Monitoring of cognitive development in teaching programme ExpEdition: Can cognitive development reflect the influence of the learning environment?
PDF (Čeština)

Keywords

Prírodovedné vzdelávanie
Kognitívny vývin
Vzdelávacie prostredie
IPDT Science education
Cognitive development
Learning environment
IPDT

How to Cite

Koperová, D., & Held, Ľubomír. (2023). Monitoring of cognitive development in teaching programme ExpEdition: Can cognitive development reflect the influence of the learning environment?. Scientia in Educatione, 13(2), 13-25. https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.2133

Abstract

An innovative view of science education is presented by the teaching programme ExpEdition – try, explore, discover. It offers the opportunity to teach science through systematically applied IBSE elements, space for teacher training and the preparation of appropriate teaching and methodological materials. The aim is to provide an insight into the monitoring of the cognitive development of long-term learners in the programme and at the same time to compare them with students learning in the traditional way, mostly by interpretation. The Inventory of Piaget’s Developmental Tasks (IPDT) test, which monitors the cognitive level attained by the pupil, and the Bipolar Statement Scale (BSS), which monitors the ability to grasp abstract content, were administered in the classroom. The results show a difference between lower secondary school pupils aged 14–15 years learning traditionally (12 schools, 14 classes, 287 pupils) and those learning by ExpEdition (2 schools, 4 classes, 83 pupils) in all the parameters studied (IPDT by 10 points, misconceptions by 2 points). Given that
the results of the pupils involved in the programme  appear to be significantly better than those of traditional pupils, it can be assumed that the learning environment created for the pupils in the project has a positive impact on their achievement.

https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.2133
PDF (Čeština)

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N.G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118

Abraham, M.R., Grzybowski, E. B., Renner, J.W., & Marek, E.A. (1992). Understanding and misunderstanding of eighth graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290203

Altbach, P. G. (1991). Introduction. In P.G. Altbach (Eds.), Textbooks in American Society (pp. 1–6). State University of New York Press.

Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher, 29(5), 45–51. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24146536

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802 3

Bates, A.W. (2016). What is a learning environment?. In W.A. Bates (Ed.), Teaching in a digital age.Pressbooks. https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/5-2-what-is-a-learning-environment/

Benedikovičová, Z. (2013). Konštruktivistický prístup k vyučovaniu o chemickej väzbe v podmienkach základného vzdelávania. [Dizertačná práca, Trnavská univerzita v Trnave].

Bernard, P., Maciejowska, I., Krzeczkowska, M., & Odrow¸a˙z, E. (2015). Influence of in-service teacher training on their opinions about IBSE. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 177, 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.343

Brianzoni, V., & Cardellini, L. (2015). Science education in Italy: Critical and desirable aspect of learning environments. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(5), 1648–3898. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/15.14.685

Broďáni, J. (2005). Effect size – veľkosť účinku ako prostriedok posúdenia významnosti rozdielov priemerov skupín. In K. Félix, P. Gles, & J. Kasa, Adaptácia v tréningovom procese: Elektronický zborník z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie. STU Bratislava.

Bybee, R.W., & Landes, N. M. (1990). Science for life and living: An elementary school science program for Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. The American Biology Teacher, 52(2), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/4449042

Bybee, R.W., Taylor, J.A., Gardner, A., van Scooter, P., Powell, J. C., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5e instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. BSCS. https://media.bscs.org/bscsmw/5es/bscs 5e executive summary.pdf

Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783

Coleman, S. L., & Gotch, A. J. (1998). Spatial perception skills of chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(2), 206–209. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed075p206

Constantinou, C. P., Tsivitanidou, O.E., & Rybska, E. (2018). What is inquiry-based science teaching and learning? In O. Tsivitanidou, P. Gray, E. Rybska, L. Louca, & C. Constantinou (Eds.), Professional development for inquiry-based science teaching and learning. Contributions from science education research (vol. 5, pp. 1–23). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91406-0 1

Čáp, J., & Mareš, J. (2001). Psychologie po učitele. Portál.

Donnelly, D. F., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2014). ‘Just be quiet and listen to exactly what he’s saying’: Conceptualising power relations in inquiry-oriented classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 2029–2054. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.889867

Dorman, J.P., Aldridge, J.M., & Fraser, B. J. (2006). Using students’ assessment of classroom environment to develop a typology of secondary school classrooms. International Education Journal, 7(7), 906–915.

Duran, L. B., & Duran, E. (2004). The 5E Instructional model: A learning cycle approach for inquiry-based science teaching. The Science Education Review, 3(2), 49–58.

Fan, J., & Zhang, L. (2014). The role of learning environments in thinking styles. Educational Psychology, 34(2), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.817538

Fraser, B. J. (1999). Using learning environment assessment to improve classroom and school climates. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 65–83). RoutledgeFalmer.

Furth, H. (1970). An inventory of Piaget’s developmental tasks. Center for Research in Thinking and Language.

Gokdere, M., & Calik, M. (2010). A cross-age study of Turkish students’ mental models: An atom concept. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 2, 185–199.

Grecmanová, H. (2008). Klima školy. Hanex.

Grecmanová, H., Urbanovská, E., Gonda, D., & Cabanová, V. (2020). Teachers didactic competencies when teaching natural science subject as s learning environment factor. European Journal of Education Studies, 6(12), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3678834

Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K.R. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290609

Harlen, W. (2010). Principles and big ideas of science education. Ashford Colour Press Ltd.

Harlen, W. (2015). Working with big ideas of science education. Science Education Programme (SEP) of IAP.

Härmälä-Braskén, A., Hemmi, K., & Kurtén, B. (2020). Misconceptions in chemistry among Finnish prospective primary school teachers – a long-term study. International Journal of Science Education, 42(9), 1447–1464. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1765046

Heikkila, A., Lonka, K., Nieminen, J., & Niemvirta, M. (2012). Relations between teacher students’ approaches to learning, cognitive and attributional strategies, well-being, and study success. Higher Education, 64, 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9504-9

Heinz, J., Enghag, M., Stuchlikova, I., Cakmakci, G., Peleg, R., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2016). Impact of initiatives to implement science inquiry: A comparative study of the Turkish, Israeli, Swedish and Czech science education systems. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12, 677–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9704-6

Held, Ľ. (2014). Induktívno-deduktívna dimenzia prírodovedného vzdelávania. Typi Universitatis Tyrnaviensis.

Held, Ľ., & Pupala, B. (1995). Psychogenéza žiakovho poznávania vo vyučovaní. PedF UK.

Held, Ľ., Bronerská, J., Čipková, E., Demkanin, P., Drozdíková, A., Fančovičová, J., Horváth, P., Hlavatá Hudáčková, N., Kotuľáková, K., Kováčová, L., Lapitková, V., Michalisková, R., Nagyová, S., Orolínová, M., Prokša, M., Ušáková, K., & Velmovská, K. (2019). Koncepcia prírodovedného kurikula pre základnú školu 2020. Veda.

Held, Ľ., Bronerská, J., Koperová, D., & Kotuľáková, K. (2021a). ExpEdícia skús, skúmaj, spoznaj – Chémia pre 8. ročník ZŠ a pre terciu osemročných gymnázií. Pilotná verzia. Indícia.

Held, Ľ., Bronerská, J., Kotuľáková, K., Kováčová, L., & Orolínová, M. (2021b). ExpEdícia skús, skúmaj, spoznaj – Chémia pre 7. ročník ZŠ a pre sekundu osemročných gymnázií. Indícia.

Held, Ľ., Žoldošová, K., Orolínová, M., Juricová, I., & Kotuľáková, K. (2011). Výskumne ladená koncepcia prírodovedného vzdelávania (IBSE v slovenskom kontexte). Trnavská univerzita v Trnave. Indícia. (2021). Expedícia – skús, skúmaj, spoznaj. https://www.indicia.sk/aktualne-skolenia/expedicia?start=6

Jelemenská, P., Sander, E., & Kattmann, U. (2003). Model didaktickej rekonštrukcie. Impulz pre výskum v odborových didaktikách. Pedagogika, 53(2), 190–201.

Knecht, P. (2007). Didaktická transformace aneb od „didaktického zjednodušení" k „didaktické rekonstrukci". Orbis scholae, 2(1), 67–81.

Kollárik, K. (1997). Projekt FAST a kognitívny vývin žiakov 8-ročných gymnázií. In V. Lapitková (Ed.), Zborník z konferencie FAST – DISCO (s. 95–100). R&D Print.

Koperová, D., & Held, Ľ. (2021a). Didaktická rekonštrucia témy atóm a jeho štruktúra. In V. Machková (Ed.), 16. Medzinárodní seminář doktorandů didaktiky chemie a příbuzných doktorských programů (s. 21–27). Univerzita Hradec Králové.

Koperová, D., & Held, Ľ. (2021b). K validizácii výrokovej škály pri skúmaní miskoncepcií v oblasti poznatkov o stavbe atómu. In V. Švandová, J. Literák, & B. Pelánková (Eds.), Sborník konference didaktiky přírodních věd DidSci+ 2021 (s. 49–59). MUNI PRESS. https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P210-9876-2021-6

Koperová, D., Held, Ľ., & Kotuľáková, K. (2020). Analysis of the atom and its structure in chemistry textbooks. In M. Rusek, M. Tóthová, & K. Vojíř (Eds.), Project-based education and other activating strategies in science education, XVII. (pp. 79–87). Charles University, Faculty of Education.

Kotuľáková, K. (2020). Výučba chémie ako ExpEdícia. Biológia, ekológia, chémia, 24(4), 21–21.

Kubiatko, M. (2017). Miskoncepcie: definície, diagnostika, eliminácia. Verbum.

Kuchta, D., Held, Ľ., & Veselský, M. (2007). Zisťovanie úrovne formálneho myslenia vybraných študentov vysokých škôl pomocou IPDT testov. In M. Kuhnová, & J. Miklovičová (Eds.), Inovačné trendy v prírodovednom vzdelávaní (s. 65–67). Trnavská univerzita.

Lapitková, V. (1997). Projekt FAST na Slovensku. In V. Lapitková (Ed.), Zborník z konferencie FAST – DISCO (s. 30–39). R&D Print.

Lapitková, V., Tóthová, R., & Demkanin, P. (2020). ExpEdícia skús, skúmaj, spoznaj – Fyzika 1 pre 6. ročník ZŠ a primu osemročných gymnázií. Indícia.

Lapitková, V., Tóthová, R., & Útla, J. (2021). ExpEdícia skús, skúmaj, spoznaj – Fyzika 1 pre 7. ročník ZŠ a sekundu osemročných gymnázií. Indícia.

Lapitková, V., Tóthová, R., Demkanin, P., Kolesár, J., & Malkin Ondík, I. (2022a). ExpEdícia skús, skúmaj, spoznaj – Fyzika 2 pre 6. ročník ZŠ a primu osemročných gymnázií. Indícia.

Lapitková, V., Tóthová, R., Útla, J., Held, Ľ., & Rošková, E. (2022b). ExpEdícia skús, skúmaj, spoznaj – Fyzika 2 pre 7. ročník ZŠ a sekundu osemročných gymnázií. Indícia.

Lapitková, V., Tóthová, R., Útla, J., Horváth, P., Nociarová, M., & Šromeková, K. (2022c). Fyzika 1 pre 8. ročník ZŠ a pre terciu osemročných gymnázií. Indícia.

Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120099359

Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (1995). The learning environment as a site of science education reform. Theory into practice, 34(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543656

Maňák, J., & Knecht, P. (2007). Hodnocení učebnic. PAIDO.

Manninen, J., Burman, A., Koivunen, A., Kuittinen, E., Luukannel, S., Passi, S., & Särkkä, H. (2007). Environments supporting learning: Introduction to learning-environment-thinking. Finnish National Board of Education.

Marušincová, E. (1997). Projekt FAST a vývin tvorivých schopností žiakov. In V. Lapitková (Ed.), Zborník z konferencie FAST – DISCO (s. 87–94). R&D Print.

McCurren, C.A., & Ganong, L.H. (1984). Assessing cognitive functioning of the elderly with the inventory of Piaget’s developmental tasks’. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 9(5), 449–456.

Milakofsky, L., & Patterson, H.O. (1979). Chemical education and Piaget: A new paper-pencil inventory to assess cognitive functionig. Journal of Chemical Education, 56(2), 87–90.

Minner, D.D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based instruction – what is it and does it matter? Results from research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 47(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347

Míkva, M. (2013). Didaktická rekonštrukcia pojmov z organickej chémie. [Dizertačná práca, Trnavská univerzita v Trnave].

Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed069p191

Narli, S. (2011). Is constructivist learning environment really effective on learning and long-term knowledge retention in mathematics? Educational Research and Reviews, 6(1), 36–49.

Nelson Laird, T. F., Seifert, T.A., Pacarella, E.T., Mayhew, M. J., & Blaich, Ch. F. (2014). Deeply affecting first-year student’s thinking: deep approaches to learning and three dimensions od cognitive development. The Journal od Higher Education, 85(3), 402–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2014.11777333

OECD. (2019). Country note Slovak republic. Programme For International Student Assessment (PISA) Results from PISA 2018. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018 CN SVK.pdf

Orolínová, M., & Kotuľáková, K. (2014). Rozvoj spôsobilostí vedeckej práce v podmienkach kontinuálneho vzdelávania učiteľov. Typi Universitatis Tyrnaviensis.

Othman, J., Treagust, D.F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2008). An investigation into the relationship between students’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter and their understanding of chemical bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 30(11), 1531–1550. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701459897

Patterson, H.O., & Milakofsky, L. (1980). A paper-and-pencil inventory for the assessment of Piaget’s tasks. Applied psychological measurement, 4(3), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014662168000400306

Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L.A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E.T., Manoli, C.C., Zacharia, Z.C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003

PISA. (2019). Národná správa PISA 2018. https://www2.nucem.sk/dl/4636/Narodna sprava PISA 2018.pdf

Priškinová, N. (2021). Výskumne ladená koncepcia prírodovedného vzdelávania a hodnotenie žiakov. [Dizertačná práca, Trnavská univerzita v Trnave].

Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001 1

Radcliffe, D. (2008). A pedagogy-space-technology (PST) framework for designing and evaluating learning places. In D. Radcliffe, W. Wilson, D. Powell, & B. Tibbetts (Eds.), Learning spaces in higher education: Positive outcomes by design (pp. 11–16). The University of Queensland.

Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henrikson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europa. Brussel, European Commisison (22 p.). https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/resources/docs/rapportrocardfinal.pdf

Rybár, J. (1997). Úvod do epistemológie Jeana Piageta. Iris.

Ryplová, R., & Reháková, J. (2011). Přínos badatelsky orientovaného vyučování (BOV) pro enviromentální výchovu: Případová studie implementace BOV do výuky na ZŠ. Envigogika, 6(3), 1–10.

Samaresh, A. (2017). Effectiveness of constructivist approach on academic achievement in science at secondary level. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(22), 1074–1079. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2017.3298

Shibley, I.A., Milakofsky, L., Bender, D. S., & Patterson, H.O. (2003). College chemistry and Piaget: An analysis of gender difference, cognitive abilities, and achievement measures seventeen years apart. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(5), 569–573.

Schubertová, R., & Chrenková, M. (2022). ExpEdícia skús, skúmaj, spoznaj – Biológia pre 6. ročník, pracovná učebnica 1. Indícia.

Schubertová, R., Chrenková, M., & Slivková, E. (2022a). ExpEdícia skús, skúmaj, spoznaj – Biológia pre 6. ročník, pracovná učebnica 2. Indícia.

Schubertová, R., Chrenková, M., Škodová, M., Tomčíková, I., & Gregorová, B. (2022b). ExpEdícia skús, skúmaj, spoznaj – Biológia a geografia 2 pre 5. ročník ZŠ. Indícia.

Schubertová, R., Škodová, M., Chrenková, M., & Balážovič, Ľ. (2021). ExpEdícia skús, skúmaj, spoznaj – Biológia a geografia 1 pre 5. ročník ZŠ. Indícia.

Škoda, J., & Doulík, P. (2010). Prekoncepce a miskoncepce v oborových didaktikách. Acta Universitatis Purkynianae.

Škoda, J., & Doulík, P. (2011). Psychodidaktika. Metody efektivniěko a smysluplneěho učení a vyučování. Grada.

ŠPÚ. (2014). Inovovaný štátny vzdelávací program pre predmet chémia. https://www.statpedu.sk/files/articles/dokumenty/inovovany-statny-vzdelavaci-program/chemia nsv 2014.pdf

ŠPÚ. (2015). Inovovaný štátny vzdelávací program. Oblasť Človek a príroda. http://www.statpedu.sk/sk/svp/inovovany-statny-vzdelavaci-program/inovovany-svp-2.stupen-zs/clovek-priroda/

Taslidere, E. (2016). Development and use of a three-tier diagnostic test do assess high school students’ misconceptions about the photoelectric effect. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(2), 164–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2015.1124409

Ultanir, E. (2012). An epistemological glance at the constructivist approach: Constructivist learning in Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 195–212. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533786.pdf

Veselský, M. (2009). Úroveň myšlení studentů vysokých škol a jeho měření pomocí IPDT. Pedagogika, 59(1), 71–79.

Vojíř, K., & Rusek, M. (2019). Science education textbook research trends: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Science Education, 41(11), 1496–1516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1613584

Vosniadou, S. (2014). Examining cognitive development from conceptual change point of view: The Framework theory approach. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(6), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2014.921153

Zhang, L. J., Bao, Q., Chen, L., & Liang, Y. (2021). Dynamic adaptation of the inventory of Piaget’s developmental tasks (IPDT) and the application for children with low socioeconomic status. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(9), 960–975. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00960

Zhang, L. J., Chen, L., & Fang, F.X. (2011). The adaptation of dynamic test using the inventory of Piaget’s developmental task (IPDT): An initial validation and application. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43(9), 1075–1086.