Science Teaching Methods Preferred by Grade 9 Students in Finland

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 611-632

  Juuti, Kalle ^a   Lavonen, Jari ^a   Uitto, Anna ^a   Byman, Reijo ^a   Meisalo, Veijo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

creativity; interest; nonparametric; secondary school; survey; teaching methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955845990     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-009-9177-8     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807-830). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Aukrust, V. G. (2008). Boys' and girls' conversational participation across four grade levels in Norwegian classrooms: Taking the floor or being given the floor? Gender and Education, 20(3), 237-252.
3. Bahar, M. (2003). The effects of motivational styles on group work and discussion-based seminars. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 461-473.
4. Bennett, J., Lubben, F., Hogarth, S., & Campbell, B. (2004). A systematic review of the use of small-group discussions in science teaching with students aged 11-18, and their effects on students' understanding in science or attitude to science. In Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
5. Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373-1388.
6. Byrne, M. S., & Johnstone, A. H. (1988). How to make science relevant. School Science Review, 70(251), 43-46.
7. Carlone, H. B. (2003). Innovative science within and against a culture of "achievement". Science Education, 87, 307-328.
8. Donnelly, J. F., & Jenkins, E. W. (2001). Science education: Policy, professionalism and change. London: Paul Chapman.
9. Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: How individual interest moderates the effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 597-610.
10. Fink, A., & Jacqueline, K. (2005). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
11. Finnish National Board of Education. (2004). Core curriculum for basic education. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. Retrieved from http://www. oph. fi/english/page. asp?path=447, 27598, 37840, 72101, 72106.
12. Fisher, R. (2005). Teaching children to think. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
13. Frailich, M., Kesner, M., & Hofstein, A. (2007). The influence of web-based chemistry learning on students' perceptions, attitudes, and achievements. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(2), 179-197.
14. Geelan, D. R. (1997). Weaving narrative nets to capture school science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 27(4), 553-563.
15. Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 971-993.
16. Häussler, P., & Hoffman, L. (2000). A curricular frame for physics education: Development comparison with students' interest, and impact on students' achievement and self-concept. Science Education, 84(6), 689-705.
17. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 4(2), 111-127.
18. Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., & Meisalo, V. (2005). Issues on school e-laboratories in science teaching: Virtuality, reality and gender. In J.-P. Courtiat, C. Davarakis & T. Villemur (Eds.), Proceedings of WS 2, the 18th IFIP World Computer Congress on technology enhanced learning (pp. 43-58). New York: Springer.
19. Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Uitto, A., Byman, R., & Meisalo, V. (2004). Students' reasons to choose or reject physics. In E. Mecholová (Ed.), Proceedings of selected papers of the GIREP 2004 Conference on teaching and learning physics in new contexts (pp. 185-186). Ostrava: University of Ostrava.
20. Koballa, T. R., Jr., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Krapp, A. (2003). Interest and human development: An educational-psychological perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II: Psychological Aspects of Education-Current Trends, Development and Motivation, 1(1), 57-84.
22. Lavonen, J. (2008). Scientific literacy assessment. In J. Hautamäki, E. Harjunen, A. Hautamäki, T. Karjalainen, S. Kupiainen, S. Laaksonen, et al. (Eds.), PISA06 Finland. Analyses, reflections and explanations. Helsinki: Ministry of Education.
23. Lavonen, J., Angell, C., Byman, R., Henriksen, E., & Koponen, I. (2007). Social interaction in upper secondary physics classrooms in Finland and Norway: A survey of students' expectations. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51(1), 81-101.
24. Lavonen, J., Juuti, K., Uitto, A., Meisalo, V., & Byman, R. (2005). Attractiveness of science education in the Finnish comprehensive school. In A. Manninen, K. Miettinen & K. Kiviniemi (Eds.), Research findings on young people's perceptions of technology and science education: MIRROR results and good practises (pp. 5-30). Helsinki: Technology Industries of Finland. Retrieved from http://www. ils. uio. no/english/rose/network/countries/finland/fin-lavonen-2005. pdf.
25. Lavonen, J., & Meisalo, V. (n. d.). Matemaattis-luonnontieteellisten aineiden työtapaopas [Teaching methods in mathematics and science]. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://www. edu. helsinki. fi/malu/kirjasto/tyotapa/. In Finnish.
26. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2000). Children's thinking, learning, teaching and constructivism. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (pp. 41-54). Buckingham: Open University Press.
27. Mead, G. H. (1909). Teaching of science in college. Science, 24, 390-397.
28. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classroom. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
29. Myers, R., & Fouts, J. T. (1992). A cluster analysis of high school science classroom environments and attitude toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(9), 929-937.
30. Norris, N., Asplund, R., MacDonald, B., Schostak, J., & Zamorski, B. (1996). An independent evaluation of comprehensive curriculum reform in Finland. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.
31. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). First results from PISA 2003 executive summary. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www. oecd. org/dataoecd/1/63/34002454. pdf.
32. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world executive summary. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www. oecd. org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224. pdf.
33. Oser, F. K., & Baeriswyl, F. J. (2001). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging instruction to learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), AERA's handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1031-1065). Washington: American Educational Research Association.
34. Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183-203). Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
35. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20.
36. Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE: Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education)-A comparative study of students' views of science and science education (Acta Didactica 4/2004). Oslo: Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo.
37. Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth's identity construction-Two incompatible projects? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in the science curriculum. Rotterdam: Sense.
38. Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45-80.
39. Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41(4), 455-470.
40. Stokking, K. M. (2000). Predicting the choice of physics in secondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1261-1283.
41. Treagust, D. F. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in university. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(5), 357-442.
43. Välijärvi, J., Kupari, P., Linnakylä, P., Reinikainen, P., Sulkunen, S., Törnroos, J., et al. (2007). The Finnish success in PISA-And some reasons behind it. Jyväskylä: Institute for Educational Research.
44. Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in science. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 3-15). London: Routledge.
45. Woolnough, B. (1994). Effective science teaching. Buckingham: Open University.