment are developed in science curricula. Hands-on Science for 5–12-year-olds was developed in 1995 and gradually grew and gained prestige. One important innovation was the introduction of supervised personal projects, which provided direction to pupils to understand the ultimate purpose of what they were learning. A new curriculum is under way, with the main idea of “less is more,” emphasizing skills over knowledge (Malleus, 2001).
Israel. In order to prepare the next-generation citizens for life in the twenty-first century, the goals of science and technology teaching in Israel emphasize knowledge and understanding of facts, concepts, laws, and principles that every citizen will need. Science and technology courses are expected to achieve the following objectives (Ilan, 2001): to develop creative and critical thinking, as well as understanding of research methods and enhanced problem-solving skills; to improve comprehension of the importance of science and technology knowledge that will help pupils make decisions regarding national and international issues; to help students recognize the possibilities and limitations of science and technology when applying them to problem-solving; to develop smart consumer thinking and behaviors by using a decision-making process when selecting a product or a system; to prepare individuals to take care of the environment; and to encourage the development of both individual and team learning skills and good work habits.
The characteristics and rationale of the Israeli science and technology curriculum (Ilan, 2001) are as follows. Science and technology should be integrated, while emphasizing the uniqueness of each subject; the integration of science and technology can be done in various ways; and different models should be evaluated in order to show the range of possibilities. Science and technology teachers choose their curriculum from the subjects given in the national syllabus and decide how to integrate them; they are encouraged to engage in team teaching. Students are expected to acquire the relevant knowledge, skills, and attitudes in key technology and science areas in order to be able to tackle human needs and problems. Ultimately, students should be able to follow a full process of problem-solving within a technological and scientific environment.
Japan. In Japan, the science and technology syllabus includes scientific phenomena commonly encountered by students in day-to-day life. The aim is to train students in the practical aspects of scientific learning through laboratory and other experiments, develop their powers of observation, and hone their ability to interpret and apply their knowledge. Although the overall academic achievement of Japanese children is considered to be satisfactory, there are still problems that need to be addressed (Goto, 2001). These problems include a substantial number of children who do not fully understand the syllabus content; limited opportunities for children to develop their abilities to study, to think for themselves, to express their opinions, and to view things from different perspectives; children's inability to solve comprehensive science problems related to the environment; and children's lack of interest in science and its study.
The new curriculum and the reform of science education in Japan are aimed at the following goals (Goto, 2001): to help a child develop humanitarian values, social ability, and self-identity as a Japanese person living in the international community; to help a child develop the ability to learn and to think independently; to help a child develop his/her individuality by providing ample scope for learning opportunities; and to encourage each school to show ingenuity in developing distinctive educational activities. In addition, more specific objectives and reform measures were formulated for students at different levels. The suggested reforms at the elementary school, for instance, emphasized fostering problem-solving abilities and student understanding of the relationship between science and daily life. Lifelong learning is also emphasized.
New Zealand. In New Zealand, the major aim of science education is to help students develop knowledge and coherent understanding of living, physical material, and technology components of their environment; skills for investigating the above in scientific ways; and attitudes on which scientific investigation depends. The main problems in teaching science and technology in New Zealand are as follows (Kelly, 2001): lack of teacher confidence, knowledge of subject matter, and knowledge of subject pedagogy; lack of science facilities in primary schools; lack of an established base of teaching, learning, and assessment experience in technology; lack of familiarity with “real world” technological practice, the legacy of craft-based curricula in years 7 and 8; and the difficulties of attracting and retaining teachers, especially at the secondary level, in the physical sciences.
In New Zealand, the science curriculum was updated in 1992–1993. A curriculum assessment was planned for 2000–2002. The Ministry of Education produced resource materials and contracted providers to support the introduction of curriculum change to inservice teachers, assess learning, and monitor student progress in science (Kelly, 2001).
United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, the aim of the science curriculum is to stimulate pupils’ curiosity about phenomena and events taking place in the world around them. Both scientific knowledge and scientific methods are emphasized. Pupils are expected to understand, to question, and to discuss how major scientific ideas contribute to technological change; affect industry, business and medicine; and improve the quality of life for all (Osborne, 2001).
The report edited by Millar and Osborne (1998) described the current state of science education in the United Kingdom. On the bright side, science is a universal curriculum for all pupils from age 5 to 16, and 80% of pupils undertake a program at age 16 that covers all of the major sciences. Science is also a core subject of the 11–16 curricula, along with English and mathematics. The current significance of science is reflected in the fact that it now occupies the curriculum high table, with literacy and numeracy, as an essential core of the primary curriculum. Moreover, there has been a general acceptance that learning science involves both knowing about the natural world and having opportunities for personal inquiry.
Although the results of TIMSS for the United Kingdom appeared to be satisfactory, Millar and Osborne (1998) noted that most students lack familiarity with the scientific ideas that they are likely to meet outside school—they lack the ability to deal effectively and confidently with scientific information in everyday contexts. School science, particularly at the secondary level, fails to sustain and develop the sense of wonder and curiosity of many young people. The apparent lack of relevance of the school science curriculum contributes to too few young people choosing to pursue courses in science and mathematics after the age of 16. Millar and Osborne suggested several reasons for these problems. There is an overemphasis on content in science curriculum, which can appear as a catalogue of ideas, lacking coherence and relevance. The science curriculum lacks a well-articulated set of aims or an agreed model of the development of pupils’ scientific capability for the ages of 5–16 years and beyond. Assessment is based on exercises and tasks that rely heavily on memorization and recall, quite unlike those contexts in which learners might wish to use the science knowledge or skills in later life. The National Curriculum separates science and technology. There is relatively little emphasis within the science curriculum on discussion or analysis of the scientific issues that permeate contemporary life. Thus, science appears detached from and irrelevant to young persons’ concerns and interests. There is a lack of variety of teaching and learning experiences, leading to too many dull and uninspiring lessons. The science curriculum fails to take adequate account of the range of interests and aptitudes of young people of this age.
Reform measures in the United Kingdom include the following (Osborne, 2001): the introduction of societal issues into the science curriculum; the use of more student-centered approaches; changing the assessment system to reflect the aims of the science curriculum; and increasing out-of-school and informal sources of science teaching, including the Internet and science-related television programs.
MAJOR PROBLEMS AND CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF SCIENCE LEARNING WORLDWIDE
In view of the discussions presented in the previous sections, I now present a summary of the major problems and contemporary issues of student science learning, using Fig. 9.1 as an organizer.
Student Learning Outcomes in Science
Low student achievement in science for a portion of students, as shown in the TIMSS and PISA studies, is a major concern in many countries. Gender differences exist, with boys having significantly higher average science achievement than girls, particularly in physics, earth science, chemistry, and environmental and resource issues. Inasmuch as different students (with different needs, purposes, beliefs, social-cultural background, prior knowledge, learning experiences, learning approaches, and so on) learn science differently, a problem of both theoretical and practical interest is how to motivate, teach, and assess their learning in science so that optimal results can be obtained for students’ individual development and for the benefit of society as a whole. There are gaps between the intended, the implemented, and the attained curriculum, although there is wide consensus that the goals of the science curriculum are meaning making, understanding, and conceptual change (Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998). It is also recognized that, besides achievement in the cognitive domain, student learning outcomes should include aspects such as motivation, self-concept, social-cultural and linguistic aspects, study skills, engagement, learning how to learn, global awareness, and the effective use of ICT. The desired learning outcomes are aligned with science curriculum reforms that are taking place in many countries. To improve learning outcomes, many problems must be solved, including the formulation of science education goals, the development and implementation of new curricula, the preparation and professional development of science teachers, the evaluation of science education programs, and securing financial and material resources and parent and societal support.
Learning Processes
As shown in Fig. 9–1, learning processes in classroom and school settings include many factors expected to link to learning outcomes. In order for a significant proportion of students to achieve the desired learning outcomes, the current state of science learning processes in many countries appears to be inadequate. For instance, in TIMSS 1995, students in most countries reported spending between half an hour and an hour studying or doing homework in science. In most countries, the challenge of catering to students of different academic abilities was the factor teachers mentioned most often as limiting how they taught their mathematics and science classes. Other limiting factors were a high student/teacher ratio, a shortage of equipment for use in instruction, and the burden of dealing with disruptive students. In the PISA study, significant proportions of students had low levels of engagement, which limited their capacity to benefit from school and constrained their potential in the future. The PISA findings showed a high degree of consistency within each country in the association between positive learning approaches and strong performance. But within each country, there were many students whose learning approaches were less effective.
More favorable conditions for developing student learning processes in science are required. For instance, greater attention should be paid to shaping positive learning behaviors and helping students develop effective learning approaches and metacognitive skills. To be conducive to science instruction aimed at the desired learning outcomes, more favorable teacher behaviors and classroom practices are needed. These will require, in turn, significant efforts in the preparation and professional development of science teachers.
Inputs to Learning
Student characteristics such as their prior knowledge, ability, motivation, goals, IQ, conceptions of learning, conceptions of teacher, and conceptions of the nature of science are important inputs to learning. The TIMSS 1999 results indicated that, in almost every country, there was a positive association between students’ educational expectations and their science achievement. The results also indicated that eighth-grade boys generally had more positive self-concepts and attitudes in science than girls. PISA 2000 showed that students’ attitudes—their self-confidence and level of motivation—played an important role in adopting strong learning strategies. Overall, about two-thirds of the differences in the degree to which students used appropriate learning strategies could be explained by differences in motivation and self-concept.
Another important input is teacher characteristics such as educational training and experience, beliefs, content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, self-confidence, instructional skills and teaching styles, and conceptions of teaching and learning. The TIMSS 1999 results indicated that eighth-grade students were taught science by teachers with a major in the appropriate science subject. However, eighth-grade science teachers reported only a moderate level of confidence in their preparation to teach science. Teachers’ confidence in their preparation was greatest for biology, and least for earth science, environmental and resource issues, and scientific methods and inquiry skills.
Science curriculum and opportunity to learn are also important inputs to learning. Student opportunity to learn the content, skills, and processes in science depends to a great extent on the curricular goals and intentions inherent in a country's policies for science education. Discrepancies exist between intended and implemented curricula in science. Knowing basic facts and understanding science concepts received major emphasis in most countries. Shortcomings of traditional curricula in many countries include the fact that science is conveyed mainly as a massive body of authoritative and unquestionable knowledge, and that the curriculum lacks relevance and deeper meaning for the learners and their daily lives.
Financial, material, and human resources are also important inputs to learning. In the TIMSS studies, having educational resources in the home was strongly related to science achievement in every country. Students in schools that reported being well resourced generally had higher average science achievement than those in schools where across-the-board shortages affected instructional capacity in science. Likewise, public understanding, support, and attitude toward science are important inputs to learning.
Contexts of Learning
Important context inputs include the physical environment and social-cultural conditions at the home, classroom, and school levels. TIMSS 1995 showed that classroom variables were related to average school achievement even after adjustment for the home background of the students. The strong relationship that persists between the average level of home background and student achievement serves as a reminder that, in many countries, home background, schooling, and student achievement are closely intertwined. Teasing out the influences of the various contributing factors remains a major challenge.
The contexts of learning at classroom and school levels also involve factors such as educational goals and policies, prevailing theories of learning and teaching, educational philosophies, the scientific and technological capacities of the nation, supply and demand in education and the labor market, and other international conditions. These factors are influenced by the driving forces of science education reform shown in Figure 9.1. Important problems and issues can be raised while considering the constraints imposed on and the opportunities provided to the learning process.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A global look at science learning is helpful for examining problems faced within a country, working out possible solutions, and taking necessary actions. Through an overview of the conditions of science learning worldwide, it is evident that many old problems persist, new challenges occur, and research-based reforms and policies are needed. To conclude this discussion, I present a global view of science learning in the twenty-first century. Finally, I offer some suggestion for international research studies on science learning.
A Global View of Science Learning in the Twenty-first Century
Old problems. Across national boundaries, problems of student science learning persist. Regarding the inputs for school science, there are problems due to falling enrollment of students studying science, student lack of interest in science, lack of adequate supply and professional development of science teachers, and limited resources for science instruction. Science education policies are not well informed by research, and there is a lack of public understanding and support of science. Regarding the processes of learning science, there are problems that have to do with goals for curriculum/instruction/assessment, effective practices in science instruction and learning, and attending to student individual differences and special needs. In terms of problems related to the products of science learning, in addition to concerns about student achievement in science, other desired student learning outcomes need to be considered, including student abilities to apply scientific concepts in daily life, understanding the nature of science, attitudes toward science, and knowledge and skills for professional careers and for dealing with science-related social issues. Student learning outcomes in these areas are generally not as good as expected. It is easier to identify problems related to student learning processes and outcomes in science than to find effective methods to improve student learning, to inform teachers of research findings and teaching strategies, or to institutionalize change.
New challenges. The purpose of learning science has changed in recent years. Students and citizens need to be well prepared for a science- and technology-oriented twenty-first century. Rather than preparing selected elites for science careers, schools now are expected to promote scientific literacy for all students. Science teaching, learning, and assessment are expected to stress meaningful learning of basic science concepts, a better understanding of the nature of science, and communication skills, critical thinking, cooperative learning, and problem-solving. Science curriculum and instruction are expected to have relevance to students’ daily lives and deal with social issues. The international trends toward globalization and a knowledge economy create opportunities for international cooperation and competitiveness in science and technology. Improved science curriculum, instruction, and learning are expected to play important roles in national development and economic growth in many countries. New waves of science education reforms are sweeping the world. However, based on the lessons of previous science education reforms, it is clear that piecemeal reform attempts will not meet the new demands or solve the existing problems. What is needed is systemic reform, which involves research-informed policy-making and practice.
New opportunities. On the research side, there is now a better theoretical understanding of student science learning from philosophical, sociological, psychological, and physiological points of view. A wide range of research methods in the qualitative and quantitative paradigms has been developed, enabling more valid, reliable, and fruitful studies of science learning. A number of international studies have been conducted, providing useful information, examples of best practices, and databases useful for secondary analysis. On the practical side, new instructional strategies, learning materials, delivery systems, learning environments, and assessment methods have been developed in recent years, often using ICT. There is a proliferation of technological tools that provide opportunities, locations, environments, and aids to science learning. Of course, the ways to make the best use of these new tools and opportunities need to be more thoroughly investigated.
Recommendations for International Research Studies on Science Learning
Sound theoretical and empirical bases are important to the improvement of student science learning and science education as a whole. In light of results obtained from international studies such as TIMSS and PISA, many important research questions may be answered meaningfully from an international perspective. Exchanging and sharing research findings among countries and international cooperation in doing research studies are important steps that the science education research community should take in the future.
Research studies with participants from more than one country can serve a number of purposes. For instance, Chabbott and Elliot (2003) pointed out three types of international comparative studies: (1) type I studies, which focus on comparing students’ outcomes internationally; (2) type II studies, which are designed to inform education policy by examining specific policies and their implementation in other countries; and (3) type III studies, which are designed to increase general understanding about educational systems and processes. With the help of ICT, these studies can be more easily planned, carried out, and disseminated. Thus, a larger international community may be able to use the research results to inform science education practices and policy-making. Such studies can provide opportunities for educators and researchers from a given country to reflect on the educational goals, beliefs, and practices that they take for granted. Considering the wide range of educational, social, cultural, and historical contexts in different countries may help reduce the effects of intervening variables that plague most quantitative studies carried out in individual countries. These contexts also can provide a wider spectrum of situations to be considered in qualitative studies. Research results obtained from well-executed international studies can enhance the knowledge of what works best in different contexts, yield more reliable relationship between relevant variables, and deepen understanding of the phenomena involved.
Because of the trends in globalization and ICT, many countries face similar problems and challenges related to student science learning. Because research funds for doing science education studies are limited in most countries, international cooperation involving activities such as the exchange of research scholars and joint research studies should be encouraged. Strong commitment and support from public and private funding agencies, universities, research centers, and professional organizations are desirable.
Studies on student science learning are important in informing educational policy decisions and improving teaching/learning/assessment practices. The interest and scope of such studies may vary from individual students to groups of students, classes, schools, and countries. It is important to recognize that science education exists within historical, cultural, and institutional contexts that differ among countries. The educational goals, instructional conditions, teaching and learning practices, and students’ learning outcomes in different countries also vary. From an international perspective, it is therefore important to take a systems approach in selecting research topics, priority, strategies, and methods in the planning of such international studies.
By examining important issues in science learning from an international perspective, I have tried in this chapter to provide useful information, discussion, and recommendations for the planning and execution of research studies on science learning from an international perspective. I hope that the model of school-based learning in science, the implications of the driving forces for science education reforms in the twenty-first century, and the current conditions of science learning worldwide as reviewed in this chapter will provide background information and guidance for conducting international research on science learning in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Allan Harrison and Rudi Laugksch, who reviewed this chapter.
REFERENCES
Australian Capital Territory Department of Education and Training. (n.d.). Curriculum profiles for Australian schools. Retrieved August 1, 2004, from http://www.decs.act.gov.au/publicat/profiles.htm
Beaton, A. E., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith, T. A., & Kelly, D. L. (1996). The science achievement in the middle school years: IEA's third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and learning science. London: Continuum.
Caillods, F., Gottelmann-Duret, G., & Lewin, K. M. (1997). Science education and development: Planning and policy issues at secondary level. Paris: UNESCO.
Chabbott, C., & Elliott, E. J. (Eds.). (2003). Understanding others, educating ourselves: Getting more from international comparative studies in education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Cheng, Y. C. (2000a). A CMI-tripilization paradigm for reforming education in the new millennium. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(4), 156–174.
Cheng, Y. C. (2000b). Foreword. A paradigm shift in science learning and teaching. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 1(2). Retrieved August 1, 2004, from http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/issue_2/foreword/index.htm
Cobern, W. W. (1996). Constructivism and non-western science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 4, 287–302.
Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science. London: Routledge.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science-from behaviorism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–25). London: Kluwer Academic.
Entwistle, N. J. (1998). Improving teaching through research on student learning. In J. J. Forest (Ed.), University teaching: International perspectives (pp. 73–112). New York: Garland.
Entwisle, N. J. (2000, November). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. Paper presented at the meeting of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Fensham, P. J. (1992). Science and technology. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 789–829). New York: Macmillan.
Fensham, P. J., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (Eds.). (1994). The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. London: Falmer Press.
Goto, M. (2001). Japan. In M. Poisson (Ed.), Science education for contemporary society: Problems and dilemmas (pp. 31–38). Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education.
Hallak, J. (2001). Foreword. In M. Poisson (Ed.), Science education for contemporary society: Problems and dilemmas (pp. 3–4). Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education.
Huitt, W. (1995). A system model of the teaching/learning process. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 408–416.
Ilan, M. (2001). Israel. In M. Poisson (Ed.), Science education for contemporary society: Problems and dilemmas (pp. 90–92). Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education.
Keeves, J., & Aikenhead, G., (1995). Science curricula in a changing world. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 13–45). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Kelly, F. (2001). New Zealand. In M. Poisson (Ed.), Science education for contemporary society: Problems and dilemmas (pp. 46–50). Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education.
Lewin, K. M. (2000). World bank, human development network secondary education series: Mapping science education policy in developing countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Malleus, P. (2001). France. In M. Poisson (Ed.), Science education for contemporary society: Problems and dilemmas (pp. 74–82). Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Beaton, A. E., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith, T. A., & Kelly, D. L. (1997). The science achievement in the primary school years: IEA's third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Smith, T. A., Chrostowski, S. J., et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 international science report: International study center. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith, T. A., & Kelly, D. L. (1999). The school contexts for learning and instruction: IEA's third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gregory, K. D., Hoyle, C., & Shen, C. (2000). Effective schools in science and mathematics: IEA's third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (1998). Constructivism in science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Matthews, M. R. (2000). Constructivism in science and mathematics education. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), National society for the study of education, 99th yearbook (pp. 161–192). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
Mintzes, J. J., & Wandersee, J. H. (1998). Research in science teaching and learning: A human constructivist view. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 60–92). San Diego: Academic Press.
Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (Eds.). (1998). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego: Academic Press.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Beaton, A. E., Gonzalez, E. J., Kelly, D. L., & Smith, T. A. (1998). The mathematics and science achievement in the final years of secondary school: IEA's third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Fierros, E. G., Goldberg, A. L., & Stemler, S. E. (2000). Gender differences in achievement: IEA's third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation (Rev. ed.). Retrieved August 1, 2004, from http://www.nsta.org/main/pdfs/NSTAstandards2003.pdf
OECD. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment. Retrieved August 1, 2004, from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/docs/books.htm
OECD. (2003a). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2000. Retrieved August 1, 2004, from the OECD/PISA Web site: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/docs/books.htm
OECD. (2003b). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation. Retrieved August 1, 2004, from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/docs/books.htm
OECD. (2003c). Learners for life: Student approaches to learning. Retrieved August 1, 2004, from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/docs/books.htm
Osborne, J. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80, 53–82.
Osborne, J. (2001). United Kingdom (England). In M. Poisson (Ed.), Science education for contemporary society: Problems and dilemmas (pp. 99–101). Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education,
Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children's science. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
Poisson, M. (Ed.). (2001). Science education for contemporary society: Problems, issues and dilemmas. Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education.
Proctor, C. (1984). Teacher expectations: A model for school improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 84, 469–481.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2002). National curriculum for England. Retrieved August 10, 2004, http://www.nc.uk.net/index.html
Sjøberg, S. (2000). Science and scientists: The SAS study. Retrieved August 25, 2004, from http://folk.uio.no/sveinsj/SASweb.htm#_Toc483975184
Sjøberg, S. (2002). Science and technology education: Current challenges and possible solutions. Retrieved August 23, 2004, from http://folk.uio.no/sveinsj/STE_paper_Sjoberg_UNESCO2.htm
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). The CIPP model for evaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models (2nd ed., pp. 279–317). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Tobin, K. (Ed.). (1993). The practice of constructivism in science and mathematics education. Washington, DC: AAAS Press.
van den Akker, J. (1998). The science curriculum: Between ideals and outcomes. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 421–447). London: Kluwer Academic.
Zembylas, M. (2002). The global, the local, and the science curriculum: A struggle for balance in Cyprus. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 499–519.
Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177–234). New York: Macmillan.
White, R. T. (1988). Learning science. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.