Challenges in Science Education: Global Perspectives for the Future 3031180917, 9783031180910

Table of contents :
Contents
Notes on Contributors
List of Figures
List of Tables
Introduction: So Many Challenges—So Many Choices (In Science Education)
Then, The COVID-19 Pandemic
References
The Drive for Impact: Science Education in the Quantum Age
Introduction
The Analysis of Deliberative Rhetoric
The Circumstances, Goals, and Actions Underpinning Australia’s Quantum Age of Science
Circumstances: The Drive Toward the Quantum Age
Goals: Economic Growth and Geo-physical Security Through Critical Technologies
Actions: The Drive for Impact Through Investment in Quantum Technology
The Next Steps for Science Education in Australia
Future Challenges and Opportunities for Science Educators
References
Teaching Science That Is Inquiry-Based: Practices and Principles
Introduction
Inquiry-Based Science: What the Evidence Says
Inquiry-Based Science: Some Challenges
The 5E Model
Cooperating to Learn
Scientific Literacy
Scientific Discourse
Concluding Remarks
References
Educating About Mass Vaccinations in a Post-Truth Era
Introduction
The History of Vaccine Development
Anti-Vaccination Movement and the Media
Social Media
The Role of Education
Formal Education Using School Curricula
Less Formal Approaches
Conclusions
References
A Perspective on Drivers Impacting Science Teacher Preparation in Developing Countries
Introduction
Theoretical Framework
Context of Study
Data Collection and Analysis
Findings and Interpretations
Building an Education System Following Independence
Influences From Developed Countries
Program Accreditation and Autonomy
Competition
Conclusion
Neoliberal and Complex Systems Approaches
Social Justice
Looking Forward
Appendix
References
Everyday Science for Building Schoolchildren’s Informed Agency for Action
Introduction
Agency
Elementary Education Reforms for Teaching Science in Australia
Science in Context for Elementary Science Specialists
Instructional Design
Brief Outline of Science in Context for Primary Science Specialists Course Contents
Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of the Course ‘Science in Context for Primary Science Specialists’
Increasing Pre-service Teachers’ Self-Confidence for Science Teaching
Sam
Sally
Increasing Pre-service Teachers’ Self-confidence for Teaching Sustainability
Pre-service Teachers’ Agency Through Inquiry Teaching
Discussion
References
Pre-service Elementary Teachers as Game Designers: Emotional Experiences from the Field
Introduction
Contextualizing Science Learning Games
Considering Emotional Experiences of Pre-service Teachers
Methodology
PSTs’ Emotional Experiences Shift When Designing and Implementing a Science Game Activity
Emotional Expressions About Game Activity
Emotional Expressions About Science Activity
Emotional Expressions About Science Game Activity
Emotional Expressions About School Students’ Emotions
Conclusions
References
The Nature of Teacher Educators’ Professional Learning: Reflections of Two Science Teacher Educators
Introduction
Conceptual Framework
Methodology
Outcomes and Discussion
Content of Professional Learning (PL)
Pedagogy of Teacher Education
Research and Reflection
Professional Identity
Knowledge Base
Strategies and Activities to Promote Professional Learning
Reasons for Professional Learning
Final Thoughts
References
Breaking the Vicious Circle of Secondary Science Education with Twenty-First-Century Technology: Smartphone Physics Labs
Introduction
Phyphox: A Research-Based Science Smartphone Application
A Model for Smartphone-Supported Project-Based Science Learning
Phyphox-Supported Physics Labs: Beyond the Model
Investigating the Law of Energy Conservation: An Example of a Project in Early Stages
Investigating the Law of Energy Conservation: An Example of an Advanced Project
Investigating the Effect of Linear String Density on the Generated Sound Frequency: An Example of a Non-traditional Science Investigation
Physics Olympics
Supporting Teachers Through Mentorship and Communities of Practice
Supporting Practicing Science Teachers
Supporting Future Science Teachers
Conclusions and Lessons Learned
References
Science and Technology Studies Informing STEM Education: Possibilities and Dilemmas
Introduction
STEM Education and Possibilities from Science and Technology Studies
Research Context and Methodology
The STEPWISE Framework
The Research Context
Data Collection
Data Analyses
Results and Discussion
The Teacher: Expanding Perspectives, Critical Doubts, and Issues of Access
The Students: New Micro-sociotechnical Imaginaries and Challenges to Bring Forward Alternative Futures
The Subject Matter: Balancing Students’ Interests and Independence with Curriculum Mandates
The Milieu: Challenges for Teaching Actions and Online Possibilities
Conclusions, Limitations, and Futures
References
Using Animals in Education as a Means of Discovering Meaningful Contexts to Enhance Learning and Motivate Learners: Challenges and Opportunities to Integrate and Broaden STEM Education
Introduction
Challenges in Veterinary Science Education Curricula
Ethical Issues Related to Animal Usage
Wider Considerations When Using Animals for Education
Educational Advantages of Using ANIMALS in Education
Using Animals in Education to Uncover Meaningful Contexts to Enhance Learning and Motivate Learners
Broader Use of Meaningful Contexts to Stimulate Interest in STEM and Success with Tertiary Education
Conclusion
References
Instruction for Metacognition in Science Classrooms: Harsh Realities and a Way Forward?
Introduction
Metacognition and Science Education: A Brief Overview
Considering the Impact of Research into Metacognition on Science Education Curricula and Pedagogy
Why Are We Where We Are with Infusing Instruction for Metacognition in Science Education: And What Might We Do About It?
The Metacognition Field, Itself, Is Still in Flux and Its Relevance for Teachers Is Not Readily Apparent to All
Lack of Attention to Metacognition in Pre- and In-service Teacher Education
Lack of Understanding of the ‘Every Day’ of Science Teachers
Lack of Access to Information on Metacognition
Concluding Remarks: Moving Metacognition Forward in Science Education
References
Identifying and Challenging the Narrow Cognitive Demands of Science Textbooks
The Significance of Textbooks
Past Research on Textbooks
Study Aims
Methods
Results
Discussion
Dominance of Lower-Order Thinking Questions
Differences Between Subject Areas
Textbook Alignment with Syllabus Learning Objectives
Implications for Future Textbook Design and Teaching Practice
Limitations
Conclusion
References
Index

Citation preview

Challenges in Science Education Global Perspectives for the Future Edited by Gregory P. Thomas · Helen J. Boon

Challenges in Science Education

Gregory P. Thomas  •  Helen J. Boon Editors

Challenges in Science Education Global Perspectives for the Future

Editors Gregory P. Thomas The University of Alberta Edmonton, AB, Canada

Helen J. Boon James Cook University Townsville, QLD, Australia

ISBN 978-3-031-18091-0    ISBN 978-3-031-18092-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the ­publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and ­institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To science teachers: those we know and those we have not met. It is through their dedication, effort, expertise, and passion for their students and their subjects that they persevere in the face of increasingly difficult circumstances in terms of time, support, and an understanding of the complexity of their work.

Contents

Introduction: So Many Challenges—So Many Choices (In Science Education)  1 Gregory P. Thomas and Helen J. Boon The Drive for Impact: Science Education in the Quantum Age 15 Tanya Doyle  eaching Science That Is Inquiry-Based: Practices and Principles 39 T Robyn M. Gillies  ducating About Mass Vaccinations in a Post-Truth Era 59 E Subhashni Taylor, Neil Taylor, and Penelope Baker  Perspective on Drivers Impacting Science Teacher A Preparation in Developing Countries 83 William R. Veal, Patricia D. Morrell, Meredith A. Park Rogers, Gillian Roehrig, and Eric J. Pyle  veryday Science for Building Schoolchildren’s Informed E Agency for Action109 Helen J. Boon and Donna Rigano

vii

viii 

Contents

 re-service Elementary Teachers as Game Designers: P Emotional Experiences from the Field133 Laura Martín-Ferrer, Elizabeth Hufnagel, Arnau Amat, Mariona Espinet, and Alberto Bellocchi  he Nature of Teacher Educators’ Professional Learning: T Reflections of Two Science Teacher Educators155 Karen Goodnough and Saiqa Azam  reaking the Vicious Circle of Secondary Science Education B with Twenty-First-­Century Technology: Smartphone Physics Labs177 Marina Milner-Bolotin and Valery Milner  cience and Technology Studies Informing STEM Education: S Possibilities and Dilemmas201 Majd Zouda, Sarah El Halwany, and Larry Bencze  sing Animals in Education as a Means of Discovering U Meaningful Contexts to Enhance Learning and Motivate Learners: Challenges and Opportunities to Integrate and Broaden STEM Education229 John Cavalieri I nstruction for Metacognition in Science Classrooms: Harsh Realities and a Way Forward?251 Gregory P. Thomas I dentifying and Challenging the Narrow Cognitive Demands of Science Textbooks279 Claudia E. Johnson and Helen J. Boon Index305

Notes on Contributors

Arnau  Amat  is a Professor of Education and the coordinator of the Master’s Degree in Innovation in Specific Didactics at the Universitat de Vic—Universitat Central de Catalunya, Catalonia, Spain. His research focuses on sociocultural approaches in three different areas: involving the community in the school through science education, environmental education, and science teacher education. Prior to that he worked as an environmental educator for various private companies and education authorities and as a science teacher in high school. Saiqa Azam  is an Associate Professor of Science Education in the Faculty of Education at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. Her current research agenda involves studying science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and the development of their science teaching identity. She is also interested in equity issues in science education and focuses on the questions of preparing pre-service teachers to design and implement inclusive science education for diverse student populations. Penelope Baker  is a Professor of Mathematics Education at the University of New England, New South Wales, Australia. She leads multiple education and development projects in the Pacific Island context. Her research directions include ICT as a teaching tool in the classroom, curriculum development in developing countries, enhancing quality numeracy and literacy education, international partnerships, and building local teacher capacity in Pacific Island Countries.

ix

x 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Alberto Bellocchi  is a tenured Associate Professor of Education at the Queensland University of Technology, Australia. He has established and leads the Studies of Emotion and Affect in Education Laboratory (SEAELs), a group of international education scholars interested in understanding the role of emotions, social bonds, and affect in school and university educational contexts. Alberto has written widely about emotions and social bonds in schools and pre-service teacher education and on methods and theories for understanding emotions during interactions. He is the lead editor of the collection Exploring Emotions, Aesthetics, and Wellbeing in Science Education Research and co-­editor of the collection Emotions in Late Modernity. Larry Bencze  is an associate professor emeritus of Science Education at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto, Canada, having previously worked as a secondary school teacher of science (11 years) and school district science consultant (4 years). He uses action to promote and understand civic engagement through science and technology education. Details at: http://www.lbencze.ca Helen  J.  Boon teaches educational psychology, ethics, and research methods to undergraduates and post graduates. Boon obtained her Undergraduate Degree in Chemistry from the University of Sheffield, UK, and taught chemistry for a number of years before obtaining her Doctorate in Educational Psychology from James Cook University, Australia. Professor Boon’s research has focused on science and climate change education, resilience to disasters, teacher training, ethics, pedagogy for indigenous students, and factors that render students ‘at risk.’ She has collaborated with colleagues from medicine, public health, and environmental science situated in Australia, Canada, the USA, the UK, The Netherlands, Greece, and Israel. John Cavalieri  is an associate professor at James Cook University (JCU), Australia, and serves as the head of the Animal Health and Production group within the discipline of veterinary science, where he teaches reproduction within the Veterinary Science degree program. He completed his Veterinary Degree from the University of Melbourne in 1986, and at JCU a Ph.D. in Cattle Reproduction in 1998 and a M.Ed. in 2014. He is a registered specialist in veterinary reproduction. At JCU John helped develop and deliver the new curriculum for the JCU veterinary school which began in 2005.

  NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS 

xi

Tanya  Doyle is a Lecturer in Education at James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. Her research interests include initial teacher education, education policy, and science education. She is particularly interested in the intersection of government policy concerned with the innovation ecosystem and the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) agenda, and education policy concerning schooling and transitions to higher education. Sarah El Halwany  is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Calgary, Canada, working on issues of equity in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education. She is also interested in researching educational practices around SSI (socio-scientific issue) or STSE (science, technology, society, and environment) education and looks at ways to center emotions and affects in science education and science education research. Mariona  Espinet is a professor in the Didactics of Science and Mathematics Department at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. She is a pre-service and in-service science teacher educator and researcher, coordinates two research groups ACELEC (School Science Activity: Languages, tools and contexts) and Gresc@ (Education for sustainability, school and community), and is a member of the Board of the European Science Education Research Association. Her research and innovation interests focus on education for sustainability, classroom discourse, and critical literacy in multilingual science education contexts. Robyn  M.  Gillies is a Professor of Education at The University of Queensland, Australia. Her research focuses on inquiry learning in science and mathematics, teacher and peer-mediated learning, cooperative learning, and classroom discourses and processes related to learning outcomes. Her recommendations on how teachers can translate research into practice have been widely profiled in the international literature and on the website of the Smithsonian Science Education Center in Washington, DC. Karen Goodnough  has been a faculty member at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada, since December 2003. Before this, she was a faculty member at the University of New Brunswick and at the University of Rochester, New York. She is actively engaged in research that focuses on collaborative action research, pedagogical content knowledge, ­science teaching and learning, self-study in higher education, and teacher development in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education.

xii 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Elizabeth  Hufnagel  is an Associate Professor of Science Education in the School of Learning and Teaching at the University of Maine, USA. Her research explores the ways emotional sense-making takes shape in the discourse of science learning settings, with particular attention to climate change education, science teacher development, and more recently agency. Claudia  E.  Johnson  has been teaching high school mathematics and senior science since 2015. She is passionate about effective science pedagogy and is researching the alignment of cognitive skills in curriculum documents, teaching resources, and classroom learning as part of her doctoral research degree. Laura Martín-Ferrer  is a Doctoral candidate in Educational Innovation and Intervention Doctoral Program at the Universitat de Vic—Universitat Central de Catalunya, Catalonia, Spain. Her research focuses on teaching and learning processes of science education in the initial elementary teachers’ education, with a special interest in game design to promote science and emotional expressions to make sense of educational practices. Valery Milner  is an Associate Professor of Physics in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada. He conducts research in the field of atomic molecular and optical physics. He has also been teaching secondary, undergraduate, and graduate physics courses, pioneering the implementation of data collection, visualization, and analysis tools in large and small classrooms. He is also actively involved in STEM outreach, such as University of British Columbia Physics Olympics. Marina  Milner-Bolotin is a Professor of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education in the Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy at the University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada. She studies how modern technologies can facilitate the development of future and practicing teachers’ capacity for implementing active learning environments, as well as engage students in learning STEM.  She is also actively involved in STEM outreach, such as University of British Columbia Physics Olympics. Patricia D. Morrell  is Head of the School of Education at The University of Queensland, Australia. Prior, she was a professor in the School of Education and director of the STEM Education and Outreach Center at the University of Portland, Oregon. Her research interests include best practices for the development of pre-service and in-service science teach-

  NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS 

xiii

ers, as well as curriculum development and assessment. She is a former president of the Association for Science Teacher Education. Eric  J.  Pyle  is a Professor of Geology at James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA, where he works with pre-service teachers of science and future geoscience professionals, providing coursework and research opportunities in both science education and Earth and planetary science. He also has extensive experience in teaching field-based science, both in the USA and internationally, and is a fellow of the Geological Society of London and the Geological Society of America. He is the past president of the National Science Teaching Association. Donna Rigano  completed her Ph.D. in Biochemistry and then worked as a commercial research scientist before moving into the field of education research due to a strong interest in science conceptual understanding. She was also a scientist-in-residence conducting specialist workshops in primary school settings. Based at James Cook University, Donna is involved in various science education teaching and research projects, including high school laboratory science, primary school scientific writing, and emotions in science learning. Gillian Roehrig  is a Professor of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) Education at the University of Minnesota, USA.  Her research explores issues of professional development for K–12 science teachers, with a focus on the implementation of integrated STEM learning environments and the induction and mentoring of beginning secondary science teachers. Her work in integrated STEM explores teachers’ conceptions and implementation of STEM, curriculum development, and student learning in small groups during STEM lessons. She is the President of NARST: a worldwide organization for improving science teaching and learning through research, and a former president of the Association for Science Teacher Education. Meredith A. Park Rogers  is an Associate Professor of Science Education at Indiana University—Bloomington, USA. Her research interests include science teacher education and, in particular, elementary teacher professional knowledge development from the perspective of both pre-service and in-service teachers. Neil Taylor  is an Adjunct Professor of Science and Technology Education at the University of New England, New South Wales, Australia. He previously worked at the University of the South Pacific, Fiji, and the University

xiv 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

of Leicester, UK. His research interests include socio-­scientific issues, education for sustainability and science, and environmental education in developing countries. Subhashni  Taylor is a Senior Lecturer in Science and Sustainability Education at James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland, Australia, where she is involved in pre-service teacher education. Her area of research involves developing pedagogies that enhance student engagement in science and environmental education. She is also involved in research investigating student knowledge and attitudes toward complex socio-scientific issues (SSIs) such as vaccination and antibiotic resistance. Gregory P. Thomas  is a Professor of Science Education at the University of Alberta, Canada. He was formerly Chair of the Department of Mathematics, Science, Social Sciences, and Technology at the, now, Education University of Hong Kong, and of the Department of Secondary Education at the University of Alberta. His scholarly interests include developing and exploring the intersections of learning theories, learning environments, and science education to enhance classroom practices. In particular he focuses on metacognition as it relates to science teaching and learning pedagogies and processes. William R. Veal  is a Professor of Science Education and Chemistry at the University of Charleston, South Carolina, USA. He teaches in the elementary, middle, and secondary education programs and in the chemistry and environmental science departments. His research focuses on science teacher preparation as it relates to pedagogical content knowledge, creativity, and standards. Majd  Zouda is a Ph.D. candidate in Science Education at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto, Canada. Her doctoral dissertation focuses on STEM education programs and discourses in independent, elite schools in Canada. Her research interests also include socio-scientific/STSE (science, technology, society, and environment) issues, student activism, and critical discourse analyses. Majd holds a B.Sc. in Microbiology and an M.Sc. in Medical Microbiology. Prior to pursuing a Ph.D. degree, she worked as a high school science teacher and the head of junior science department in an international school in Damascus, Syria. She has received the SSHRC doctoral fellowship (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council) award for her doctoral research.

List of Figures

 Perspective on Drivers Impacting Science Teacher A Preparation in Developing Countries Fig. 1 Linear relationship among neoliberal drivers

87

 veryday Science for Building Schoolchildren’s Informed E Agency for Action Fig. 1 Conceptual scheme of Bronfenbrenner’s systems and their interactions embedded in the individual’s environmental context

113

 reaking the Vicious Circle of Secondary Science Education B with Twenty-First-­Century Technology: Smartphone Physics Labs Fig. 1 Our model of a Smartphone-Supported Project-Based Science Learning Cycle 184 Fig. 2 Project examining the law of energy conservation: (a) experimental design (as shown by the students); (b) preliminary experimental results. The students received feedback on how to improve their experimental design, incorporate error bars in their data representation, and use proper significant digits 186 Fig. 3 Experimental designs suggested by the students for testing the laws of momentum and mechanical energy conservation: (a) collisions of two metal balls on a ramp; (b) collisions of two pendulums188

xv

xvi 

List of Figures

Fig. 4 (a) Experimental design with the string attached to the nail indicating the test string used to calibrate the measurement; (b) the best fit curve for the data points as compared to the expected theoretical result

189

 cience and Technology Studies Informing STEM Education: S Possibilities and Dilemmas Fig. 1 The STEPWISE framework and RiNA projects Fig. 2 An Actor-Network-based mind map, about skin cosmetics, developed by James based on his students’ reflections Fig. 3 An activity for values clarification regarding tobacco consumption involving powerful stakeholders

207 213 216

 sing Animals in Education as a Means of Discovering U Meaningful Contexts to Enhance Learning and Motivate Learners: Challenges and Opportunities to Integrate and Broaden STEM Education Fig. 1 Integration of meaningful contexts to enhance learning through inspiring motivation and, as a consequence, deeper and improved learning outcomes. (Animal image credit: Eric Isselee/ Shutterstock.com)240 Fig. 2 Within a residential school at James Cook University, Indigenous secondary school students are introduced to simulated case studies involving animals to promote interdisciplinary learning, study skills, and a variety of career paths within veterinary and biomedical science 242

I dentifying and Challenging the Narrow Cognitive Demands of Science Textbooks Fig. 1 Cognitive demands of textbook questions across all subjects. Note: Percentages are rounded to the nearest full percentage Fig. 2 Frequency of questions at each cognitive level Fig. 3 Cognitive demands of textbook questions per subject Fig. 4 Alignment between the cognitive demands of textbook questions and syllabus learning objectives. Note: Discrepancies = Textbook Question % – Syllabus Learning Objective %

290 290 292 293

List of Tables

Educating About Mass Vaccinations in a Post-Truth Era Table 1

Herd immunity threshold

62

 Perspective on Drivers Impacting Science Teacher A Preparation in Developing Countries Table 1

Listing of developing countries and their world economic and income classification

89

 veryday Science for Building Schoolchildren’s Informed E Agency for Action Table 1

Science in context for primary science specialists course contents 118

 re-service Elementary Teachers as Game Designers: P Emotional Experiences from the Field Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

Correspondence between the goals of the different stages in the courses and the goals of the focus groups Profiles of selected groups for data analysis Definition of science game activities designed by PSTs at the end of the courses

139 140 141

xvii

xviii 

List of Tables

 sing Animals in Education as a Means of Discovering U Meaningful Contexts to Enhance Learning and Motivate Learners: Challenges and Opportunities to Integrate and Broaden STEM Education Table 1

Five provisions and aligned Animal Welfare Aims (Mellor, 2016)

243

I dentifying and Challenging the Narrow Cognitive Demands of Science Textbooks Table 1 Table 2

Examples of textbook questions at each cognitive level of the New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Cognitive demands of textbook questions

287 289

Introduction: So Many Challenges—So Many Choices (In Science Education) Gregory P. Thomas and Helen J. Boon

Writing the first lines of an introduction to an edited collection of scholarly works in science education presents a challenge. There is so much that one might write; so many ideas. What do people want to read? Will it resonate with what they already think? Will it challenge them, annoy them, or will they be ambivalent or dismissive? The concerns that one might have could be, for example, starting in the wrong place, or leaving out a key idea, or possibly disappointing yourself and others immediately or at a later time. This is certainly the situation with us. Where do we start? We’ve chosen to start by considering the reason/s for this collection of works; to share our thinking as it was at inception and proposal, and how it has progressed to the submission of the manuscript. In any writing venture there is, hopefully, a publication date, a year, a DOI, and an entry in one’s

G. P. Thomas (*) The University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] H. J. Boon James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. P. Thomas, H. J. Boon (eds.), Challenges in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_1

1

2 

G. P. THOMAS AND H. J. BOON

CV. Such symbols represent the end-point of the conceptualization of the volume, the submission and revision of the proposal, the invitations for contributions, and the writing, reviewing, editing, and submission processes. Initially, there was a shared catalyst between us, an incentive, that got things going and that kept things going. In this introduction, we aim to bring these ‘other’ ideas to the readers’ attention. They provide context for this volume; context is important in education. Full disclosure; at the time of submission of this volume, its Editors have never met in person or online. We have not spoken with each other. All communication has been through email. This book began as an idea that we shared when Greg was seeking a sponsor for a visit to Australia as part of his sabbatical. He was keen to visit his alma mater, James Cook University (JCU) in Townsville; the university he graduated from in 1988 with a Bachelor of Education that focused on science education. Greg scanned the JCU website to ascertain who was working in science education there and who he might approach to be his sponsor. He was increasingly interested then, and now, in sustainability and science education and in exploring the metacognition and classroom learning environments that might be associated with socio-scientific reasoning and its development. Helen works in ethics, climate change, and science education, and also has a strong background in psychology and methodology. There was an obvious overlap in interests. Helen kindly agreed to sponsor Greg, the paperwork was done, and part of the proposal to JCU for the visit was to co-edit a book; this book. The visit was approved and scheduled for March through May 2020.

Then, The COVID-19 Pandemic We decided to continue with the book, despite knowing that there would very possibly be no face-to-face collaboration. We considered that there was a contribution we might make to science education; one that neither of us had done before. This consideration was, at least in part, spawned by our shared view that there were matters in the field of science education that were ‘not right,’ and that these were several. In constructing the proposal, we initially considered that the onset of the pandemic and the challenges to science education wrought by it were or would be sufficient to generate a contribution. However, as time progressed and we engaged deeply with the chapters’ authors, their proposals, and their writings, it became apparent to us that the COVID-19 pandemic was only one factor

  INTRODUCTION: SO MANY CHALLENGES—SO MANY CHOICES… 

3

that was (about to be) problematic for science education on March 11, 2020; the day on which the World Health Organization officially declared the pandemic. In the initial proposal for this book, we had drawn on the late Peter Fensham’s notion of ‘dilemmas’ in science education (Fensham, 1988). Fensham’s “general dilemma” (p. 2) was that what he saw in the emerging science curriculum documents of the 1980s was very similar in terms of rhetoric and effort to that which had gone into science education reforms in the 1960s and 1970s. He also noted a form of “educational imperialism” (p. 2) in the 1960s and 1970s whereby the materials (and philosophies underpinning them) developed for the school populations of some ‘developed’ countries were imported by other ‘less-developed’ countries, distorting the educational scene and inhibiting “more appropriate local developments” (p. 3). Importantly, he noted that the key rationales for the curriculum reforms were twofold; to produce “a scientifically-based workforce and a scientifically literate citizenry” (p. 3). Noting this sense of déjà vu in relation to the proposed reforms for the 1980s, Fensham also outlined the need for reforms in science education to address what he saw as rapidly emerging environmental concerns. He also suggested that what might be new conceptualizations of ‘science learning’ would need to survive competition with and between “differentially powerful interest groups” (p. 23). Peter Fensham’s book (1988) had numerous noteworthy contributors. Douglas Roberts (1988) asked a key question, “What counts as science education?” He concluded that there was no one correct answer to that question because “the question has a socially determined answer rather than one that is theoretically or academically determined” (p. 50). This notion of what is important in science education resonates with us, as we explain below. Roberts, like Fensham, identified multiple curriculum emphases in relation to what might be considered important in science education. These emphases were everyday coping; structure of science; science and technology decisions; scientific skill development; correct explanations; self as explainer; and solid foundations (p. 45). He also suggested that innovations that succeeded were those that “commanded teacher loyalty, for whatever reason” (p. 5) and that one should not be surprised by ‘failed innovations’ that didn’t match “the innovators intentions” (p.  50). Further, Roberts suggested that “every science teacher preparation program and in-service education program delivers a message about what counts as science education” and that “the message is

4 

G. P. THOMAS AND H. J. BOON

dogmatic and is presented … in a doctrinaire fashion” as “statements of individual ideological preference” that lead to science teachers “not being taught how to do a sophisticated job of what counts as science education” (p. 50). He concluded by arguing that such science education “makes a mockery out of the science teacher’s professional autonomy” and that “at the very least, teachers deserve to be taught that different curriculum emphases are possible … from a range of alternatives” (p. 51). John Baird (1988) “predicated” his chapter in Peter Fensham’s book on his belief that “research and development efforts in science education over the past few decades … had disappointingly little influence on science teachers and science learning” (p. 55). His suggestions to ameliorate this concern included the need to “acknowledge the complexity of the intellectual and contextual variables which influence an individual’s learning” (p.  67) and to increase collaboration among teachers, researchers, and others involved in education. He also strongly linked the future of science education to the education of science teachers. Other contributors to Fensham’s (1988) book such as Richard White, Richard Gunstone, Bonnie Shapiro, Avi Hofstein, and Rosalind Driver explored and explained different yet overlapping factors shaping the complexity facing science teachers and they made suggestions as to how to improve science education through communication with pre- and in-­ service science teachers. These factors included: the nature of the science learner; children’s science; the importance of considering the social contexts of classrooms and people’s perceptions of innovations; and the importance of laboratories for students learning about and of science. Writing 14  years after Peter Fensham, John Wallace and William Louden co-edited ‘Dilemmas of science teaching: Perspectives on problems of practice’ (Wallace & Louden, 2002). In their collection, numerous dilemmas were explored: • Dilemmas about science: the nature and laws of science, the role of the laboratory in science • Dilemmas about difference: issues of gender, equity, culture and ethnicity, and power in the classroom • Dilemmas about representation: the use of textbooks, the role of questioning, using analogies, and student reports • Dilemmas about teaching and learning: ethics, constructivism, curriculum change, teaching out of field, and science for all. (Wallace & Louden, 2002, preface)

  INTRODUCTION: SO MANY CHALLENGES—SO MANY CHOICES… 

5

In that book, some authors reported vignettes from their teaching and learning experiences and their reflections on those experiences as they related to one of the above dilemmas. For example, Barry Krueger (2002) reflected on one of his student’s preoccupations with getting the correct answer and their reluctance to “play at the game of constructing her [own] theory” (p.  195). Of course, this situation can (still) be a challenge for teachers seeking to embrace and sustain pedagogies shaped by constructivist perspectives. Vaille Dawson (2002), after describing her experiences as a research scientist to her students, reflected on her trying to determine what “image(s) of science” (p. 11) she should portray to them. In these and other contributions, again, the complexity of doing ‘what the research’ suggests, of bridging the ‘theory-practice’ divide, was apparent even for experienced and knowledgeable teachers. Like many science educators, we (Greg and Helen) were both teachers in high schools prior to entering academia; Helen for 15 years and Greg for almost 10. We are what might be termed ‘ground up’ science educators who, like many before us, migrated into universities for a variety of reasons, none of which in our cases were because we didn’t like teaching or weren’t good at it. Greg left high-school teaching in 1997; Helen in 2005. As teachers, we grappled with the complexities of our work and the sometimes-impossible task of finding a balance between the often-­ competing demands of the various ‘interested parties’ we seemed ‘answerable’ to. These parties included school principals; parents; other teachers including department chairs, school authorities, and school boards; and almost anyone we came in contact with who knew or learned that we were teachers and, of course, our students. There is an old ‘truism’ that goes something like “Everyone thinks they know about education, because they went to school.” Indeed, almost everyone we know has an opinion about what a ‘good education’ should be and what good science education and science teaching looks or should look like. As Roberts (1988) suggested, there is no one accepted, universal position on such matters; it depends on who you ask. We have never forgotten or dismissed the importance of acknowledging and considering in our work the complexity of teachers’ multiple roles and responsibilities; we’ve experienced them. Further, there is no doubt that more is expected of teachers nowadays than ever before. Teachers are expected to be more knowledgeable in more areas and be able to attend to a wider variety of expectations. It’s essential not to forget or be dismissive of such matters.

6 

G. P. THOMAS AND H. J. BOON

Our work as science teacher educators has meant we have consistently sought and taken opportunities presented to us to work with practicing teachers. This is important work because it has kept our heads and hearts in touch with the world of teachers that exists outside universities. It has enabled us to ask, “What has changed in science education?” “How does what we ‘do’ in our fields of science education impact the worlds of teachers now and those to come?” and “Have things improved?” To answer these questions has required a certain degree of detachment from ourselves and what we think of our own reputations and performance as science teacher educators. This has been and will continue to be a difficult task. Nobody in science education (or any other subject or curriculum area) wants to think that what they do doesn’t make a difference. The readers of this chapter will inevitably decide for themselves what they want to do about our answers to the above questions. We’re OK with that. Here are our thoughts. To begin with, we draw from Charles Anderson (2007): Research on learning has given us increasingly powerful analytical tools that improve our understanding of why educational institutions fail to engender scientific literacy in students. As a field, we have been far less successful in translating that analytical power into practical results. We need to find better ways to use this understanding as a basis for design work in science teaching and teacher education—programs and strategies that move beyond existence proofs to help large numbers of science learners. We also need better ways of using our understanding to develop arguments that influence policies and resources for science education. (p. 27)

What Charles Anderson is essentially saying is that we in the field of science education know an increasing amount about what might and can work, but knowing what we know doesn’t (or at least didn’t in 2007, only 15 years ago) make too much difference to science teaching and learning at the grassroots of everyday science classrooms. Our visits to schools and our review of science education ‘reforms’ lead us to largely agree with Anderson’s assessment; it’s still current. Greg’s view of identifiable problematics in school science education in Canada (Thomas, 2017a) was that there is a disconnect between science education policy, science education practice, and the answers to Douglas Roberts’ question, “What counts as science education?” A confusing blend of ideological positions championed by a variety of stakeholders is evident in Canada. Tension between

  INTRODUCTION: SO MANY CHALLENGES—SO MANY CHOICES… 

7

the goals of “a scientifically-based workforce and a scientifically literate citizenry” (Fensham, 1988, p.  3) is still evident, and what is touted as ‘best-practice’ certainly does not conform to what the research literature suggests should be best practice. Successes (and only successes) on international tests, such as PISA and TIMMS, are suggested to be indicators of supposed high-quality school science education, and these successes are promoted in videos and press releases. Our pre-service science education students, to varying extents, still (as ever) return to us from teaching practicum with reports of how they have been ‘told’ by their mentor teachers not to ‘worry’ about what they’ve learned in their science methods/curriculum classes; those things are too theoretical, too abstract, too impractical, and they just won’t ‘work in the real world.’ Maybe they’re right to some extent? As we noted above, there are multiple and increasing agendas in schools and the teaching of subjects (and their related processes) is one of many nowadays. Still, hearing such second-­ hand critiques from one’s pre-service science education students reminds one not to ‘lose touch’ and to be aware of the changes happening in schools. We can also look, most recently, to evidence of the rejection of science by more than a few. Helen describes a recent experience of hers as follows: I was left aghast after listening to an ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) report about the way the world responded to the Ozone depletion crisis when compared to the current lack of synchronised response to climate change. One of the reasons for my total mortification was the definition of ozone given on air by a science professor in response to being asked to explain “what is ozone?” The professor replied, “a compound!” To me, this lack of knowledge that ozone is a molecule of the element oxygen, (O3), highlighted that not only is school science in dire straits, but so too might be science education at tertiary level. Whether this was an attempt by the professor to make the definition more palatable or accessible to those in the public who were ‘non-scientific’ or simply a display of the science professor’s lack of chemistry knowledge, it is a sad state of affairs. Additionally, that radio broadcast (Quince, 2022) revealed to me, yet again, the lack of consensus between and within governments regarding when, how, and whether to ameliorate the climate change crisis; which, despite the numerous disasters increasingly being related to climate change, is still being debated. This also highlights for me the lack of trust that the public and those in positions of power have in the scientific community. Of course, there is the matter of competing beliefs and values driving the

8 

G. P. THOMAS AND H. J. BOON

­ eliberations around the climate change crisis which colour governments’ d (lack of) response. But, here too I wonder how much of this is due to fundamentally low levels of importance being placed on science and scientists’ predictions, and also a lack of comprehension of how scientific predictions can have powerful ramifications upon economies, both negative and positive, through a range of paths, as the COVID 19 pandemic has aptly demonstrated. While it is my view that science and science education are not valued sufficiently by the public and those in positions of power, this situation is a space for those of us who work in science education to be conduits who can step up to make the communication of science and its findings more powerful. We need to develop the marketing skills of those in commerce and business, to ensure that we better showcase the science and the technological and industrial advances that science has enabled, so the public can see and understand its value. Only when science is made popular will there be, in my view, a resurgence in its appeal and trust in its predictions. One way to make it more popular aside from marketing is through science education that is motivating and accessible in the early years, engaging, clearly applied and well-structured in later years, and perhaps leaving more theoretical aspects to those students who are deeply passionate to push back the frontiers. It needs to be relevant to where people ‘are’; relevant to their contexts.

Helen’s concerns above are amplified when one considers the obvious lack of scientific literacy, and scientific knowledge in general, that accompanied some of the prescriptions for attending to the COVID-19 pandemic and the suffering and death caused by it. It is clear that at least some of the world’s leaders and leading social influencers have, at best, questionable scientific literacy, yet they seem oblivious to their own ignorance. At the same time, while it’s easy to paint a bleak picture of the state of science education, it doesn’t mean that some progress can’t be identified. Moves in science education curricula internationally to now almost universally recognize the importance of students learning about the nature of science and scientific inquiry are important. However, one should be careful to distinguish between the curriculum as planned and the curriculum as lived (Aoki, 1993). Ted Aoki described the ‘curriculum as plan(ned)’ as having its origin outside the classroom in, for example, state, federal, and regional education authorities. It is “the work of curriculum planners, often selected teachers from the field, under the direction of some official often designated as the curriculum director or curriculum supervisor” (p. 258). In developing a curriculum in science education, representatives

  INTRODUCTION: SO MANY CHALLENGES—SO MANY CHOICES… 

9

from the science community, often research scientists, are often also present in deliberations. The ‘curriculum as lived,’ on the other hand is “a multiplicity of lived curricula” (Aoki, p. 258) that teachers and students experience, as unique individuals, during educational encounters with each other. It is about people and what they bring to those encounters and it includes teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practical wisdom about, for example, teaching and learning and the students they teach. What is often absent from the curriculum as planned is any appreciation or understanding of the aforementioned complexity of science teaching and learning; the curriculum as lived. What we suggest, on the basis of our above commentary, is that the field of science education (still) has a lot to do if it is going to be a force for change in schools, communities, societies, and in politics and policy. The dilemmas outlined by Fensham (1988) and Wallace and Louden (2002) are still valid. Of course, this is not to ignore or denigrate the efforts of those who try to effect change. Education systems and the bureaucracies that govern and manage them are often impenetrable and resistant to change. Educational change is difficult. Given such barriers, where might we suggest that those of us working in science education put our hearts and energies as we seek to attend to these dilemmas? What guiding principles and actions to ‘make a difference’ might we suggest? Our proposed title for this book was, initially, “Dilemmas in Science Education: Possible and Probable Futures.” This title reflected the language of Fensham (1988) and Wallace and Louden (2002). After the proposal was reviewed and we paused to reflect on the feedback, we changed the title to better reflect the reviewers’ comments and our own experiences. Rather than refer to dilemmas in science education, we decided to refer in our title to ‘challenges in science education.’ Our position is that we in the science education community are unlikely to ever resolve the dilemmas we see today and that others before us have identified. The problems inherent in them are complex and solving them is beyond what the field of science education can achieve by itself. They are framed and bound in economics and politics, in varying social and cultural contexts and priorities, and in the histories and priorities of those engaged in science education. Any proposed solutions will always be contested. Given the complexity of science education as a field and as a practice, it might be more prudent and productive to adopt a problem ‘coping’ approach and to see the dilemmas in the field as a series of ongoing challenges that we as science educators seek to address while, at the same time, we acknowledge

10 

G. P. THOMAS AND H. J. BOON

our limitations. The chapters in this book continue the discussions about challenges that are germane to science education and shed a renewed beam on them for the science education community. We need to keep considering them and look back to the history of ideas and perspectives in science education to ground ourselves in the present to better if we are to look to the future. As one of Greg’s mentors suggested to him over 30 years ago, “If you think you have a new idea in education, you should first go back and check the literature.” So, what are our suggestions? What can we do? We propose that the foundation for progress in science education still begins and ends with science teacher education, at pre-, in-service, and graduate levels. If we want to improve what people know of and about science and to raise the possibility of a more scientifically informed citizenry (including political leaders and social influencers), this remains a good place to start. We should be honest about how our current science teacher education is not perfect; not by a long way. Of course, we might not be culpable for all the imperfections we identify. We live in university and college contexts that might not always be stable, where space for science education in pre-service and graduate education programs is questioned or under threat, where other ‘priorities in education’ are promoted at the expense of subject area considerations, and where university, state, and federal governance, often through funding priorities and allocations, constrains our potential to develop and teach the courses we would like to teach as we would like to teach them. However, even so, as Charles Anderson suggested (Anderson, 2007), we already have sufficient knowledge about how students and teachers can achieve their goals for science education irrespective of which of Douglas Roberts’ (1988) emphases they individually prioritize in their instruction and learning. We have substantial knowledge about the necessary conditions under which achieving these goals can be done. We should return vigorously to and refamiliarize ourselves with Douglas Roberts’ curriculum emphases of everyday coping; structure of science; science and technology decisions; scientific skill development; correct explanations; self as explainer; and solid foundations. These emphases are still relevant today. None are not important or not deserving of attention, and they can be used to analyze, critique, and discuss the contents of any science curriculum. At the same time, we should ask if other emphases should also be added to these. We suggest there should be some additions and that these would reflect scholarship in science education that considers matters related to Indigenous, equity,

  INTRODUCTION: SO MANY CHALLENGES—SO MANY CHOICES… 

11

diversity, inclusion, and activist perspectives. At the very least we should be bringing (all, if possible, of) these curriculum orientations to pre- and in-­ service teachers’ attention and attempting to convey to them that they are provided for their informed consideration, not their indoctrination. We should also be alert to identify and educate regarding the overlap between the emphases; they are not mutually exclusive. Doing so would help counter the possibility of presenting “What counts as science education?” as doctrine and compel us to acknowledge to our various teacher audiences our personal ideological preferences and, in doing so, communicate and acknowledge more genuinely and honestly the complexity and sophistication of teaching and learning science. Paradoxically, we should also acknowledge that we likely won’t ever be able to attend to everything that’s ‘important’ in our university science education and teacher preparation courses. But, without question, we do need to explain to students that there is a ‘whole lot more’ about education and science teaching and learning that they should continue to learn about. Isaac Asimov’s well-­ known quip along the lines of “education isn’t something you can finish” rings true here. We should be as specific as possible about what such new learning might look like, and be explicit in our expectations for that future learning. It is these ‘anchors’ and expectations for future learning that are also essential knowledge that students should take from their courses or programs at all levels of science education. Our priority as teacher educators should be to explain and model to pre- and in-service teachers what is and might be possible, and why; not to tell them what to do (even if this is what some might expect and want). Telling pre- and in-service teachers what to do prioritizes the curriculum as planned, denies their agency and autonomy, delegitimizes their experiences in life and in education, and fails to acknowledge the(ir) curriculum as lived. It depersonalizes science education and fails to take into account teachers’ and students’ beliefs, contexts, and goals, all of which profoundly influence what is taught as science, how that ‘science’ is taught, and, consequently, what is learned and how it is learned. It can lead to prospective and practicing teachers thinking that there is ‘one way’ for all, and this has the potential to inhibit consideration of contextually appropriate local developments. In-service teacher education brings with it an additional set of considerations to those of pre-service teacher education. In pre-service science teacher education, the situation is that student participants are usually ‘captive’ in a teacher preparation program and subject to its demands for

12 

G. P. THOMAS AND H. J. BOON

graduation, certification, and employment. However, in-service science teacher education takes a wider variety of forms (Rose, 2021). These include: workshops, one-off professional development days, graduate education, conferences, and informal learning opportunities. Rose suggests that these are variously influential in initiating teacher learning that leads to meaningful pedagogical change and improved student learning. The extent to which these activities communicate ideas or perspectives that eventually command sustained teacher loyalty is unclear to us, and it is this loyalty that is much sought after as an outcome of engaging with practicing teachers. Loyalty to ideas must be earned and cannot be expected. Through our work with pre- and in-service teachers (e.g., Boon, 2010, 2011, 2015; Thomas, 2013, 2017b; Thomas & McRobbie, 2002) we have identified the following for earning ‘buy in’ for our research, cooperation, and collegial collaboration from educators in relation to loyalty for ideas: sustained engagement, shared goals, reasonable expectations for innovation implementation fidelity, trust, and mutual respect. These factors are certainly relevant for practicing teachers and need to be negotiated with them. They are considerations and conditions that should be met in addition to ensuring that the ideas being presented to them for deliberation are intelligible, plausible, and potentially fruitful. In other words, as well as presenting ideas for change (because that’s what improvement entails; change) that are understandable and that might work in their context(s), there are other necessary interpersonal and professional considerations to be recognized. The complexity of effecting and evaluating change is something we must consider if our work is to be more impactful in schools and other educational settings. What might our above view(s), which have grown as we considered the process of bringing this book from inception to completion, mean for readers? Before attending to that question, we acknowledge and are grateful for the contributions, diligence, and insights provided by each of the contributors to this volume. Our task as editors has not been to agree with everything that has been written in the chapters or to ensure that their contents conform to our own ideologies or persuasions; nor should it have ever been so. Our vision has been to present a series from authors across the globe of perspectives regarding some of the (ongoing) challenges for science education and of possibilities and ideas that might be considered to meet those challenges. It has been being able to see value in the contributions of what they might offer pre- and in-science teachers and science teacher educators. The challenges explored in the book still reflect the

  INTRODUCTION: SO MANY CHALLENGES—SO MANY CHOICES… 

13

curricular, policy, and pedagogical challenges that are prominent in the aforementioned ‘dilemmas’ literature. However, while such challenges remain, each chapter provides unique, contemporary insights into them. We hope that readers’ engagement with those insights stimulates their reflection on the past, present, and future of our field. Rather than provide the ‘predictable’ commentaries on the contributions of the fine scholars who accepted our invitations, we consider that each chapter stands on its merits and that readers will determine the meaning and relevance of the contents for themselves based on their own contexts, knowledge, and experiences. The chapters’ titles and abstracts are succinct summaries describing the contents of each chapter. We consider that all the chapters could become science education ‘content’ in pre-service and/or in-service teacher education, or graduate education. Again, whether that occurs or not will be determined by the reader, be they a teacher educator, a teacher, a science curriculum developer, or any other person who might be interested in considering the challenges facing science education and its possible future directions. As we ‘emerge’ from the COVID-19 pandemic we, the editors, wish you well.

References Anderson, C.  W. (2007). Perspectives on science learning. In S.  K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 3–30). Lawrence Erlbaum. Aoki, T.  T. (1993). Legitimating lived curriculum: Towards a curriculum landscape of multiplicity. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(3), 255–268. Baird, J.  R. (1988). Teachers in science education. In P.  Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 55–72). The Falmer Press. Boon, H.  J. (2010). Climate change? Who knows? A comparison of secondary students and pre-service teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 104–120. Boon, H. J. (2011). Beliefs and education for sustainability in rural and regional Australia. Education in Rural Australia, 21(2), 37–54. Boon, H. J. (2015). Climate change ignorance: An unacceptable legacy. Australian Educational Researcher, 42(4), 405–427. Dawson, V. (2002). What is science really like? Teacher commentary. In J. Wallace & W. Louden (Eds.), Dilemmas of science teaching: Perspectives on problems of practice (pp. 8–12). Routledge Falmer. Fensham, P. (Ed.). (1988). Development and dilemmas in science education. Falmer Press.

14 

G. P. THOMAS AND H. J. BOON

Krueger, B. (2002). To tell or not to tell: Commentary. In J. Wallace & W. Louden (Eds.), Dilemmas of science teaching: Perspectives on problems of practice (pp. 192–196). Routledge Falmer. Quince, A. (Presenter). (2022, July 24). Rear vision. [Radio broadcast]. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/the-­ozone-­hole/13983050?utm_campaign=abc_radionational&utm_ content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_radionational Roberts, D. A. (1988). What counts as science education? In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 27–54). Falmer Press. Rose, K. (2021). How do teachers’ perceptions of their agency and engagement change after participating in self-directed professional development? (Unpublished PhD thesis). The University of Alberta. https://doi.org/10.7939/ r3-­ftn8-­fq86 Thomas, G.  P. (2013). Changing the metacognitive orientation of a classroom learning environment to stimulate metacognitive reflection regarding the nature of physics learning. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1183–1207. Thomas, G. P. (2017a). “Triangulation:” An expression for stimulating metacognitive reflection regarding the use of ‘triplet’ representations for chemistry learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 533–548. Thomas, G. P. (2017b). What is and what will be science learning (theory) in science education reform and practice: Stories and reflections. In J. Jagodzinski (Ed.), The precarious future of education: Risk and uncertainty in ecology, curriculum, learning, and technology (pp. 139–158). Palgrave McMillan. Thomas, G.  P., & McRobbie, C.  J. (2002). Collaborating to enhance student reasoning: Frances’ account of her reflections while teaching chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 405–423. Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (Eds.). (2002). Dilemmas of science teaching. Routledge Falmer.

The Drive for Impact: Science Education in the Quantum Age Tanya Doyle

Introduction Science curriculum has long been a contested space in Australia (Fensham, 2013). Yet science education continues to be perceived as central to leveraging economic transformation as purported in Australian Federal policy authored by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE, 2015, 2018, 2021a, 2021b), the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Critical Technologies Policy Coordination Office (CTPCO 2021a, 2021b, 2021c), and the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER, 2021a, 2021b). At the heart of the debate are issues about the purpose of science education—a debate which goes unresolved, despite decades of attempts at political re-purposing. In 2010, Dillon and Manning made the following observation:

T. Doyle (*) James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. P. Thomas, H. J. Boon (eds.), Challenges in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_2

15

16 

T. DOYLE

Science teachers are tasked, throughout the world, with a set of almost Herculean challenges; make science lessons interesting, inspire pupils with wonder and excitement; increase the flow of scientists, entrepreneurs and technicians of tomorrow; and ensure that citizens and consumers understand the risks and benefits of modern science. These external demands help make science teaching what it is today. (p. 7)

The drive to develop science curricula that serve this broad range of purposes is not new. The ‘general science movement’ began almost 100  years ago when Hogben (1938) recognized that modern science offered a new social contract of scientific humanism. Attempts to develop science-for-all curricula surged in the 1950s as countries, at various levels of industrialization, aimed at providing the perceived benefits of a science education to all learners. By the 1980s, the impetuses for such curriculum development projects were aligned with themes such as “Science and the World of Work” (Fensham, 1985, p. 415). According to Fensham (1985), the success of such projects was mixed, and he notes that these efforts included a “naivety” (p. 416) about the role of school systems in society and of science education in particular to meet dual purposes—that is, to meet demand for a more scientifically literate citizenry, at the same time as preparing (some) students for university-level science studies. Throughout the literature, these dual purposes of science education are frequently held in juxtaposition, thereby creating a discursive binary of purpose: ‘Science for All’ or ‘Elite science.’ This binary of purpose persists, despite the recognition that the outcome of this dualistic approach “is that neither group is served well” (Goodrum & Rennie, 2007, p. 10). The challenge, then, of realizing a unified purpose for science education, by curriculum authors and enactors alike, has a long and difficult history. Attempting to establish an agreed set of motives, or purpose, of science education is an exercise in navigating contested terrain. As declared by Apple (2006), “education is a site of struggle and compromise. It serves as a proxy for larger battles over what our institutions should do, whom they should serve, and who should make these decisions” (p. 30). The notion of curriculum as a site of contestation is extended by Pinar (2012) who posits that rather than the formulation of objectives, the implementation of which is to be evaluated by (especially standardised) tests, “curriculum […] is understood as a complicated conversation, as communication informed by academic knowledge. Curriculum is characterised by educational experience, not test scores” (p.

  THE DRIVE FOR IMPACT: SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE QUANTUM AGE 

17

xiii). Furthermore, as noted by Ball (1994, p. 10), curriculum is struggled over in local settings. Fensham (2009) warned that, for too long, science education has been naive to the role of policy in science education and that science education researchers “overestimate the implications of their research findings about practice and ignore the interplay between the stakeholders beyond and in-school who determine the nature of the curriculum for science education” (p.  1076). This challenging curriculum debate continues to the present day. Through historical swings, the debate continues to return to common themes: the ‘crisis’ in science education in Australia with declining participation rates in post-compulsory schooling (Tytler, 2007) to the need for a scientifically literate citizenry (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2009), to the critical role of STEM education in driving innovation-led economies (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009), to Mathematics, Engineering and Science in the National Interest which highlighted the irrelevant nature of the science being taught in boring ways in Australian schools (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2012). A decade into the future and the same calls to action are again being made. For example, Science & Technology Australia (2021)—Australia’s peak industry body in Science and Technology—in their Pre-Budget Submission 2021–2022, called for the Australian government to “tackle the urgent need to stop the brain drain of young people out of STEM and boost future STEM talent for Australia with a new strategic initiative to inspire more Australian school students into science, technology, engineering and maths” (p. 9), attributing the reason for the ‘brain drain’ to a lack of specialist STEM teachers working in schools to inspire students to pursue STEM pathways. Throughout the science curriculum debate, there have been many discursive turns, sometimes simultaneously, toward both opportunity and crisis. As Australian Federal policy now looks beyond ‘the innovation-led economy’ toward ‘the Quantum age,’ the purpose of science education remains critical, while the foundations of a transformative curriculum are called into question. In 2009, The Shape of the Australian Curriculum clearly articulates the purpose of the science curriculum in Australian schools in the following: For Australian citizens to be sufficiently well-educated for the development of society and to ensure international competitiveness the Australian science curriculum must meet the needs of those students: who, as citizens in a global world, need to make personal decisions on the basis of a scientific

18 

T. DOYLE

view of the world; who will become the future research scientists and ­engineers; and who will become analysts and entrepreneurs in the diverse fields of business, technology and economics. (ACARA, 2009, p. 4)

By 2022, the rationale of The Australian Curriculum: Science aimed to: provide opportunities for students to develop an understanding of important science concepts and processes, the practices used to develop scientific knowledge, of science’s contribution to our culture and society, and its applications in our lives. The curriculum supports students to develop the scientific knowledge, understandings and skills to make informed decisions about local, national and global issues and to participate, if they so wish, in science-related careers. (ACARA, 2022)

In recent times, the national science curriculum has continued to reflect the binary of purpose; enabling students to make informed decisions about issues of significance as well as preparing them to participate in science-­related careers. The continuation of this ‘dual purpose curriculum’ reminds us of Pinar’s (2012) key curriculum question. That is “what knowledge is of most worth?”, alongside his recognition that the answers to this question are “animated by ethics, history, and politics” (p. xv). The role of policy, as informed by ethical, historical, and political frames of reference, in shaping science education policy can be examined through political discourse analysis (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012).

The Analysis of Deliberative Rhetoric In the field of discourse analysis, there is debate about how the language in policy should best be conceived as either ‘discourse,’ ‘narrative,’ or ‘deliberation.’ Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) approach to political discourse analysis facilitates the critique of political reason by integrating critical discourse analysis with the analytical framework of argumentation theory. The authors view political discourse as: primarily argumentative discourse … based on a view of politics in which the concepts of deliberation and decision-making in contexts of uncertainty, risk and persistent disagreement are central. This is a view of politics in which the question of action, of what to do, is the fundamental question. (p. 17)

  THE DRIVE FOR IMPACT: SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE QUANTUM AGE 

19

Their approach focuses on the characterization of political discourse as attached to political actors; that is, “individuals, political institutions and organisations engaged in political processes and events” (p. 17). This notion of context makes it possible to analyze the agency exerted by policy on the world, as well as to consider the impact of their agency on “matters of common concern” (p. 18). Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) consider rhetoric to be “the art of arguing both sides of an issue, as if they were both equally acceptable” (p. 56). Rhetorical constructs, after Foucault, are acts whereby particular communities impose their own standards onto the rest of society and declare their universal acceptability. Political rhetoric creates affinities with the population’s emotions and instincts in an attempt to build trust with the populace. Fairclough and Fairclough identify three genres of rhetorical discourse: deliberative, forensic, and epideictic; each with different political goals. In deliberative rhetoric “an assembly of citizens are ‘judging’ questions about the future, ‘for it is about what is to be’ that the deliberator deliberates” (p. 19). In other words, individuals and collectives can deliberate about public affairs, about what to do; about what we should choose or avoid. Deliberation takes place “where the outcome is unclear and the right way to act is undefined” (p.  19). Moreover, Fairclough and Fairclough highlight the role of the agency of partners in deliberation, particularly on “large issues” and/or “when we distrust our own ability to discern” (p. 19). Finally, they note that the act of deliberation is not about seeking the ends but, rather, it is about “lay[ing] down the end, and then examining the ways and means to achieve it” (p. 19). The analysis of deliberative rhetoric in a policy assemblage pertaining to the contemporary science-science education ecosystem is the focus of this chapter. In particular, the practical reasoning that underlies the deliberative rhetoric of the policy actors will be scrutinized. Practical reasoning sits in contrast to theoretical reasoning. It concerns what to do, not what is or is not true. In other words, while theoretical reasoning examines the reason for believing, practical reasoning examines reasons for action—it requires “an imaginative effort to think of as many considerations that might have a bearing on the situation as possible” (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012, p. 35). Practical deliberation, that is the weighing up of pros and cons of the premises of an argument as relevant to making decisions for action, is a form of deliberation focused on actions and undertaken not only by individuals in politics as they reason their way to decisions but also by collectives engaged in political decision-making.

20 

T. DOYLE

As Fairclough and Fairclough note, “given a set certain of circumstances and a set of goals, underlain by certain values, a certain type of action is recommended, or is the right one” (p. 118). This analysis, then, of the policy assemblage to be presented is undertaken in relation to the circumstances, goals, and actions deliberated within the Australian science ecosystem, which includes Federal government departments concerned with science, industry, research, and education, and the special office of critical technologies with links to Defence and Home Affairs. In particular, the analysis seeks to narrate the challenges faced by science educators as the nature and focus of the science ecosystem pivots toward addressing the risks and opportunities associated with the quantum age of Australian science.

The Circumstances, Goals, and Actions Underpinning Australia’s Quantum Age of Science The current policy moment in Australia can be read through the intersection of a suite of policy deliberations made by a range of policy actors. The practical reasoning and deliberative rhetoric of the actors in relation to the quantum ecosystem are underpinned by the range of circumstances, goals, and actions presented by each of these actors. These actors include the OECD as an international organization and a collection of Australian government agencies and individuals: Dr. Cathy Foley—Australia’s Chief Scientist with her Office of the Chief Scientist; The Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Critical Technologies Policy Coordination Office; and the Department of Education, Skills and Employment. Through their political deliberations, this collective articulates the context and circumstances including issues, risks, challenges, and opportunities that warrant particular actions. They also privilege particular goals and values that must be considered in light of these circumstances. Finally, particular actions to take place with the science-science education ecosystem are presented including actions that must be undertaken in tandem with trusted partners in order to advance Australia’s goals.

  THE DRIVE FOR IMPACT: SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE QUANTUM AGE 

21

Circumstances: The Drive Toward the Quantum Age The OECD Learning Framework 2030 “offers a vision and some underpinning principles for the future of education” (OECD, 2019a, p. 3). In the foreword of this paper, the OECD lays out the set of circumstances that underpin their efforts at imagining a way forward: We are facing unprecedented challenges—social, economic and environmental—driven by accelerating globalisation and a faster rate of technological developments. … The future is uncertain and we cannot predict it; but we need to be open and ready for it. The children entering education in 2018 will be young adults in 2030. Schools can prepare them for jobs that have not yet been created, for technologies that have not yet been invented, to solve problems that have not yet been anticipated. It will be a shared responsibility to seize opportunities and find solutions. … To navigate through such uncertainty, students will need to develop curiosity, imagination, resilience and self-regulation; they will need to respect and appreciate the ideas, perspectives and values of others; and they will need to cope with failure and rejection, and to move forward in the face of adversity. (p. 2)

This excerpt makes clear that the circumstances for the future of OECD countries are uncertain and that technologies that are at present only imagined will be significant in ensuring the security and opportunities for future generations. They locate the work of schools at the center of the imagined solutions, stating that they can prepare students for this unknown future. They also identify the need to work collaboratively—for unnamed actors to take a shared responsibility in realizing opportunities in this imagined, uncertain feature. Pinar (2012) discusses the “progressive moment: the future in the present” (p. 137). He posits that imagining the future is an act of progressive thinking where “the progressive is like a remembered dream, wherein the future seems cast as already past” (p. 137) while bringing forth “hallucinations in the present which has no meaning except as negations of the present” (p. 137). This negation of ‘ways of the past’ to instead embrace critical technologies today, for the sake of Australia’s future security, resonates with the circumstances deliberated by the Australian Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Critical Technologies Policy Coordination Office: Australia’s ability to harness the opportunities created by critical technologies has significant impacts on our economic success, security and social

22 

T. DOYLE

cohesion. Technological advances drive increased productivity, growth and improved living standards; but also have the potential to harm our national and economic security interests and undermine our democratic values and principles. (CTPCO, 2021a)

Specifically, in a press release made on 17 November 2021, the Australian Government stated that they will invest “$111 million to secure Australia’s quantum future … to create jobs, support Australian business and keep Australians safe” (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2021). This imperative is also endorsed by Dr. Karen Foley, Australia’s Chief Scientist. In her first address to the National Press Club on 17 March 2021 as, then, Australia’s incoming Chief Scientist, she deliberated the issues and circumstances that shape the field of science into the future: History tells us that science works best when there is a sense of urgency. A crisis such as wartime or a pandemic. Or a competitive deadline. Such as the race to Mars. Now it’s time to bring those lessons to the challenges that come next. Climate change, energy and food security to name a few. These are challenges, but they are also opportunities for science. … Science is where we start. But science cannot do it alone. … But while we are focused on taking our science forward, it is critical that we don’t lose sight of the foundations. Today, I want to outline four critical foundational issues that I intend to champion. … These four foundational issues—digital capability, STEM education, diversity in the research community, and open access—are all, like the world we live in, interconnected. And they are all critical to scientific impact. (Foley, 2021, pp. 6–9)

In her address, Dr. Foley elaborated on the circumstances of these issues when she stated that “we need to recognise that the tools of science are changing fast” (p. 7). She stated that “automation and AI [artificial intelligence] are also changing the way scientists work, day to day. … The next step change in the digital transformation is quantum” (p.  8). She made the risks to Australia’s economic security clear if we are not able to recognize this shift in the scientific paradigm: “If Australia is to avoid locking in a two-speed society, we need people with the expertise to design, develop and operate future technologies” (p. 9). She identified the education of Australia’s children through new ways of learning as critical to mitigating this risk. Here, Foley’s deliberations work to “discern the future in the past and present” (Pinar, 2012, p.  137), making apparent the weighing up of pros and cons she has undertaken in pursuit of articulating

  THE DRIVE FOR IMPACT: SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE QUANTUM AGE 

23

a way forward to a better future for Australia. Six months into her work as Chief Scientist, on 18 November 2021, Foley delivered a press release (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2021b) which, once again, served to articulate a progressive moment (Pinar, 2012) for Australian science: The history of science can be viewed as a series of moments in time when the long slog of building scientific knowledge coalesces in an insight, a sudden shift in understanding, or an acceleration in technology propelled by an ambitious goal. We are at one of those points now. The new technologies will change the way you and I live our lives, from the cars we drive to the materials we use to build and power our homes, from the way diseases are diagnosed and treated, to the way we communicate and interact. They are the tools in our toolbox as we navigate the challenges before us: bushfires, floods, a pandemic, the urgent need to address climate change. These are the technologies that can help protect our planet and take us to space. (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2021b, para. 13 & 14)

In this construction of circumstance, Foley aligns the centrality of science—and in particular “new technologies” (ibid.) to the future physical and geo-political security of Australian society. She posits these technologies and tools as ‘ours’—as in our ‘toolbox’—in other words, as methods and approaches that Australians can access now; take out and use to solve problems and work a way through to Australians’ imagined collective future. Pinar (2012) realizes that such circumstances work as “fantasies of the future” in which there are “fear and trembling” (p. 137) fuelled by prospects of political polarization, economic crisis, and ecological catastrophe, as well as hope and determination. In this way, these circumstances articulated by Foley serve as effective deliberative rhetoric (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012), by tapping into the emotions of fear and uncertainty of the population, particularly during the times of COVID-19. Despite the deliberation of these circumstances by international and national policy actors, framing global economic uncertainty, and a rise of issues—medical, environmental, security—all mediated by new and critical technology, the Australian Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE) has not recently attempted to convey a sense of deliberation over such circumstances. It was in 2018, that the Optimising STEM Industry-School partnerships: Inspiring Australia’s Next Generation—Final report (DESE, 2018) lamented the decline in secondary school science participation attributed to the use of uninspiring

24 

T. DOYLE

teaching methods by teachers who need ongoing professional development in order to reflect the world of work that is ‘STEM.’ Furthermore, the report discussed the reduction in prerequisites by universities for this decline in participation along with the limits of the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) system—a system that allocates a score to facilitate entry to undergraduate university courses—which is seen to encourage gamification of the credentialing system (p. 7). Finally, DESE identified the lack of Unique Student Identifiers (student ID codes) as limiting the circumstances through which student participation, enrolment, retention, and employment in the STEM education ecosystem can be monitored (2018, p. 11). DESE’s 2018 deliberations seem outdated, given the more recent 2021 deliberations of the Australian government voiced through its offices and officers. What, then, are the Australian government’s goals in relation to these emergent circumstances? Goals: Economic Growth and Geo-physical Security Through Critical Technologies Policy goals serve to lay out the ‘ends’ of the deliberation which can be shown to respond to emergent circumstances. The Blueprint for Critical Technologies (CTPCO, 2021b) articulates Australia’s strategy for maximizing the opportunities offered by critical technologies as well as managing the risks that arise from failing to engage with critical technologies. The blueprint aims to ensure that “Australians have the knowledge and skills to invent, build, adopt and operate critical technologies” (p. 16) and it seeks to facilitate the development of a “digitally capable and integrated economy … allow[ing] Australia to build greater resilience to economic shocks, improve supply chain resilience, and more proactively protect our citizens and our way of life” (p. 16). In March 2021, Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr. Foley, also framed up goals that speak to the circumstances laid out in the policy assemblage that warrant a redirection of attention of the sciences into the quantum age. She stated that “discovery happens in small teams. But innovation and impact need bigger teams. We need to coalesce around common goals and concentrate our efforts to get that critical mass” (Foley, 2021, p. 6)—“to take our science to impact” (Foley, 2021, p. 7). To achieve this goal, Dr. Foley stated that:

  THE DRIVE FOR IMPACT: SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE QUANTUM AGE 

25

We need people who are creative thinkers, who will use their imagination to push the boundaries. … Our young people need to know where to obtain trusted information. Know how to make sense of information. Have the ability to challenge information based on evidence and understanding. … Above all, we need them to know how to combine many bits of information into a broad picture of the world. To achieve all this, we need to find new ways to share the knowledge and talents of our fabulous teachers, and to increase science literacy. (Foley, 2021, p. 7)

On 17 November 2021, Dr. Foley welcomed the Australian Government’s commitment to a National Quantum Strategy and the establishment of a Quantum Commercialisation Hub (2021a) and through her subsequent statement on 18 November 2021, she acknowledged that the emergence of the quantum age might be new to many: Whether you learned the basics of computer programming via punch-cards in applied maths class, or through the modern language of apps, gaming and graphics, you are unlikely to have been taught about quantum. But that is about to change. I anticipate a functional quantum computer this decade. And it won’t be long before our kids can speak this language. (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2021b, para. 8)

She notes that Australia’s move to realize the goal of a quantum commercialization hub “is also an opportunity to drive the development of new skills and job opportunities. Science careers are not just in a lab and it takes more than scientists to deliver a result. There are science jobs in start-ups and industry, in government and in teaching” (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2021b, para. 15). DESE, in their earlier (2018) report, advocated for the position of industry in seeking to “elevate the skills and aspirations of the future workforce. This should not be misinterpreted as a desire to replace the broad goals of education with a narrow set of job-specific skills” (p. 6). This goal correlates with the Chief Scientist’s goal of realizing a quantum-science industry; whereby new jobs, both in the field itself and in teaching the knowledge required to enter the field, will emerge (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2021b). DESE (2018) posit that bringing more real-world content into the classroom will bolster the aspiration of students to consider a career in such emergent worlds of work as “students often do not aspire towards a STEM career because they struggle to see the relationship between STEM disciplines and the careers they want” (p. 48). This goal

26 

T. DOYLE

resonates with the more recent goal articulated by the Office of the Chief Scientist—their deliberations make clear that they seek a common cause. This common cause continued to be articulated by DESE’s STEM Partnerships forum report (2021a). The report made ten recommendations which sought to positively impact STEM engagement and performance in Australia over the long term with the goal of “increasing individual opportunities and contributing to the future prosperity of this nation” (p. 11). The ten recommendations cover a range of goals: from collaboration with industry in order to develop a more detailed understanding of future workforce needs; through to developing resources and toolkits to design, implement, and evaluate school-industry partnerships at scale; through to reviewing the senior secondary system and university prerequisites, to creating a narrative for students and parents on how STEM skills and knowledge can solve real-world problems. The final area for recommendation focused on teacher professional learning—with a goal of setting minimum national requirements for discipline-specific professional learning to maintain ongoing teacher registration; engaging with industry and others to develop and implement high-quality professional learning materials in STEM; and collaborating with industry to help teachers deliver Vocational Education and Training (VET) in secondary schools. What is absent from this set of recommendations are any goals around curriculum reform in science/STEM education. This indicates a lack of common cause around understanding the extent to which industry could offer advice in relation to science curriculum development. In other words, there is still work to do to deliberate the extent to which the industry can exert their agency as a trusted partner in curriculum development deliberations. Together, the goals of the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Chief Scientist, and the previous policy work of DESE lay out reasoned goals that respond to the emergent circumstances of a transition into the quantum age. From here, actions can be communicated to drive their collective deliberative rhetoric to the point of impact. Actions: The Drive for Impact Through Investment in Quantum Technology While the trepidation surrounding the unavoidable nature of the transition to the quantum is communicated to the populace through the deliberative rhetoric on Australia’s national circumstances, it is also palpable in

  THE DRIVE FOR IMPACT: SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE QUANTUM AGE 

27

the actions laid out through the policy assemblage. The language of partnerships and trust (and, through omission, the inference of mistrust) dominates the policy-scape and makes clear that the next steps forward will be just as challenging for the government to navigate, as they operate in a globalized policy field, as they will be for individuals to navigate. Across two days (17–19) in November 2021, the Australian government—through its Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources and the Critical Technologies Policy Coordination Office (CTPCO), within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—released press statements which outlined several actions that they considered are integral to taking the first steps toward Australia’s quantum future. To begin the action-oriented deliberations, on 17 November, the CTPCO (2021a) released a press statement making the need to engage with critical technologies—including quantum technologies—“critical ensur[ing] all Australians have the skills and knowledge to engage with the digital economy and be ready for the jobs of the future” and to then foreshadow the significance of the release of The Blueprint for Critical Technologies (CTPCO, 2021b) which went a step further to state that their intention is for Australians to obtain “the knowledge and skills to invent, build, adopt and operate critical technologies” (p. 16). The blueprint recognizes that engagement with international partners within the science-­ science education ecosystem for research and education purposes was a necessary action to ensure Australians can engage with critical technologies in a range of ways. In addition to engagement, the CTPCO (2021a) noted that “it is imperative that we make decisions, in collaboration with trusted partners, which will shape the critical technologies of the future to support our liberal democratic values, ethics and human rights” (para. 8) making clear that the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet of Australia need support from agents outside of Australia’s nation-state to assist them to judge and to then navigate the transformations necessary to project the nation-state forward from the imaginary into a realized quantum age. The Action Plan for Critical Technologies (CTPCO, 2021c) is a 76-page document that outlines the actions to operationalize The Blueprint for Critical Technologies by promoting and protecting critical technologies in Australia’s interests. The Action Plan identifies seven critical technologies in the national interest:

(1) Advanced materials and manufacturing (2) AI, computing and communications

28 

T. DOYLE

(3) Biotechnology, gene technology and vaccines (4) Energy and environment (5) Quantum (6) Sensing, timing and navigation (7) Transportation, robotics and space (p. 12)

In terms of quantum, the Action Plan details the following foci: • Post-quantum cryptography—mathematical techniques for ensuring information stays private—post-quantum because quantum computers can already solve ‘hard maths’ we use to encrypt online communications • Quantum communications—developing quantum keys so information can be shared remotely • Quantum computing—use algorithms that depend on quantum mechanical effects to perform computations • Quantum sensors—rely on quantum mechanical effects to enhance imaging, navigation, remote sensing, quantum radar and threat detection for defence. (p. 21)

And, nine critical technologies of initial focus:

(1) Critical minerals extraction and processing (2) Advanced communications (including 5G and 6G) (3) Artificial intelligence (4) Cyber security technologies (5) Genomics and genetic engineering (6) Novel antibiotics, antivirals and vaccines (7) Low-emission alternative fuels (8) Quantum technologies (9) Autonomous vehicles, drones, swarming and collaborative robotics. (p. 25)

What is clear from this list is that complex, interdisciplinary knowledge underpins each of these critical technologies. On the same day (17 November 2021), the Federal Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER, 2021a) released a

  THE DRIVE FOR IMPACT: SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE QUANTUM AGE 

29

statement to the press which announced the Australian Government’s key measures to grow Australia’s quantum industry. This statement conveyed action through investment in a Quantum Commercialisation Hub to support the development, commercialization, and adoption of quantum technologies in Australia through the formation of strategic international partnerships and the commercialization of Australia’s quantum research. The DISER stated that a focus on this plan may improve Australia’s communication networks, defense and national security capabilities, mining and manufacturing precision sensors, and quantum computing capacity. The press statement then attempted to show that this first action is a legitimate and reasoned way forward because it will result in flow-on benefits into Australia’s future: “growing Australia’s quantum industry has the potential to add $4 billion and 16,000 new jobs to the economy by 2040” (CTPCO, 2021c, p. 30). Again, on the same day (17 November 2021), Dr. Foley—Australia’s chief scientist—also released a statement to the press (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2021a) welcoming the Australian Government’s commitment to a National Quantum Strategy and the establishment of a Quantum Commercialisation Hub. She positioned Australia as already having realized the first quantum revolution with the invention of the transistor and the laser and now “we are entering the second quantum revolution as we begin to control materials at the nanoscale.” In this statement, the chief scientist animates Pinar’s (2012) progressive moment—imagining the future in the present and at the same time negating the past as not enough to continue to propel the nation-­ state forward to realize its goals and overcome the circumstances it faces. The following day (18 November 2021) Australia’s Chief Scientist released a further statement to the press (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2021b). This time, Dr. Foley advocated for potential of The Blueprint for Critical Technologies to “catalyse our science and research sector by using breakthrough science to deliver on the technologies that it sets out.” She also notes that: As we add the language of quantum and digital technologies to our kids’ backpacks, we must also ensure they understand the career pathways, so they can access the opportunities, and provide the workforce to fill what will amount to tens of thousands of jobs in critical technology sector.

Here, Australia’s Chief Scientist uses rhetoric to put forward the premise that adding to the knowledge and skills of children is a given. She taps

30 

T. DOYLE

into the emotive language of opportunity and security in an imagined future to give the sense that this action is reasonable, if not necessary. Her work in the Government’s ecosystem as a woman, as a teacher (Foley, 2021, p. 3), and as the chief scientist is to build trust in the populace that this is the way forward to realize a better future for Australia’s next generation. Following Dr. Foley’s endorsement of the government’s actions, on 19 November 2021, the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER, 2021b) released a press statement advising that Australia and the United States signed a joint statement to cooperate on quantum technology innovation and commercialization. The statement aims to enhance each country’s quantum industry capabilities through improved market access and knowledge sharing. We recognise the depth and strength of the economic and strategic relationship between Australia and the United States of America and note both nations’ shared commitment to our democratic institutions and to an open, inclusive and resilient Indo-Pacific region, underpinned by rules, norms and respect for sovereignty. We recall the commitments in the Agreement Relating to Scientific and Technical Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Australia which set out a framework for the conduct of the overall science and technology relationship between our countries. Together, we intend to advance our shared vision of a vibrant, secure, trusted and interconnected quantum ecosystem. … Elevating this cooperation across quantum scientific research, technology and innovation promises to deepen our bonds of friendship and understanding, strengthen our economies and contribute to global science and technology knowledge.

This statement makes clear who are (and, by omission, who are not) Australia’s trusted partners in the deliberations for such a step into the quantum age constructed in this agreement as a matter of common concern (Fairclough and Fairclough, 2012, p. 18). This statement does not explicitly reference the role of education. In fact, it is significant to note that the Department of Education, Skills and Employment are not part of the deliberations in this policy moment around the quantum age. DESE has not released a paper since 2018 that speaks to their actions in relation

  THE DRIVE FOR IMPACT: SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE QUANTUM AGE 

31

to the STEM agenda. DESE’s previously released reports speak to issues that, now, in this quantum-age policy moment, seem relegated to the past. For instance, DESE’s (2018) report Optimising STEM Industry-School partnerships: Inspiring Australia’s Next Generation—Final discussed actions pertaining to the development of contemporary curriculum resources by working with universities, businesses, and VET providers. DESE’s STEM Education Initiatives Synthesis Report—Program Summaries (2021b) aimed to provide better information to policy makers about the STEM initiatives that were underway in the community and schools that are attempting to address declining participation and performance in STEM school subjects. Finally, the DESE (2021a) STEM Partnerships forum report: Responses put forward ten recommendations around four key areas to improve the quality and impact of school-industry partnerships in STEM education:

a. Understanding impact and outcomes b. Teacher professional development c. Solving real-world problems through STEM careers d. Optimising school-industry partnerships (p. 3)

What is clear from this assemblage of reports and publications authored by DESE is the significant gap at the Federal policy level on how schools, in particular, might be involved with “add[ing] the language of quantum and digital technologies to our kids’ backpacks” (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2021b, para. 8). The language of ‘real-world problems’ and ‘optimising school-industry partnerships’ speak to the distrust of the government for schools to do the work of reimagining the science curriculum in ways that realize the Government’s quantum-age goals. What are the next steps, then, for action in the Australian education policy space to realize the goals presented by the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Office of the Chief Scientist and the Department of Industry, Science Energy and Resources? When will DESE be invited to be part of the quantum-age deliberations? When will schools be required to ensure students know that, as a Nation-State, we have already entered the second quantum revolution?

32 

T. DOYLE

The Next Steps for Science Education in Australia The OECD in their report Future of Education and Skills 2030; Conceptual learning framework: Knowledge for 2030 discuss the role of disciplinary knowledge as “providing essential structure and foundational concepts through which other types of knowledge can also be learned and developed” (OECD, 2019a, p. 6). The OECD highlights that once students have acquired disciplinary knowledge they are also, then, able to connect knowledge from across different disciplines (developing their interdisciplinary knowledge) along with learning the different ways that this knowledge can be applied in different situations (epistemic knowledge) and the different methods of this knowledge application (procedural knowledge). It is this ability to transfer knowledges —disciplinary, interdisciplinary, epistemic, and procedural—that the OECD sees as vital to the success of students into the quantum age. The OECD discuss ‘near’ and ‘far’ knowledge transfers, with ‘near transfer’ being the application of knowledges to a familiar context, and ‘far transfer’ being more difficult as it occurs in a different context and because it is premised on the realization that the transfer is even possible. Day & Goldstone (2012, cited in OECD, 2019a, p. 8) note: A person must recognise structural or conceptual similarities in order to invoke previous knowledge to apply in the new context. The literature on similarity and transfer suggests that students may often fail to recognise the relevance of these ideas when they are confronted with analogous situations in the real world, particularly when the specific concrete details of those situations do not closely match those presented by teachers.

From here, the OECD state that: Knowledge that can be transferred across different contexts arguably has higher value for curriculum design. Many countries grapple with curriculum overload. Knowledge that is suitable for far transfer, such as the concepts used in big ideas, has the potential to reduce curriculum overload and encourage deeper understanding over time as it is inter-related with different topics or subjects. This means that there is a potential for reducing the amount of content if certain transversal knowledge is learned in multiple contexts. (OECD, 2019a, p. 9)

  THE DRIVE FOR IMPACT: SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE QUANTUM AGE 

33

The OECD note, too, the role of teachers in assisting students to learn to make ‘far transfers’ of knowledge by helping them to see conceptual similarities between existing knowledge and new contexts “so that what is seen as far transfer can be perceived more like the easier near transfer” (2019a, p.  8). This quote gives reason to Foley’s (2021) remark about adding the language of quantum science to the ‘backpacks’ of Australian school children. What she intended to communicate was the sense that science education in Australia is going to have to find ways to facilitate the far transfer of disciplinary knowledge. This work might require a significant reimagining of the ACARA F-10 Science Curriculum. Its three strands—Science Understanding, Science Inquiry Skills, and Science as a Human Endeavour—provide scope for the delivery of disciplinary knowledge and epistemic and procedural knowledge pertaining to disciplinary knowledge. However, the gap lies in acknowledging the role that assessment—as part of the curriculum—plays in limiting an interdisciplinary approach to science education. Through their Action Plan for Critical Technologies, the CTPCO (2021c) identify the technologies they perceive to be critical to Australia’s future. In relation to quantum technologies alone, it is clear that engagement with this field requires the far transfer and integration of disciplinary knowledge from physics, chemistry, technology, and mathematics in ways that the F-10 science curriculum cannot yet facilitate. Moreover, currently in the senior secondary sciences (Grades 11 and 12), the emphasis rests on the acquisition of disciplinary knowledge and discipline-specific procedural knowledge—as assessed through examinations rather than interdisciplinary application of concepts.

Future Challenges and Opportunities for Science Educators The challenge, then, is one that has persisted through time—we need to be able to answer this question: What is the purpose of science education? From here, we can deliberate the answer to a range of contextual questions: Can school science continue to fulfill dual purposes? To what extent does the Australian F-10 Science curriculum represent the contemporary field of science? At this Australian policy moment, it is clear that the field and the tools of science (e.g., artificial intelligence and quantum computing) are rapidly changing (OECD, 2019b). What is also clear is that it is difficult for Australian education policy to keep pace with such change.

34 

T. DOYLE

Yet, there is a political imperative to ensure that Australia’s human capital profile is globally competitive. The imagined future sees, somehow through the curriculum, Australian young people able to innovate themselves and be able to take up positions and opportunities in the future imaginary that is, all at once, also here and now. To consider the role of school curriculum and education as a means to this end, we must broaden the conversation of the role of curriculum in ways that only educators can—we are the ones who realize curriculum is more than content, context, and teaching methods. We recognize that curriculum is about assessed learning, too, with assessment driving the whole learning process as in the past (e.g., Hubbard, 1997, p. 1). As such, deliberation about reimagining the science curriculum as the means to realizing the end of a quantum-lead economy must include conversations with universities and curriculum authorities about assessing, accrediting, and credentialing. The argument returns to the purpose of science education—what we assess should surely be constructed to align with what matters. If what matters is shifting science to enable a more interdisciplinary, far transfer of knowledge, then so, too, should our work around reimagining how we can assess learning in science also shift to better represent the values that we seek to foreground as our future in the now. Our collective challenge and opportunity for our future, then, is to be part of this practical deliberation. To do as Fensham (2009, 2013) and Pinar (2012) asked of us as science educators and as curriculum theorists over a decade ago, now—that is, to participate in political deliberation and to insist that we be part of the conversation to decide what matters most in the broader field of science-science education policy. As we enter the quantum age, it is through engagement with political deliberations and policy production that science educators can steer representations of science through curriculum debate. As a final note, it is important to acknowledge the contextual nature of this chapter and I encourage readers to seek parallels between the Australian context and their own. For example, in April 2021 the government of Canada committed $360 million over seven years to signal its intentions of becoming a global leader in this industry (Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, 2022). Dargan (2021), for The Quantum Insider, describes “the call to action” to develop a global quantum industry by 15 countries with “the most well-defined national initiatives in quantum technology” including China, Russia, the European Union, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of

  THE DRIVE FOR IMPACT: SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE QUANTUM AGE 

35

America. Together, Pinar’s (2012) notions of curriculum as a complicated conversation and ‘the progressive moment,’ alongside Fairclough & Fairclough’s (2012) political discourse analysis, provide a methodological framework to undertake studies in other countries also imagining their futures in relation to the quantum era. Such studies might shed useful light on the hard-to-shift matters of the ‘STEM crisis’ across other globalized contexts. For example, the tension created by the pace of change in the field of science in relation to the lack of agility of curriculum development by nation-states including, of course, assessment and design considerations. Moreover, to what extent are curriculum developers able to prioritize and facilitate the ‘far transfer’ of existing curriculum knowledge into emergent industrial contexts? To what extent is industry able to facilitate the translation of these ‘far transfers’ to bridge the gap between the apparent here and now and the imagined quantum future for all?

References ACARA (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority). (2009). Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Science. http://www.acara.edu.au/ verve/_resources/Australian_Curriculum_-­_Science.pdf ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (2022). F-10 Science Curriculum: Rationale. https://australiancurriculum.edu. au/f-­10-­curriculum/science/rationale/ Apple, M.  W. (2006). Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, standards, God and inequality. Routledge. Ball, S. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Open University Press. Commonwealth of Australia. (2009). Powering ideas: An innovation agenda for the 21st century. Australian Government. https://www.innovation.gov.au/ Innovation/Policy/Documents/PoweringIdeas.pdf CTPCO. (2021a). Critical Technologies Policy Coordination Office. https://www. pmc.gov.au/domestic-­policy/critical-­technologies-­policy-­coordination-­office CTPCO. (2021b). The Blueprint for Critical Technologies. https://www.pmc.gov. au/sites/default/files/publications/ctpco-­blueprint-­critical-­technology.pdf CTPCO. (2021c). The Action Plan for Critical Technologies. https://www.pmc. gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/ctpco-­a ction-­p lan-­f or-­c ritical-­ technology-­amalgamated.pdf Dargan, J. (2021). 15 countries with National Quantum Initiatives. The Quantum Insider. https://thequantuminsider.com/2021/04/29/15-­countries-withnational-­quantum-­initiatives/

36 

T. DOYLE

Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE). (2015). National STEM school education strategy: A comprehensive plan for science, technology, engineering and mathematics education in Australia. https://www.dese.gov. au/education-­ministers-­meeting/resources/national-­stem-­school-educationstrategy Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE). (2018). Optimising STEM Industry-School partnerships: Inspiring Australia’s Next Generation  – Final report. https://www.dese.gov.au/education-­ministers-­meeting/ resources/optimising-­stem-­industryschool-­partnerships-­final-­report Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE). (2021a). STEM Partnerships forum report Responses. https://www.dese.gov.au/education-­ ministers-­meeting/resources/stem-­partnerships-­forum-­report-­response Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE). (2021b). STEM Education Initiatives Synthesis Report. https://www.dese.gov.au/education-­ ministers-­meeting/resources/stem-­education-­initiatives-­synthesis-­report Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER). (2021a, November 17). New investment in Australia’s quantum technology industry [Press release]. https://www.industry.gov.au/news/new-­investment-­inaustralias-­quantum-­technology-­industry Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER). (2021b, November 19). Australia signs quantum technology cooperation agreement with United States [Press release]. https://www.industry.gov.au/news/ australia-­s igns-­q uantum-­t echnology-­c ooperation-­a greement-­w ith-­ united-­states Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2021, November 17). $111 Million Investment to Back Australia’s Quantum Technology Future [Press release]. https://www.pm.gov.au/media/111-­m illion-­i nvestment-­b ackaustraliasquantum-­technology-­future Dillon, J., & Manning, A. (2010). Science teachers, science teaching: Issues and challenges. In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching. Open University Press. Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis a method for advanced students. Routledge. Fensham, P. (1985). Science for all. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 415–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027850170407 Fensham, P. (2009). The link between policy and practice in science education: The role of research. Science Education, 93, 1076–1095. Fensham, P. (2013). The science curriculum; the decline of expertise and the rise of bureaucratise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 152–168. https://doi. org/10.1080/00220272.2012.737862 Foley, K. (2021, March 21). Achieving impact from Australian Science. National Press Club https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/node/1501

  THE DRIVE FOR IMPACT: SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE QUANTUM AGE 

37

Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. (2007). Australian School Science Education National Action Plan 2008 – 2012. Department of Education, Science and Training. Hogben, L. (1938). Science for the citizen: A self educator based on the social background of scientific discovery. Allen & Unwin. Hubbard, R. (1997). Assessment and the process of learning statistics. Journal of Statistics Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/1069189 8.1997.11910522 Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. (2022, February 8). Government of Canada shares results of public consultations on the future of quantum technology in Canada [Press release]. https://www.newswire.ca/ news-­releases/government-­of-­canada-­shares-­results-­of-­public-­consultations-­ on-­the-­future-­of-­quantum-­technology-­in-­canada-­845906639.html OECD. (2019a). Future of Education and Skills 2030: Conceptual Learning Framework  – Knowledge for 2030. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-­ project/teaching-­and-­learning/learning/knowledge/Knowledge_for_2030_ concept_note.pdf OECD. (2019b). The future of education and skills: Education 2030 Position Paper. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-­p roject/contact/E2030%20 Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf Office of the Chief Scientist. (2012). Mathematics, engineering & science in the national interest. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.chiefscientist.gov. au/wp-­c ontent/uploads/Office-­o f-­t he-­C hief-­S cientist-­M ES-­R eport-­8 -­ May-­2012.pdf Office of the Chief Scientist. (2021a, November 17). Dr Cathy Foley welcomes quantum announcement [Press release]. https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/ news-­and-­media/dr-­cathy-­foley-­welcomes-­quantum-­announcement Office of the Chief Scientist. (2021b, November 18). Blueprint has potential to catalyse science and research sector [Press release]. https://www.chiefscientist. gov.au/news-­a nd-­m edia/blueprint-­h as-­p otential-­c atalyse-­s cienceand-­research-­sector Pinar, W. (2012). What is curriculum theory? Routledge. ProQuest Ebook Central. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/jcu/detail.action?docID=743935 Science and Technology Australia. (2021). 2021–2022 Pre-budget submission. h t t p s : / / s c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y a u s t r a l i a . o r g . a u / w p -­c o n t e n t / uploads/2021/02/STA-­Submission-­2021-­22-­Pre-­Budget.pdf Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).

Teaching Science That Is Inquiry-Based: Practices and Principles Robyn M. Gillies

Introduction Evidence has emerged in recent years on the importance of teaching science through an inquiry-based approach where students are encouraged to be actively involved in investigations that challenge their curiosity, encourage them to ask questions, explore potential solutions, use evidence to help explain different phenomena, and predict outcomes if variables are manipulated (Duschl & Grandy, 2008). The inquiry process is complex and multifaceted as it involves students reconciling their current understandings of a problem and/or concept with both the evidence obtained from an inquiry while also being able to demonstrate their understandings in ways that are logical, well-reasoned, and viewed as justifiable. While the inquiry process is multifaceted and cognitively challenging, it is also recognized as one of the most effective ways to improve science education as it refers to a variety of processes and ways of thinking that contribute to the development of new knowledge and creative thinking and

R. M. Gillies (*) The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. P. Thomas, H. J. Boon (eds.), Challenges in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_3

39

40 

R. M. GILLIES

understandings (Firman et al., 2019). It involves students in ‘doing science’ where they learn to formulate questions, make predictions, and conduct investigations, and it also includes the key process skills required to acquire new understandings and knowledge about the nature of science (Liu et al., 2010). Scientific inquiry recognizes the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world, evaluate evidence, and propose explanations about the various phenomena they are investigating. It also refers to “the activities through which students develop knowledge and understandings of scientific ideas, as well as understandings of how scientists study the natural world” (National Science Teachers Association, 2004, p.  1). To understand science, students need opportunities to do science by participating in activities that are relevant to the topic they are investigating and to completing topics that challenge their curiosity while discussing their research findings in collaboration with their peers. As students learn to emulate how scientists undertake their inquiries, they obtain a better understanding of the processes involved in conducting scientific investigations. In so doing, they learn how to pose questions and develop explanations on topics that they are investigating and differentiate between evidence and inference (Bybee & Van Scotter, 2007). Chinn et al. (2013) argue that developing and learning to justify explanations is central to inquiry-based instruction.

Inquiry-Based Science: What the Evidence Says The evidence for inquiry-based science being able to motivate students’ interest in science and, in turn, improve their approach to learning science is fairly consistent. Chinn et al. (2013) argued that inquiry methods, while time-consuming, have the advantage of promoting both content understanding and growth in reasoning. This occurs because inquiry-based instruction challenges students to develop explanatory conceptions of their understandings in a particular domain (e.g., theories on climate change) and engage in the processes of reasoning from evidence. In fact, Chinn et  al. argue that in inquiry-based instruction, conceptual change often involves changes in both explanatory conceptions and accepted standards and practices of reasoning. In a meta-analysis of 15 published journal articles on inquiry-based learning in science, Firman et al. (2019) found that inquiry-based learning had a positive effect (ES = 0.45) on improving students’ mastery of science

  TEACHING SCIENCE THAT IS INQUIRY-BASED: PRACTICES AND PRINCIPLES 

41

concepts, the acquisition of epistemological beliefs, and motivation to learn. The results led Firman et al. to conclude that inquiry-based learning can be used to promote students’ development of inquiry skills in primary and high school settings. Treagust et  al. (2020) reported on a student-centered intervention called Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) in a sample of 122 students in Grade 10 from two male government schools in Qatar. The study sought to determine students’ perceptions of their learning before and after the POGIL intervention and whether this approach to teaching science was meeting the expected learning outcomes of the students’ work in two units of the chemistry curriculum. The results showed that, when surveyed on their perceptions of what happened in their chemistry class (pre- and post-intervention), the intervention group differed significantly from the control group on their positive perceptions of student cohesiveness, involvement, cooperation, personal relevance, enjoyment of chemistry lessons, and academic efficacy. The intervention group also recorded significantly higher achievements in learning chemistry at post-intervention than their peers in the control group. Kang and Keinonen (2018) examined the Finnish data from the 2006 Program for International Students Assessment (PISA) and reported on the effect of four student-centered approaches to learning on students’ interest and achievements in science. The authors found that topic-based approaches and guided inquiry-based learning were strong positive predictors for students’ achievement in science, and they were also positively associated with students’ interest. In contrast, open inquiry-based learning and discussion-based learning were strong negative predictors of students’ achievement and interest in science. The authors concluded that students become more interested in science when they have opportunities to participate in topic-based approaches and guided-inquiry learning, particularly when connections are made between their school science experiences and real-life learning. Furthermore, this increased interest in science accounts for better achievement outcomes. Similar results were reported by Areepattamannil et al. (2020) in a large international study of 428,197 adolescents from 15,644 schools in 66 countries that analyzed data on adolescents’ dispositions toward teacher-­ directed versus inquiry-based science instruction. Interestingly, the results showed that both teacher-directed and inquiry-based science instruction are significantly positively related to adolescents’ enjoyment of science, interest in broad science topics, motivation to learn science, and science

42 

R. M. GILLIES

self-efficacy. These findings led the authors to suggest that a blend of teacher-directed and inquiry-based science instruction may be more appropriate for developing students’ positive dispositions toward learning science. While many of the studies on inquiry-based science report on its efficacy in enhancing students’ achievements and attitudes toward science, there are others that have found no improvement in academic performance, although attitudes toward science were enhanced. Liou (2020) reported on students’ attitudes toward science and science achievement in a study of over 7700 15-year-old students from Taiwan who participated in the 2015 Program for International Student Achievement (PISA). The results showed that teacher-directed instruction had a positive effect on students’ science achievement whereas inquiry-based instruction had a negative effect. In contrast, inquiry-based science had a greater positive predictive power on students’ attitudes toward science than teacher-­ directed instruction. Similar findings were reported by Salchegger et  al. (2021) who analyzed 7007 Austrian students’ performance in science on the 2015 PISA to determine if students who attended schools that had a high emphasis on inquiry-based science education achieved higher attainments in science and recorded more positive attitudes to science than their peers in regular schools. The results showed that students who attended schools that had a high emphasis on inquiry-based science reported more enjoyment and interest in science although their achievements in science were markedly lower than matched controls in regular schools. The authors suggested that this lower performance may, in part, be due to students being denied permission to attend academic-track regular schools where there is a high emphasis on high achievement and a demanding curriculum. In summary, the results of these studies need to be interpreted with care. While research by some scholars does show that students do learn when they participate in inquiry-based science experiences with changes reported in explanatory conceptions, mastery of science concepts, and practices of reasoning, other researchers report that students in the inquiry-based conditions did not record higher attainments than matched controls. This, in part, may be due to the different approaches to assessment. Liou (2020) and Salchegger et  al. (2021) focused on large-scale PISA results where measures are not as granulated as they would be in smaller studies where the focus was on identifying development in explanatory conceptions, mastery of particular concepts, and the demonstration

  TEACHING SCIENCE THAT IS INQUIRY-BASED: PRACTICES AND PRINCIPLES 

43

of reasoning within a specific topic. Interestingly, all researchers agreed that students in inquiry-based science conditions reported that they enjoyed science more and had more positive attitudes to science than their matched controls. It seems that students in inquiry-based science classes may be more motivated to learn science, possibly because of the hands-on and minds-on approaches to learning science that are adopted; leading students to develop more positive attitudes toward science and better achievements in science (Kang & Keinonen, 2018).

Inquiry-Based Science: Some Challenges Given that it is well documented that achievement and affective benefits accrue to students when they have opportunities to participate in inquiry-­ based learning in science, it seems odd that teachers continue to teach science using transmission approaches. One study that investigated teachers’ perceptions of teaching inquiry-based science was conducted by Gillies and Nichols (2015) who drew on the experiences of nine Grade 6 teachers from five different schools who taught two units of inquiry-based science across two school terms (see Gillies et al., 2012). In particular, the study focused on investigating their perceptions of teaching inquiry-based science as well as the teaching processes they employed. The teachers were asked about the benefits and challenges of implementing cooperative learning where students worked in small teams to investigate the different inquiry-based science topics. All teachers spoke positively about teaching using an inquiry approach because the inquiry topics not only captured students’ interest but the process also allowed them to exercise autonomy over how they learned. The teachers also noted that the cooperative learning approach acted as a driver for the inquiry, allowing students to exercise responsibility for what the group learned and to use their initiative to think outside the box when needed. However, the teachers did emphasize the importance of structuring the inquiry process to challenge students’ thinking and scaffold their learning to encourage discussion. Similar results were reported by Tseng et al. (2013) who interviewed 15 experienced junior high school science teachers to gauge their perspectives on inquiry teaching. Just as the teachers in the Gillies and Nichols (2015) study believed it was important to structure and scaffold the students’ learning, Tseng et  al. also found that the teachers in their study reported that it was important to structure and scaffold the inquiry experiences if students were to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to

44 

R. M. GILLIES

engage successfully in learning. This included using a range of strategies from those that were clearly structured, where students worked through a process to arrive at a solution to those that were open and discovery-­ based. Well-structured strategies are designed to ensure that students master specific steps in solving problems while those that are more open and discovery-based require students to interact together as they search for solutions to problems that are not immediately evident. Being adaptable and able to use different inquiry strategies interchangeably, depending on students’ needs, were seen as important if teachers were to become proficient at teaching inquiry. There is no doubt that students need to be guided through the inquiry process. In a meta-analysis of 72 studies on inquiry-based learning, Lazonder and Harmsen (2016) noted that guidance is pivotal to successful inquiry-based learning with the types of guidance the students received moderating the effects on performance success (i.e., successful completion of artifacts created during the inquiry) and learning outcomes. Guidance, in this meta-analysis, included any form of assistance offered before and/ or during the inquiry process. Such assistance included process constraints (restricting the comprehensiveness of the learning task), status overviews (making task progress visible), prompts, questions, scaffolds, and explanations. Interestingly, all six types of guidance were equally effective in promoting students’ learning outcomes in comparison to those students who did not receive guidance. Teaching inquiry-based science can be challenging as it is a multifaceted and dynamic activity that involves making observations, posing questions, examining sources of information to see what is already known, planning investigations, and reviewing what is already known. It also involves gathering information and interpreting data, proposing solutions, and communicating results (National Research Council, 1996). Teachers also need support if they are to be flexible and adaptable in the strategies that they use to teach inquiry-based science, with Areepattamannil et al. (2020) noting that teachers may need to engage in well-developed professional learning and development activities to be able to successfully implement inquiry-based science in their classrooms. Given that many teachers continue to use transmission approaches to teach where the discourse is uni-directional rather than multi-directional, understanding how to utilize different strategies for teaching inquiry certainly remains a challenge (Howe & Abedin, 2013). The following presents the 5E Instructional Model of Inquiry as a way of guiding students through the inquiry process

  TEACHING SCIENCE THAT IS INQUIRY-BASED: PRACTICES AND PRINCIPLES 

45

(Bybee, 2015) and discusses three associated curricula strategies that are critically important in implementing inquiry-based science: cooperative learning, scientific literacy, and scientific discourse.

The 5E Model One approach to teaching inquiry-based science that has a strong evidence base is the 5E instructional model proposed by Bybee (2015, 2019). This model consists of five phases of learning: engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate. In the first phase, teachers begin by capturing students’ attention and interest by presenting tasks that challenge their curiosity and provoke wonderment. This task may be a short video, a role play, a demonstration, or a problem scenario that may provoke puzzlement and curiosity in students as they seek to reconcile their current understandings with the new dilemma that they are confronting. Bybee maintains that asking questions, posing problems, or presenting conflicting scenarios are examples of strategies that Engage students’ attention and interest. These strategies also present opportunities for teachers to informally identify misconceptions expressed by the students and provide opportunities for students to investigate the topic in more depth, particularly as they realize that the puzzle or dilemma can be solved. The engage phase also enables teachers to ascertain more about what students know and what additional assistance they may need to help them think about how well-equipped or ill-equipped their current knowledge is when contrasted with an explanation for the phenomena. The teachers’ role in this phase is to help the students make connections between their previous learning experiences and the current topic and organize students’ thinking toward achieving the outcomes of the science topic or unit of work that they are studying. In the Explore phase, students are provided with opportunities to investigate the phenomena in more depth; to find out how the cognitive dissonance they experience from their sense of puzzlement and curiosity might be resolved. This phase is characterized by students working cooperatively together to discuss the phenomena, seek explanations, offer suggestions, and rebut alternative ideas as they seek to reconcile their understandings to develop new insights. Once students have had a chance to Explore the phenomena and clarify their misconceptions, they are encouraged to Explain how they resolved the dilemma so that others in their class have opportunities to reconcile their explanations with their own understandings or contest others’

46 

R. M. GILLIES

explanations. By using the students’ explanations and experiences as the context, the teacher is then able to introduce relevant disciplinary ideas and technological concepts associated with the problem, enabling the students to gain a clearer understanding of key issues, vocabulary, and practices. The teacher’s role during this phase is to provide opportunities for students to become involved in learning experiences that extend and expand on the previous phase, so they develop more depth and scope in their understandings of the phenomena that they are investigating. During the explain phase, the teacher encourages students to use each other as a resource as well as other sources of information from a range of multimedia, including web-based searches, videos, written texts, and simulations as they seek to Elaborate on the key concepts under investigation. Sharing understandings with their peers is particularly important and this may be achieved by providing students with opportunities to publicly communicate their ideas, clarify misconceptions that may be expressed, and suggest or model alternative perspectives on the issue at hand. In this phase, the students participate in learning experiences that expand and enrich the concepts and understandings that they developed in previous phases to new situations that are closely aligned to what they know and understand. It is critically important that teachers look for ‘teachable moments’ where they can help scaffold students’ learning to promote greater depth of thinking, understanding, and reasoning. The emphasis in this phase is on students being able to transfer their learning and understandings to new situations or experiences and, in so doing, create new knowledge and understandings. Interaction is critically important as students share their insights and conceptions with each other and their teachers by writing and sharing reports, producing portfolios, participating in debates that challenge current conventions, or utilizing different graphic organizers to present information that provide additional insights on the topic. Evaluate is the final phase and involves students receiving feedback on the suitability of the explanations they have provided. This can be done quite informally in a recurrent discussion as they work on different phases of their inquiry. For example, questions such as: What did you think about the explanations provided? What are the strengths and limitations of the information presented? How might the limitations be overcome or addressed? Can you think of some alternative ways of demonstrating this change? Students can also receive feedback in a more formal manner through criterion-­referenced assessment tasks such as group projects, portfolios,

  TEACHING SCIENCE THAT IS INQUIRY-BASED: PRACTICES AND PRINCIPLES 

47

exhibitions of performances, and authentic work samples, which may include essays, video presentations, or creative art works (Gillies, 2007). Given that the 5E Model involves students engaging in collaborative discussions as they participate in inquiry-based science experiences, it is critically important that they know how to cooperate with their peers so they attend to what others have to say, share ideas and information, and reflect on what they have learnt and what they may still need to learn (Gillies, 2020). Ford and Forman (2015) found that when students engage in discussions that encourage them to cooperate to co-construct and critique different scientific ideas and points of view, they begin to learn how to function as a scientific community of practice.

Cooperating to Learn Cooperative learning, where students work in small groups on problem-­ based tasks, is one approach to learning that underpins inquiry. While meta-analyses consistently document the academic and social benefits that students derive from working cooperatively together (Johnson et  al., 2014), successful group work is very dependent on how the groups are structured and the types of tasks they undertake. Placing students in small groups and expecting them to know how to work together will not necessarily promote cooperation as groups often struggle with knowing what to do and how to manage the often-competing demands of members. Groups can implode as members grapple with the demands of the task while trying to manage the process involved in learning. In particular, how to deal with divergent opinions, resolve differences, or work with peers who make minimal contributions to the group are some of the challenges unstructured groups confront (Gillies, 2007). Research has identified five key elements that need to be embedded in groups in order for members to cooperate (Johnson & Johnson, 2002). These elements are: (a) Positive interdependence where group members are linked together in such a way that, in order to achieve their goals, they must assist others to achieve theirs as well. Positive interdependence can be established in groups so that each member has to complete part of the task in order for the group to be able to complete its group task or goal. For example, students can be assigned to groups where each member completes a different part of the task and then they

48 

R. M. GILLIES

report back to the group on what they have done and what they have learned. Interestingly, Johnson and Johnson found that when group members have small tasks that they must complete in order for the group to be able to complete its larger task or goal, group members will map on to this experience the perception of psychological interdependence and it is this state that provides the momentum for members to cooperate. It is essentially a case of ‘sink or swim’ together. (b) Promotive interaction occurs when group members realize that they must interact with other group members to share ideas and information, discuss possible solutions, and work constructively together if they are to agree on a resolution to the problem at hand. Teachers have a responsibility to ensure that group members understand that it is important that they acknowledge the efforts of others, facilitate access to information and resources, and be ‘switched on’ to the needs of different group members. When group members demonstrate these types of behaviors, students are more likely to feel that their ideas and efforts are acknowledged, feel less anxious and stressed, and be more caring and supportive of each other. (c) Social skills are evident when group members actively listen to what others say, consider the different perspectives that members bring to the group, constructively critique ideas, clarify differences or misconceptions, and accept responsibility for one’s behaviors. Other very important skills include taking turns in expressing opinions or sharing resources or roles, ensuring that tasks are distributed fairly so no member is overloaded with work, and engaging in democratic decision-making processes. (d) Individual accountability involves group members realizing that it is important for all members to complete their part of the task while encouraging others to do likewise. The acceptance of individual accountability helps to build group cohesion and motivation as group members realize the importance of their contributions to achieving the group’s goals. Individual accountability can be established in groups by assigning different tasks or roles to members that need to be completed if the group is to achieve its goal. For example, this may involve students researching different sub-topics and then sharing their findings with the larger group. It may also include students accepting different roles in the groups such as the

  TEACHING SCIENCE THAT IS INQUIRY-BASED: PRACTICES AND PRINCIPLES 

49

scribe, the reporter, the motivator, and the timer in order to ensure a timely completion and reporting of the group’s task. (e) Group processes such as reflecting enables group members to discuss what they have achieved, what they still need to do, and how they may accomplish what still needs to be done. These are processes that are critically important for student learning as they promote greater success in problem-solving and achievement gains than students who have not followed up with processing their group experiences. (Johnson & Johnson, 2009)

Scientific Literacy If students are to understand how science can be used as a way of thinking, finding, organizing, and using information to make decisions that are relevant to everyday living, it is vitally important that they are engaged in becoming scientifically literate. Scientifically literate people are interested in the world in which they live, engage in discussions about scientific issues, question claims made by others, and draw on evidence to make informed decisions about the environment and their own health and well-­ being (Rennie, 2005). In a similar vein, Krajcik and Sutherland (2010) note that for students to become scientifically literate, they need to be able to develop an understanding of science content and scientific practices, critique evidence, and participate in making decisions that affect them personally or others in the community. Krajcik and Sutherland (2010) identified five instructional and curricula features that can support students in developing scientific literacy. These features include: “(i) linking new ideas to prior knowledge and experiences, (ii) anchoring learning in questions that are meaningful in the lives of students, (iii) connecting multiple representations, (iv) providing opportunities for students to use science ideas, and (v) supporting students’ engagement with the discourses of science” (pp.  456–457). The following illustrate how these five literacy features can be implemented: 1. Linking new ideas to prior knowledge and experiences involves teachers contextualizing the content to be taught with students’ previous knowledge and everyday experiences. Prior knowledge can be derived from real-world experiences or previous classroom learning with the teacher providing opportunities for students to share and connect their ideas and build on them to create new

50 

R. M. GILLIES

­ nderstandings. Giamellaro (2014) found that when teachers conu textualized their science teaching by making specific connections with content knowledge and an authentic environment in which the content could be applied, students’ conceptual knowledge of science was boosted, leading to more positive learning outcomes. Furthermore, students’ interest and engagement in science was enhanced as they were better able to see how the various concepts were interrelated in the real world and this gave students a first-hand personalized perspective which they valued. 2. Asking questions that are meaningful and important in the lives of students will help to challenge their curiosity and motivate them to investigate the topic under discussion. King (1997) identified a series of question stems that could be used to elicit different types of thinking in students. For example: (a) review questions tend to ask students to recall information, (b) probing questions ask students to consider the possibilities that could occur, (c) hint questions challenge students to consider the consequences, (d) thought-­provoking questions are designed to challenge students to consider different perspectives, and (e) metacognitive questions are designed to encourage students to think about the thinking they have undertaken to solve a problem. Krajcik and Sutherland (2010) noted that questioning serves three important roles in the science classroom. Firstly, questioning drives in-class investigations that play a critical part in learning science content. Secondly, questioning guides literacy development as it establishes a purpose for reading and understanding the science text. Finally, questioning challenges students’ thinking to focus on problems they are confronting. In science classes, different types of questions can be used interchangeably to enable the teacher to ascertain what students know and how they are processing the information they receive (Gillies et al., 2014). 3. Connecting multiple representations involves not only teaching students how to interpret different visual symbols such as graphical representations but also understanding different aural and embodied representations that are used to support meaning. In fact, Tang and Moje (2010) argue that students need to be exposed to both multiple representations and multimodal representations concurrently. In the former, students are introduced to the same concept through different representational forms, whereas in the latter, they learn to build conceptual understandings through the simultaneous

  TEACHING SCIENCE THAT IS INQUIRY-BASED: PRACTICES AND PRINCIPLES 

51

use of different modalities (e.g., visual, aural, tactile) within and across different representations. Tang and Moje see these two processes as interactive and complementary as students learn to interpret and construct meaning from exposure to multiple modes of representation. 4. Providing opportunities for students to use science ideas includes helping them actively apply ideas to new contexts with resources, time, and guidance being provided to help them make sense of their science experiences. This includes helping them to articulate, critique, and apply their emerging understandings as they begin to reconcile their own understandings with this newly acquired information. Teachers play a critical role in ensuring that they scaffold and challenge students’ emerging understandings to ensure that their interpretations and reasoning about the topics under investigation are aligned with their experiences, data, or available supporting evidence (Gillies, 2016). Murphy et  al. (2019) found that when teachers participate in these types of experiences with children in their classes, it not only has a positive effect on children’s experiences of scientific inquiry and their developing conceptions of the nature of science, but it also leads to significant increases in students’ engagement with student-led inquiry-based approaches and more elaborate conceptions of the nature of science. 5. Supporting students’ engagement with the discourses of science where students learn how to communicate their understandings, listen to the ideas of others, seek additional information and clarification when needed, construct explanations, and critique propositions that may need to be challenged. Teachers model many of these ways of talking about science when they introduce students to a topic, seek students’ participation in discussing it, and engage in dialogic exchanges that build on points raised by students. In so doing, they not only help students to use the correct nomenclature but also help them to construct coherent and logical lines of inquiry. This type of discourse, Krajcik and Sutherland (2010) argue, is essential if students are to learn how to “talk and write about science and to practice supporting their ideas with evidence” (p.  458). Teacher-led discussion is critically important in supporting the growth of disciplinary knowledge and the capacity to engage in reasoned discussion. In fact, Resnick et al. (2010) argue that talk-based pedagogy is likely the most powerful way to learn an academic discipline.

52 

R. M. GILLIES

Felton et al. (2009) reported on a study in which 100 Grade 7 students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions (persuasion seeking, consensus seeking, or control) to discuss specific socio-scientific issues on climate change across eight 50-minute science lessons. The results showed that both the persuasion and the consensus-seeking dialogues can improve content learning and argument quality. The authors argued that argument of any sort (persuasion or consensus seeking) had a positive effect on students’ learning and reasoning skills. Interestingly, a follow-up study by Felton et al. (2015) also found that persuasion versus consensus while arguing can affect both students’ acquisition of content and reasoning. However, their results showed that when students had opportunities to engage in using argumentative discourse in science, where they were expected to reach consensus on a topic, they were more likely to use moves that elicited, elaborated on, and integrated their partner’s ideas than students who tried to persuade or defend their arguments with their peers. Felton et al. argued that teachers need to be mindful of the purposes of the goals of the discourse because persuasion can be seen as adversarial, with speakers sometimes advancing incompatible claims, while a consensus approach involves seeking to resolve incompatible claims through collaborative discussion and decision-making, which is more likely to lead to the co-construction of knowledge and understandings. In short, if students are to become scientifically literate, teachers need to ensure that they have opportunities to participate in discussions with each other about scientific issues where they learn to affirm or challenge ideas, present evidence to support any claims that they make, and engage in the process of making evidence-based arguments. Constructing explanations and arguments are essential components of scientific discourse and it is critically important that students have opportunities to use these ways of talking to illustrate how they reasoned from the evidence that was available to them (Krajcik & Sutherland, 2010). Moreover, teachers are more likely to engage students in reasoned discourse when they model the importance of disciplinary knowledge and well-structured, reasoned discussions (Resnick et al., 2010).

  TEACHING SCIENCE THAT IS INQUIRY-BASED: PRACTICES AND PRINCIPLES 

53

Scientific Discourse Teachers play a critical role in inducting students into ways of thinking and reasoning by making explicit how to express ideas, ask questions, seek help, and provide reasons and justifications for different propositions. Emphasis is on encouraging student participation in discussions because there is an enormous volume of research that attests to the social and academic benefits that students derive when they have opportunities to interact with others on problems that challenge their thinking and understandings. This type of teaching is referred to as dialogic teaching, where teachers utilize the power of talk to engage students’ interest and extend their thinking. Alexander (2008) noted that teachers who engage in dialogic teaching recognize that teaching involves the following key criteria: (a) It is collective. Teachers and students work together to resolve problem issues. This may be achieved in small groups or in the larger class. (b) It is reciprocal. Students and teachers share ideas and information and consider the different perspectives that others express as they work to resolve the problem issue. (c) It is supportive. Students are encouraged to express their ideas and suggestions without being criticized when others disagree with their ideas. In such an environment, students and teachers demonstrate respect for each other’s perspectives while working constructively together to negotiate and re-create common understandings. (d) It is cumulative, with teachers and students building on their own and others’ ideas to develop logical lines of thinking and inquiry. (e) It is purposeful, with teachers guiding the students’ discussion to ensure that they work toward achieving specific educational goals. When teachers actively engage in dialogic teaching, students acquire a repertoire of talk, based on the modeling and scaffolding that the teacher has utilized that helps them to interact with each other. Alexander (2008) refers to this as the “learning talk repertoire” (p. 104) and it includes the abilities to narrate, explain, ask questions that probe and challenge, elaborate on responses, argue, reason, and justify, speculate and imagine, and evaluate. This talk repertoire, though, is very much dependent on students being prepared to listen to each other, consider different

54 

R. M. GILLIES

perspectives, reflect on what they hear and learn, and give others time to think before proposing or responding with an idea or solution. In a sense, there is a careful balance between students’ and teachers’ dispositions to respect others’ ideas, perspectives, and ways of expressing their thoughts and ideas as they collaborate to find solutions to different problems. Alexander (2008) reported that when dialogic teaching has been embedded in classroom discourse and students have learned to utilize the learning talk repertoire, the following changes were evident in classroom interactions: (a) Teachers were asking more probing questions designed to encourage students to think and speculate about the topic under discussion. (b) Student-teacher exchanges were longer and more substantive as each built on the ideas or information presented. (c) Teachers were more student-centered as they prompted and facilitated students’ responses. (d) Students were speaking more readily, clearly, and audibly as their confidence grew in being able to express their ideas. (e) More students were initiating interactions by asking questions, making suggestions, and commenting on others’ responses. (f) There was more student-to-student talk. (g) More students were exercising their initiative by commenting on what others had to say or by asking their own questions. In the science classroom, the teacher’s role is to establish the conditions that not only capture students’ interest in the topics to be discussed but also ways of interacting that promote and facilitate dialogic exchanges. Teaching science, Huff and Bybee (2013) maintain, involves providing students with opportunities to be involved in the dynamic exchange of ideas, build connections between ideas and evidence, and use evidence to process and learn about ideas. When teachers create opportunities for students to engage in these types of dynamic exchanges, they learn to develop and defend their arguments while challenging the positions of others. With practice, students develop critical discourse where they learn to engage in argumentation that helps them to strengthen their conceptual understandings and scientific reasoning capabilities. In a study that investigated the role of argumentative discourse in middle-­year inquiry science classes, Bathgate et  al. (2015) found that

  TEACHING SCIENCE THAT IS INQUIRY-BASED: PRACTICES AND PRINCIPLES 

55

argumentative discourse had a positive effect on students’ capacities to think critically, to reflect on their ideas and elaborate on them, and to evaluate their initial misconceptions in the light of new evidence. In a similar vein, Soysal (2021) reported on a study that investigated the relationship between the implementation of an argument-based inquiry approach in science, teachers’ talk moves, and students’ critical thinking in middle-­ years science classes. The results showed that argument-based inquiry and teachers’ talk moves, particularly those that challenged students’ thinking, invited them to present their data-based interpretations, and encouraged them to communicate with each other, stimulated their higher-order critical thinking. In sum, Bathgate et al. and Soysal found that when students are taught how to engage in argumentative discourse during inquiry-based science, it had a positive effect on their higher-order critical thinking capacities.

Concluding Remarks This chapter has emphasized the importance of establishing inquiry-based science activities that challenge students to be actively involved in investigations that arouse their curiosity, encourage them to ask thought-­ provoking questions, explore possible solutions, use evidence to help explain different phenomena, and understand how to engage in argumentative discourse. There is no doubt that the inquiry process is complex as it involves students in not only considering the evidence and reconciling it with their current understandings but also being able to communicate their newly acquired knowledge to others in ways that are accepted as logical and well-reasoned. The teacher’s role is pivotal to not only constructing inquiry-based science experiences that will help students develop an understanding of the scientific content but also the processes and practices that enable them to engage in well-reasoned discussions that facilitate critical thinking and learning.

References Alexander, R. (2008). Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. In N.  Mercer & S.  Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 91–114). Sage. Areepattamannil, S., Cairns, D., & Dickson, M. (2020). Teacher-directed versus inquiry-based science instruction: Investigating links to adolescent students’

56 

R. M. GILLIES

science dispositions across 66 countries. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31, 675–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1753309 Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady, M., & Dorph, R. (2015). The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 1590–1612. https:// psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/09500693.2015.1045958 Bybee, R. (2015). The BSCS 5 E Instructional Model: Creating teachable moments (p. 126). National Science Teachers’ Association Press. Bybee, R. (2019). Using the BSCS 5E Instructional Model to introduce STEM Disciplines. Science and Children, 56(6), 8–12. Bybee, R., & Van Scotter, P. (2007). Reinventing the science curriculum. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 43–47. Chinn, C., Duncan, R., Dianovsky, M., & Rhinehart, R. (2013). Promoting conceptual change through inquiry. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research in conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 339–559). Routledge. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2008). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. In R.  Duschl & R.  Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 1–37). Sense. Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29(417), 446. https://doi.org/10.22329/il. v29i4.2907 Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., Villarroel, C., & Gilabert, S. (2015). Arguing collaboratively: Argumentative discourse types and their potential for knowledge building. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 372–386. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/bjep.12078 Firman, M., Ertikanto, C., & Abdurrahman, A. (2019). Description of meta-­ analysis of inquiry-based learning of science in improving students’ inquiry skills. International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education, 1–6. Journal of Physics Conference Series. 1157 022018. Ford, M.  J., & Forman, E.  A. (2015). Uncertainty and scientific progress in classroom dialogue. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp.  143–156). AERA. Giamellaro, M. (2014). Primary contextualization of science through immersion in content-rich settings. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 2848–2871. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.937787 Gillies, R. M. (2007). Cooperative learning: Integrating theory and practice. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329598 Gillies, R. M. (2016). Enhancing classroom-based talk: Blending practice, research and theory. Routledge.

  TEACHING SCIENCE THAT IS INQUIRY-BASED: PRACTICES AND PRINCIPLES 

57

Gillies, R.  M. (2020). Inquiry-based science education. CRC Press. https://doi. org/10.1201/9780429299179 Gillies, R. M., & Nichols, K. (2015). How to support primary teachers’ implementation of inquiry: Teachers’ reflections on teaching cooperative inquiry-­ based science. Research in Science Education, 45, 171–191. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11165-­014-­9418-­x Gillies, R. M., Nichols, K., Burgh, G., & Haynes, M. (2012). The effects of two strategic and meta-cognitive questioning approaches on children’s explanatory behaviour, problem-solving, and learning during cooperative, inquiry-based science. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 93–106. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.02.003 Gillies, R. M., Nichols, K., Burgh, G., & Haynes, M. (2014). Primary students scientific reasoning and discourse during cooperative inquiry-based science activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 127–140. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.01.001 Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43, 325–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024 Huff, K., & Bybee, R. (2013). The practice of critical discourse in science classrooms. Science Scope, 36(9), 30–34. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2002). Learning together and alone: Overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 95–105. https://doi. org/10.1080/0218879020220110 Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (2009). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (10th ed.). Allyn and Bacon. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., Roseth, C., & Shin, T. (2014). The relationship between motivation and achievement in interdependent situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 622–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12280 Kang, J., & Keinonen, T. (2018). The effect of student-centered approaches on students’ interest and achievement in science: Relevant topic-based, open and guided inquiry-based, and discussion-based approaches. Research in Science Education, 48, 865–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-­016-­9590-­2 King, A. (1997). Ask to think-tel why: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32, 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3204_3 Krajcik, J., & Sutherland, L. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328, 456–459. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/ science.1182593 Lazonder, A., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86, 681–718. https:// doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366

58 

R. M. GILLIES

Liou, P. (2020). Students’ attitudes towards science and science achievement: An analysis of the differential effects of science instructional practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58, 310–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.21643 Liu, O., Lee, H., & Linn, M. (2010). An investigation of teacher impact on student inquiry science performance using a hierarchical linear model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 807–819. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.20372 Murphy, C., Smith, G., & Broderick, N. (2019). A starting point: Provide children opportunities to engage with scientific inquiry and nature of science. Research in Science Education, 51, 1759–1793. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11165-­019-­9825-­0 National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press. National Science Teachers Association. (2004). NSTA position statement: Scientific Inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx/ Rennie, L. (2005). Science awareness and scientific literacy. Teaching Science, 51(1), 10–14. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/31481 Resnick, L., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). How (well structured) talk builds the mind. In D.  Pressis & R.  Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 163–194). Springer. Salchegger, S., Wallner-Paschon, C., & Bertsch, C. (2021). Explaining Waldorf Students’ high motivation but moderate achievement in science: Is inquiry-­ based science education the key? Large Scale Assessments in Education, 9, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-­021-­00107-­3 Soysal, Y. (2021). Argument-based inquiry, teachers’ talk moves, and students’ critical thinking in the classroom. Science & Education, 30, 33–65. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11191-­020-­00163-­1 Tang, K., & Moje, E. (2010). Relating multimodal representations to the literacies of science. Research in Science Education, 40, 81–85. http://hdl.handle. net/20.500.11937/27263 Treagust, D., Qureshi, S., Vishnumolakala, V., Ojeil, J., Mocerino, M., & Southam, D. (2020). Process-orientated guided learning inquiry (POGIL) as a culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) in Qatar: A perspective from Grade 10 chemistry classes. Research in Science Education, 50, 813–831. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11165-­018-­9712-­0 Tseng, C., Tuan, H., & Chin, C. (2013). How to help teachers develop inquiry teaching: Perspectives from experienced science teachers. Research in Science Education, 43, 809–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-­012-­9292-­3

Educating About Mass Vaccinations in a Post-Truth Era Subhashni Taylor, Neil Taylor, and Penelope Baker

Introduction The scientific evidence is clear; vaccines save lives. Why, then, is there controversy over vaccine use? Why is the science questioned? Who is questioning the evidence and who is listening? What are ways to best spread the message about the benefits of vaccine use? The nature of these questions illustrates that the acceptance of vaccine use is not purely a scientific issue but a socio-scientific issue; that is, it requires an understanding of not only scientific facts but also human behavior, particularly in relation to risk-taking. Confronting the nature of the socio-scientific vaccine problem has never been more important than in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has brought humanity to a virtual standstill since March 2019.

S. Taylor James Cook University, Cairns, QLD, Australia N. Taylor (*) • P. Baker University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. P. Thomas, H. J. Boon (eds.), Challenges in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_4

59

60 

S. TAYLOR ET AL.

In this chapter, we respond to these questions by first delving into the history of vaccine development and its apparent benefits. We then discuss the advent of the anti-vaccination movement, including the role of the media in reporting on vaccine efficacy and side-effects, because, in the past few decades, social media has had a particularly significant impact on the spread of misinformation concerning vaccinations. We will then explore the part science education can or should play in achieving scientific literacy regarding the socio-scientific issue (SSI) of vaccination. We discuss education from the perspective of formal and informal strategies to more effectively deliver science education that embodies the goal of reducing resistance to mass vaccination and communication of misconceptions related to vaccinations. At this point, it is important to state our position on mass vaccination. We are strongly in favor of mass vaccination and argue that the development of vaccinations represents one of the most significant technological advances for humanity and, indeed, many other animal species closely associated with humans. Our context is also predominantly, though not exclusively, Australian and American.

The History of Vaccine Development In the late eighteenth century, Edward Jenner noticed that people who had been infected with cowpox tended not to suffer from smallpox. He tested his idea by taking material from a blister of someone infected with cowpox and scratching it into the skin of another person. He published his findings and is, consequently, often referred to as the father of vaccinations and immunology (Plotkin, 2014). However, this inoculation method was used 75 years prior to Jenner’s discovery by Mary Wortley Montagu, an English aristocrat, who successfully inoculated her daughter against smallpox in 1721 (Ferguson, 2021). Scientific advances in vaccine development and production continued to advance and, by the late 1940s, disease control efforts began in earnest, including for pertussis (also known as whooping cough) (1914), diphtheria (1926), and tetanus (1938). A standout success of such efforts is the complete eradication of smallpox enjoyed by humanity today (The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 2021). One of the most significant breakthroughs in vaccine development was the 1955 poliomyelitis (polio) vaccine. This gut infection caused by the poliovirus can migrate to the central nervous system and result in death or

  EDUCATING ABOUT MASS VACCINATIONS IN A POST-TRUTH ERA 

61

permanent partial paralysis. The devastating impact of poliomyelitis was brought home to the population of the US in two major outbreaks of the disease in that country; one in 1916 and the other in 1952. Of the 57,628 reported cases in 1952, 3145 people died (Robinson & Battenfield, 2020). By 1994, because of widespread vaccination, polio was eliminated from the Western Hemisphere (The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 2021). In the 1960s, vaccines were developed for three other common viral childhood diseases: mumps, measles, and rubella. In 1971, they were combined into the MMR vaccine. By 2000, measles was declared as eliminated in the US. More recently, vaccines have been developed against various strains of hepatitis, influenza viruses, and meningococcal bacteria. In 2006, young people were also able to access a vaccine against human papillomavirus, which is responsible for cervical cancer. Not to be downplayed in the above simple listing of vaccines is the complexity of their development. Under normal circumstances, making a vaccine takes 10–15 years (Solis-Moreira, 2020). The emergence of the COVID-19 virus, with its enormous global health and economic impacts, led to the accelerated development of many vaccines, including Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnston and Johnston vaccines in the West, Sinovac in China, ZyCoV-D in India, and Sputnik-V in Russia. Merely the development of a vaccine is, of course, not a sufficient endeavor. A vaccine’s ultimate efficacy is dependent upon uptake by the intended population. Grabenstein and Nevin (2006) provide a good account of how mass vaccination programs delivered immunizations to many people at one or more locations in a short interval of time. Such programs reduce the likely spread of disease from person to person and create what is known as ‘herd immunity.’ The proportion of a population who must be immune to achieve herd immunity varies by disease. For example, a disease that is very contagious, such as measles, which has aerosol transmission, requires more than 95% of the population to be immune (Desai & Majumdar, 2020). Less contagious diseases have a lower vaccination threshold as shown in Table 1. Although mass vaccination programs are often expensive and logistically difficult to execute, their overall benefits in terms of health and economic outcomes are impressive. Andre et  al. (2008) calculated that the annual return on investment in vaccinations is between 12% and 18% in reduced healthcare costs. Ehreth (2003) estimated that vaccines annually

62 

S. TAYLOR ET AL.

Table 1  Herd immunity threshold Disease

Reproduction number (Ro)

Diphtheria Measles Mumps Pertussis (whooping cough) Polio Rubella Smallpox Influenza Ebola

6–7 12–18 4–7 12–17 2–15 6–7 5–7 1.4–4 1.5–2.5

Vaccine coverage needed (%) 85 92–94 75–86 92–94 50–93 83–85 80–85 30–75 –

Source: Vally (2019)

prevented six million deaths worldwide. In economic terms, this translated into direct savings in the order of tens of billions of US dollars annually.

Anti-Vaccination Movement and the Media Despite the well-documented success of vaccination programs against fearsome diseases, there exist vocal anti-vaccine lobbies (Andre et  al., 2008). With the recent development of vaccines against COVID-19 and vaccine mandates by governments and private businesses for some populations, the anti-vaccine lobby groups have become increasingly vociferous. Wolfe and Sharpe (2002) point out that opposition to vaccines has existed as long as vaccination itself. In fact, in the mid to late 1800s, opposition to the smallpox vaccine in the UK and the US resulted in the creation of anti-vaccination leagues in both countries (The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 2021). Certain events have periodically given particular impetus to anti-­vaccine lobby groups. In the 1970s international controversy developed concerning the safety of combining the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines to create the DTP vaccine. The intention of creating DTP was to reduce the number of injections a child needed to have and reduce the incidence of parents inadvertently forgetting any one of the three. However, allegations abounded that children suffered neurological conditions following DTP immunizations (Kulenkampff et al., 1974). The associated publicity caused a decrease in vaccination rates in the UK and resulted in three major epidemics of whooping cough (Baker, 2003). Miller and Ross

  EDUCATING ABOUT MASS VACCINATIONS IN A POST-TRUTH ERA 

63

(1978) reported on the UK government-commissioned National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES) that identified every child between 2 and 36 months who had been hospitalized for neurological illness and assessed whether the immunization was associated with increased risk. The results from this indicated that the risk was very low, thus lending support for a national pro-vaccination campaign (Miller & Ross, 1978). A similar, but more damaging controversy erupted in the early 2000s, again associated with a combined vaccination given to children. In this case, it was the combined mumps, measles, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Research reported by Dr. Andrew Wakefield et al. (1998), published in the highly reputable medical journal The Lancet, claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Several large epidemiological studies have been conducted since the Wakefield article to assess the safety of vaccinations and the MMR vaccine in particular and none have found a correlative or causative link between the vaccine and autism (Institute of Medicine (US) Immunization Safety Review Committee, 2001; Madsen et  al., 2002; Taylor et al., 1999). Nevertheless, although the research was discredited (any link was temporal rather than causal) and the article in The Lancet was retracted, the media seized upon the story and ignited public fear and confusion about the safety of the vaccine (Hackett, 2008). This led to a drop in the rates of MMR coverage in the UK and elsewhere. Although the Wakefield-MMR controversy occurred two decades ago, Wakefield has continued a relentless personal campaign, moving well beyond the initial MMR vaccine to attacking the Centre for Disease Control in his controversial film Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe (Wakefield, 2016). Quick and Larson (2018) believe that Wakefield’s anti-­ vaccine “fanaticism” has been at least partly responsible for the resurgence of measles in the US, with more than 2216 reported cases. These authors also believe that Wakefield’s anti-vaccine campaign contributed to the 2015 measles outbreak in Disneyland in California and the 2017 outbreak in Minnesota, where his message persuaded many parents not to vaccinate their children. The role of the media was highly significant throughout this controversy. Mason and Donnelly (2000) reported that in the UK, where the South Wales Evening Post had run a protracted campaign against the MMR vaccine, there was a statistically significant drop-off in MMR vaccine uptake when compared to the rest of Wales. With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and its vaccination program, the anti-vaccination

64 

S. TAYLOR ET AL.

lobby has developed a higher profile and become more strident, and the issue of vaccination has become heavily politicized. The tactics of the anti-vaccination movement have changed little throughout history. The tactics generally involve talking down the disease threat, talking up the vaccine threat, hinting at a bigger conspiracy, and appealing to other so-called authority figures who dare to challenge the consensus (Larsson, 2020). Playing into the tactics of the “anti-vaxx” (Larsson, 2020) movement is the influence of the media. Journalists tend to shy away from explanations of dry scientific data that many unschooled in scientific thinking find difficult to understand and, instead, report stories that have emotional content, such as vaccine-related fatality or injury, to which readers can readily relate. Thus, according to Nelkin (1996), journalists gravitate toward anecdotal instead of statistical evidence; expert testimony rather than publications; emphasize controversy rather than consensus; and represent issues in terms of polarities rather than complexities. Unfortunately, such stories tend to increase the perception that vaccination risk is significantly greater than in reality. Compounding the desire of journalists to publish interesting stories is a guiding journalistic principle of objectivity. Mooney (2004) argues that, in its most simplistic version, journalistic objectivity means that both sides of an issue should be balanced against one another. However, this argument collapses when it comes to scientific issues such as vaccination because science is not a democracy and, in practice, one side of an argument is often supported by more evidence than another (Voices for Vaccines, 2015). Although anti-vaccination arguments may historically not have changed, the ability of the anti-vaccination movement to reach vast numbers of individuals very rapidly has changed through the advent of the internet and social media. In Australia, for example, there is an anti-vaccination lobby group called the Australian Vaccination-risks Network (AVN, 2021)—formerly known as the Australian Vaccination Network until forced to change its title by the Australian Government. It has used its website (https://avn.org.au) to lobby against a variety of vaccinationrelated programs; downplay the danger of childhood diseases, such as measles and whooping cough; champion the cause of alleged vaccination victims; and promote the use of alternative treatments, such as homeopathy, for which there is no consensually agreed scientific evidence of efficacy. At the time of writing, when the Australian government is pushing hard for individuals to get vaccinated against COVID-19, the AVN has been using bus tours to promote the Wakefield Vaxxed film.

  EDUCATING ABOUT MASS VACCINATIONS IN A POST-TRUTH ERA 

65

Also active in the anti-vaccination movement is the United Australian Party (UAP), which holds only one seat in the Australian parliament. The UAP’s website and mailbox flyers promote its ostensibly anti-vaccine stance using the same traditional tactics of the movement and add in the theme of freedom of choice. For example, the text in the flyer talks down the disease threat: There is no pandemic in Australia  – only one person has died this year. (Palmer, 2021, p. 4)

The fact is that, at the time of writing this chapter, there have been almost 2000 deaths in Australia from the COVID-19 pandemic (Australian Government Department of Health, 2021a). By global standards, Australia has a low per capita death rate from COVID-19, but this is largely due to rapid lockdowns in  local areas where infections were detected, and the closing of international borders and periodic closing of state borders, all measures the UAP oppose. The flyers also talk up the vaccine threat: [T]he TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration for Australia) reports have now stopped reporting the number of people that have died following their COVID-19 vaccination. Such a number of deaths (unspecified) caused over such a small portion of Australians who have had the vaccines over such a compressed period of time should be a matter of concern. (Palmer, 2021, p. 3)

Social Media The use of social media, with its vast audience, has been particularly useful in spreading the anti-vaccination message (Mitra et  al., 2016; Smith & Graham, 2017). Typically, anti-vaccination individuals and groups generate content based on personal experience and opinions, at times using high-profile individuals, whereas pro-vaccination groups and institutions tend to quote experts and cite scientific literature when sharing their views online (Madden et al., 2012). Studies indicate that the content produced by the anti-vaccination lobby on social media has the desired impact; parents who decide not to have their children vaccinated tend to have their opinions shaped by online content, and most of these individuals do not investigate the credibility of the source of this information (Opel et al.,

66 

S. TAYLOR ET AL.

2011; Featherstone et  al., 2019; Germani & Biller-Andorno, 2021; Madden et al., 2012). Featherstone et al. (2019) not only implicate social media use in the promulgation of vaccine conspiracy beliefs but also note that the unique features of social media make it a potent platform: Social media allows the true believer of such conspiracies to spread their false belief widely and quickly. Social media also allows other true believers to reinforce false claims about vaccination and even respond, sometime aggressively, when their falsehoods are countered. (pp. 2995–2996)

In effect, social media has allowed contrarian views on issues such as mass vaccination success, which previously would likely be confined to isolated pockets, to converge and coalesce, gaining the necessary critical mass to become vocal parties in the general discussion (Rochel de Camargo, 2020). Motta et al. (2018) cite the ‘Dunning-Kruger Effect’ (Kruger & Dunning, 1999) to describe such vocal individuals who may have little knowledge of the basic facts of an issue, such as vaccination safety, and to think that they are better informed than medical experts. This ‘overconfidence’ together with negative feelings about scientific experts are then associated with decreased support for mandatory vaccination policies and skepticism about the role that medical professionals play in the policy-­ making process. The wide range of misconceptions about vaccinations resulting, at least partly, from discussion in traditional and social media include: (Geoghegan et al., 2020; Smith, 2017) • Better hygiene and sanitation can reduce incidence of diseases. Therefore, vaccines are not necessary. • Vaccine ingredients, such as aluminum, preservatives like mercury, inactivating agents like formaldehyde, manufacturing residuals like human or animal DNA fragments, can weaken the immune system. • The large number of vaccines that are required through a vaccination program might be overwhelming, weakening or perturbing the immune system. • Vaccines cause autism. • The large number of antigens children are exposed to in the first year of life has an adverse effect on neurodevelopment. • Vaccines cause autoimmune diseases.

  EDUCATING ABOUT MASS VACCINATIONS IN A POST-TRUTH ERA 

67

(Tan & Matthews, 2018) • Vaccines are ineffective. • Herd immunity is a myth or does not exist. • Vaccines ‘shed’ and cause the spread of disease, endangering the medically fragile. • The consequences of vaccine-preventable diseases are minor, while vaccines frequently cause injury and death. • Vaccine-exempt children are not spreading disease. Also promulgated in the anti-vaccination movement, often through social media platforms, is that adolescents may become infertile as a consequence of receiving certain vaccinations to immunize against COVID-19, increasing confusion and ill-informed decisions about vaccination among this target group (Greenbank & Workman, 2021). Prior to the development of vaccines for COVID-19, governments around the world relied on strategies of limiting the movement of people, hygiene practices, and mask-wearing. In some countries these measures had limited success, providing more scope for the virus to multiply and mutate. The Delta COVID-19 mutation has proven to be more contagious as well as having a greater impact on young people than previous variants (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). Now that vaccines are available, governments are motivated to reduce the risk of further spread and mutations. Some governments have introduced mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for certain workplaces, such as retail outlets and hospitality/entertainment venues, in relation to staff, clients, and customers. For example, in Australia, the government required that at least the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine is administered by mid-September 2021 for all residential aged care workers (Australian Government Department of Health, 2021b). In the US, President Biden passed orders requiring that about two-thirds of the US workforce should be vaccinated (Kaminer, 2021). Furthermore, private companies such as United Airlines, which employs about 67,000 people, have mandated COVID-19 vaccinations and have achieved a 99% vaccination rate (Murphy-Marcos, 2021). While these approaches may be effective in the short-term, a more enduring strategy requires a targeted focus on countering ongoing messaging from the anti-vaccination movement. Key to this focus should be to increase the scientific literacy of the population to enable individuals to

68 

S. TAYLOR ET AL.

recognize false information. The final section of this chapter explores formal and informal means to achieve such literacy.

The Role of Education There is often an assumption by policy makers and commentators that the general public is merely uneducated or undereducated about matters that cause controversy (Smith, 2017). This theory is known as the ‘information deficit model.’ The rational strategy when working on this theory is to provide additional factual information to fill the knowledge gap. Unfortunately, studies show that employing the information deficit model alone does not increase confidence or change behavior (Jarrett et  al., 2015). Such a finding is unsurprising since, as the above discussion on the rise of the anti-vaccination movement highlighted, vaccine hesitancy is not caused purely by a deficit in science-based information but is linked to social belief systems. Carolan et  al. (2018) found that attitudes toward vaccination seem to be firmly held by adulthood, and, thus, educating adults and children requires very different approaches. Indeed, changing beliefs regarding vaccination in adulthood may be ineffective (Sadaf et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2017). Wilson et al. (2005) found that these belief systems could be considered “deep core” (p. 3014) and analogous to a fundamental religious belief. Thus, when confronted with views that challenge vaccination beliefs, individuals can become more entrenched (see also, Nyhan et  al., 2014). Interestingly, anti-vaccination sentiments are often expressed alongside anti-government control statements. Despite the numerous media presentations and discussion across many informal and formal platforms, relaying the proportion of vaccinated and unvaccinated who have required ICU treatment, or have died, and consequently indicating the protective effect of vaccines (see, e.g., Evershed, 2022), the information is readily dismissed by community members who describe themselves as against vaccinations. Nevertheless, there have been some positive programs encouraging vaccine-hesitant adults to become vaccinated. For example, Schoeppe et  al. (2017) report on the usefulness of using advocates, who are pro-­ vaccination parents willing to explain the science behind vaccines to other hesitant parents in a context of empathy and established relationships (Schoeppe et al., 2017). But, as Wilson et al. (2017) argue, a key period when beliefs are formed is in childhood and educational efforts on vaccination are probably better

  EDUCATING ABOUT MASS VACCINATIONS IN A POST-TRUTH ERA 

69

aimed at children than adults. The school curricula offer a platform and opportunities in this regard. Formal Education Using School Curricula Plutzer and Warner (2021) argue that the school curricula and policy document are under-utilized channel of communication with regard to positive information regarding vaccination. Many studies have explored the impact of school-based educational interventions in adolescents, such as their uptake of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, as well as their perceptions and knowledge of HPV and its associated cancers (Ali et al., 2018; Davies et al., 2017; Flood et al., 2020; Sadoh et al., 2018; Yoost et  al., 2017). The HPV interventions included educational pamphlets/ leaflets/brochures, training seminars, peer teaching, after-school telehealth sessions, Facebook discussions, lessons delivered by Health and Social teachers using activities, magazines and DVDs, online portal for anonymous questions, and interactive activities (Flood et al., 2020). These were delivered, in some cases, during school time by teachers or by other medical personnel such as a school nurse. Research carried out by Flood et al. (2020) showed that school-based interventions require a robust and engaging practical approach to educational delivery where students have the opportunity to discuss and explore their thoughts on the topic, experiences, and validation of their concerns. In the face of the success of the HPV program and the rising incidence of vaccine hesitancy, particularly prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a strong case for revisiting the pedagogical practices in science education in schools from kindergarten onward. Particularly important is the need to emphasize, in the curriculum and general discussion, that vaccination is not only a science-based issue but also a social issue. As already noted above, vaccination programs should be understood in terms of complex socio-scientific issues (SSIs). Yet this is not currently the case. School science tends to focus on facts and certainty while how science is actually practiced, that is, scientific processes, receives little attention (Loughlin, 2021). Such a system reduces the opportunities for students to develop critical thinking skills and argumentation based on reliable evidence and sound reasoning, whereas considering science education in terms of SSIs provides opportunities for teachers to help students develop a range of skills, such as media literacy, to be able to detect fake news by, for example, highlighting the

70 

S. TAYLOR ET AL.

importance of mathematical literacy in relation to the interpretation of data and recognizing misleading data. Pouliot (2008) emphasized: [T]he study of SSI [in science education] by students constitutes a prime avenue for fostering scientific literacy of a kind that will prompt young people to familiarize themselves with science in action, to develop their capacity for evaluating the information made available to them on a daily basis, to make decisions concerning controversial sociotechnical issues, and to take part in debates and discussion on sociotechnical controversies of concern to them. (p. 545)

In other words, individuals require a certain level of scientific literacy to interpret and make informed decisions about vaccination in the face of negative social messaging (Taylor et al., 2018). To paraphrase Zeidler and Nichols (2009, p. 49), vaccination education lends itself to pedagogical models that include students as active participants to develop argumentation skills, the ability to differentiate science from non-science issues, and to recognize reliable evidence and data. The issue of vaccination should be made personally meaningful and engaging to students as well as providing them with the context for understanding scientific information. Such education strategies allow students to learn the content of science together with its application and implications (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Zeidler & Sadler, 2008). This mode of engaging with science education also provides educators with the opportunity to explicitly foster students’ engagement in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) space. Problem-solving activities related to vaccination are rich in context, promoting critical thinking. They provide the conditions to promote a sound environment for the development of scientific literacy in both primary and secondary students (Serow et al., 2019). Thus, in terms of issues concerning vaccinations, science teaching should not only focus on the key scientific concepts behind vaccine development and how vaccines work but also include the importance of evidence and the scientific method of updating a hypothesis based on new data. This issue is particularly relevant in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, as individuals may become frustrated by what they see as the ‘changing messaging’ from scientists about the Coronavirus, especially if they have limited understanding of how scientists work in light of new

  EDUCATING ABOUT MASS VACCINATIONS IN A POST-TRUTH ERA 

71

data. Science education should enable students to look at scientific data to determine the safety of vaccines rather than be swayed by misinformation. In this instance, it may be useful for teachers to incorporate examples (such as the aforementioned research conducted by Wakefield et al., 1998) where dishonesty and bias in scientific experimentation and data collection have damaged the reputation of science as a whole and led to serious consequences in terms of the resurgence of preventable diseases (Shapiro, 2021). Critically analyzing research methodology, presentation of results, and communication of researchers’ findings, related to a real-world problem, encourages scientific dialogue and a focus on the contextual application of scientific literacy. The new National Curriculum in Australia for Science (Foundation to Year 10) supports such a contextual approach through its ‘Science as Human Endeavour’ (SHE) strand (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2015). The sub-strand titled “use and influence of science within SHE” states that this aspect of the curriculum “explores how science knowledge and applications affect peoples’ lives, including their work, and how science is influenced by society and can be used to inform decisions and actions” (ACARA, 2015, p.  9). Similarly, the Australian senior Biology curriculum provides “examples in context which are used to illustrate possible contexts related to Science Understanding content, in which students could explore Science as a Human Endeavour concepts” (ACARA, 2012, p. 21). Interestingly, our search of the Australian Curriculum for both Science, and Health and Physical Education for the words ‘immune,’ ‘vaccine,’ ‘vaccination,’ and ‘disease’ revealed that the first three words did not feature in the curriculum at all, and only ‘disease’ featured in Years 8, 9, and 10. A similar search of the senior Biology curriculum (Years 11 and 12) revealed only minimal reference to immunology and vaccination. In 2021, Plutzer and Warner (2021) undertook a review of the health education standards of 50 US states as well as the District of Columbia to identify the occurrence of the word stems ‘vac’ and ‘immune.’ Their findings indicate that the standards of 32 states out of the 51 included in the study did not mention vaccination or immunization at all. Furthermore, none of the states provided guidance to teachers on how to effectively deliver this aspect of health education. Their conclusions “point to a lack of attention to vaccine literacy in secondary health education in the United States” (p. 4676).

72 

S. TAYLOR ET AL.

This lack of an explicit mention of terms directly related to vaccination in the curriculum should not deter science teachers and indeed other subject teachers from incorporating this important issue in their teaching. For example, Shapiro (2021) reports on a science teacher teaching about vaccines in his environmental science class. Therefore, cross-curricular approaches provide valuable opportunities for teaching about vaccines. Another strategy might be to encourage students to analyze publicly available data on COVID-19, such as vaccination rates or number of hospitalizations, in mathematics lessons while learning about vaccinations in science lessons. Cross-curricular connections could work particularly well at the primary school level with a carefully designed unit on vaccination that could involve reading, science content, mathematics, art and humanities, and social sciences, as well as developing critical thinking and reasoned argumentation skills. The ‘Integrating immunisation education into the Grade 6 curriculum’ resource pack is an example of such a resource for primary school students in Canada (Immunize Canada, 2018). Another useful approach to develop understanding of vaccinations involves classroom discussion and debate, including sociomoral discourse and argumentation, because discursive activities in science lessons play an important role in developing scientific literacy (Zeidler & Nichols, 2009). Student learning can be scaffolded through this approach if the teacher provides mixed evidence, both reliable and unreliable sources of scientific data and viewpoints, so that students can read and evaluate the range of perspectives on the issue of vaccination and learn to assess the validity of a range of data and claims (Walker & Zeidler, 2007). Such approaches not only help to develop the notion of vaccine literacy in students but also allow them to respond to and value multiple perspectives on the issue, thus exploring persuasive texts. The Why you’ll never catch smallpox (The Association for Science Education, 2021) resources, linked to the National Curriculum (England), teach about vaccination in this ‘fun’ way. The resources take a cross-curricular approach using activities in which students play the roles of science advisors, data analysts, journalists, historians, script writers, politicians, and Dr. Jenner. Teachers involved in using the activities reported that students not only developed new science skills but their knowledge of the way vaccinations are developed and tested also increased (Cutler & Lawrence, 2016).

  EDUCATING ABOUT MASS VACCINATIONS IN A POST-TRUTH ERA 

73

Less Formal Approaches Traditional school curricula should play an important role in educating about vaccination, but less formal approaches should also be utilized. Given the widespread use of digital devices and smartphones by children, digital technologies provide particularly good opportunities to create and disseminate engaging and effective messaging to children to communicate positive messages about vaccinations (Wilson et al., 2017). The key to engaging children in the digital technologies space is to make it fun, such as through gamification, for example, so it does not seem like a school lesson. Groh (2012) defines gamification as the use of game design elements in non-game contexts. The games can be web-­ based or mobile apps and a range of engaging elements, such as avatars, challenges, points and levels, informative feedback, storytelling, role play, and reward systems, can be incorporated to increase the engagement factor (Montagni et al., 2020). The face-to-face and the digital game environment lend themselves to the concept of the ‘escape room.’ These are commercial gaming centers that require an individual or small group to find all clues, utilize required information, and solve a series of problems where the final solution enables the room to be opened. Such a game strategy could be taken beyond the room scenario to the online gaming immunity scenario in varied settings. The study by Montagni et al. (2020) provides empirical evidence to support the efficacy of digital gamification as one of the most effective ways to enhance both vaccine knowledge and uptake, particularly but not exclusively in adolescents and young adults. However, they also emphasized the incorporation of behavioral theories within the conception of any game for it to be effective in facilitating understanding and appraisal of information and behavioral change endpoints. Gamification can also be used to counter the often-negative experiences of vaccination because it involves a needle in the arm, by creating a positive and accurate ‘prejudice’ to the benefits of supporting the immune system. The context could be war and invasion or more positive imagery of teaching and training the immune system, perhaps like a sports team preparing for a game (Wilson et al., 2017). E-Bug is such a resource; it can be used on all devices including computers and tablets to teach children about the spread of infections, antibiotic use and resistance, and vaccinations (Public Health England, 2020). Studies into the effectiveness of e-Bug found that the program not only increased vaccination and health behavior intentions but students also found the games engaging and challenging (Eley et al., 2019; Hale et al., 2017).

74 

S. TAYLOR ET AL.

Conclusions Fortunately, in Australia during the COVID pandemic, vaccine hesitancy does not appear to exist on a scale seen in some other countries, notably the US. However, there has been anti-vaccination sentiment and misinformation present on social media, and there have been public protests concerning vaccine mandates. This has likely deterred some individuals from getting the vaccine. The question is how to counter the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy. As noted above, studies show that most adults hold fixed attitudes toward vaccination, often doing so even in the face of contradictory evidence. Rather than predominantly targeting positive vaccine messaging at adults, a more promising method is to explore the scope for expanding the study of vaccination in school curricula through topics such as how vaccines work, how they are developed and tested, the historical impact of mass vaccination programs, how the media reports on vaccination, and, perhaps most importantly, how non-scientific misinformation on vaccination programs has been spread through social media. Significantly, these proposed topics recognize that the nature of vaccine use is not purely a scientific issue, but an SSI; that is, education on vaccine use requires the provision of not only scientific facts but also a recognition of social issues. The nature of educational content on vaccinations does not have to sit exclusively in the field of science and can be cross curricular in nature, highlighting opportunities to include investigative tasks in the STEM space. This cross-disciplinary approach is likely to be accepted by school-­ aged children who, during the COVID-19 pandemic, have been exposed to political structures and roles to a level in the media that has not been seen before—indeed, thus providing teaching opportunities for exploring the purpose, structure, far-reaching connections, and role of a democratic government structure in relation to a nation’s health. The COVID-19 pandemic has catapulted the utilization of technology in school education. Such utilization should not be limited to merely providing a platform for formal ways of education. Its use in informal activities, such as gamification, to make content about vaccination more engaging and increase the chance of attitudinal and behavior change among students should be encouraged.

  EDUCATING ABOUT MASS VACCINATIONS IN A POST-TRUTH ERA 

75

References Ali, A. N., Jie, J. S., Prajapati, S. K., Iqbal, M. Z., Ahmed, N. Z., & Alshammari, T.  M. (2018). A longitudinal KAP study on HPV immunised adolescents in Malaysia. Journal of Natural Remedies, 18(3), 86–99. https://doi. org/10.18311/jnr/2018/22249 Andre, F. E., Booy, R., Clemens, J., Datta, S. K., John, T. J., Lee, B. W., Lolekha, S., Peltola, H., Ruff, T. A., Santosham, M., & Schmitt, H. J. (2008). Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity Worldwide. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 86(2), 81–160. https://doi.org/10.2471/ BLT.07.040089 Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2012). Australian Curriculum Senior Secondary: Biology. Retrieved October 23, 2021, from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/ senior-­secondary-­curriculum/science/biology/ Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2015). Foundation  – Year 10 Australian Curriculum: Science. Retrieved October 23, 2021, from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/ f-­10-­curriculum/science/ Australian Government Department of Health. (2021a). Coronavirus (COVID-19) case numbers and statistics. Retrieved October 30, 2021, from https://www.health. gov.au/news/health-­a lerts/novel-­c oronavirus-­2 019-­n cov-­h ealth-­a lert/ coronavirus-­covid-­19-­case-­numbers-­and-­statistics#covid19-­summary-­statistics Australian Government Department of Health. (2021b). Residential aged care workers. Retrieved November 29, 2021, from https://www.health. gov.au/initiatives-­a nd-­p rograms/covid-­1 9-­v accines/information-­f or-­ aged-­c are-­p roviders-­w orkers-­a nd-­r esidents-­a bout-­c ovid-­1 9-­v accines/ residential-­aged-­care-­workers Australian Vaccination-risks Network Inc. (2021). Home page. Retrieved October 10, 2021, from https://avn.org.au/ Baker, J.  P. (2003). The pertussis vaccine controversy in Great Britain, 1974–1986. Vaccine, 21(25-26), 4003–4010. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0264-­410X(03)00302-­5 Carolan, K., Verran, J., Crossley, M., Redfern, J., Whitton, N., & Amos, M. (2018). Impact of educational interventions on adolescent attitudes and knowledge regarding vaccination: A pilot study. PLoS ONE, 13(1), e0190984. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190984 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2021, August 26). Delta variant: What we know about the science. Retrieved November 9, 2021, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-­ncov/variants/delta-­variant.html Cutler, M., & Lawrence, L. (2016). Why you will never catch smallpox. Primary Science, 142, 24–26.

76 

S. TAYLOR ET AL.

Davies, C., Skinner, S. R., Stoney, T., Marshall, H. S., Collins, J., Jones, J., Hutton, H., Parrella, A., Cooper, S., McGeechan, K., & Zimet, G. (2017). ‘Is it like one of those infectious kind of things?’ The importance of educating young people about HPV and HPV vaccination at school. Sex Education, 17(3), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2017.1300770 Desai, A. N., & Majumdar, M. S. (2020). What is herd immunity? Journal of the American Medical Association, 324(20), 2113. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jama.2020.20895 Ehreth, J. (2003). The global value of vaccination. Vaccine, 21(7–8), 596–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-­410X(02)00623-­0 Eley, C.  V., Young, V.  L., Hayes, C.  V., Verlander, N.  Q., & McNulty, C. A. M. (2019). Young people’s knowledge of antibiotics and vaccinations and increasing this knowledge through gaming: Mixed-methods study using e-Bug. JMIR Serious Games, 7(1), e10915. https://doi.org/10.2196/10915 Evershed, N. (2022, January 28). The simple numbers every government should use to fight anti-vaccine misinformation. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/ng-­i nteractive/2022/jan/28/the-­simple-­ numbers-­every-­government-­should-­use-­to-­fight-­anti-­vaccine-­misinformation Featherstone, J.  D., Bell, R.  A., & Ruiz, J.  B. (2019). Relationship of people’s sources of health information and political ideology with acceptance of conspiratorial beliefs about vaccines. Vaccine, 37(23), 2993–2997. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.04.063 Ferguson, D. (2021, March 28). How Mary Wortley Montagu’s bold experiment led to smallpox vaccine – 75 years before Jenner. The Guardian. https://www. theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/28/how-­m ary-­w ortley-­m ontagus-­ bold-­experiment-­led-­to-­smallpox-­vaccine-­75-­years-­before-­jenner Flood, T., Wilson, I. M., Prue, G., McLaughlin, M., & Hughes, C. M. (2020). Impact of school-based educational interventions in middle adolescent populations (15–17 yrs) on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake and perceptions/knowledge of HPV and its associated cancers: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine, 139, 106168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ypmed.2020.106168 Geoghegan, S., O’Callaghan, K. P., & Offit, P. A. (2020). Vaccine safety: Myths and misinformation. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11(372), 1–7. https://doi. org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00372 Germani, F., & Biller-Andorno, N. (2021). The anti-vaccination infodemic on social media: A behavioral analysis. PLOS ONE, 16(3), e0247642. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247642 Grabenstein, J.  D., & Nevin, R.  L. (2006). Mass immunization programs: Principles and standards. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, 304, 31–51.

  EDUCATING ABOUT MASS VACCINATIONS IN A POST-TRUTH ERA 

77

Greenbank, A., & Workman, M. (2021, January 15) Rumours of infertility caused by COVID-19 vaccination hold women back. COVID Blog. https:// www.abc.net.au/news/2021-­0 8-­1 5/rumours-­o f-­i nfertility-­h old-­w omen-­ back-­from-­covid-­vaccination/100373894 Groh F. (2012). Gamification: State of the art definition and utilization [Paper presentation]. 4th Seminar on Research Trends in Media Informatics; 02/14/2012; Ulm. Hackett, A. J. (2008). Risk, its perception and the media: The MMR controversy. Community Practice, 81(7), 22–25. Hale, A. R., Young, V. L., Grand, A., & McNulty, C. A. M. (2017). Can gaming increase antibiotic awareness in children? A mixed-methods approach. JMIR Serious Games, 5(1), e5. https://doi.org/10.2196/games.6420 Immunize Canada. (2018). Teachers’ Kit: Integrating immunization education into the Grade 6 curriculum. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https:// immunize.ca/sites/default/files/Resource%20and%20Product%20 Uploads%20(PDFs)/Campaigns/Poster%20Contest/2018/teachers_ kit_2018_e.pdf Institute of Medicine (US) Immunization Safety Review Committee. (2001). Immunization safety review: Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism. Stratton, K., Gable, A., Shetty, P., & McCormick, M. (Eds.). National Academies Press (US). Jarrett, C., Wilson, R., O’Leary, M., Eckersberger, E., & Larson, H. J. (2015). Strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy: A systematic review. Vaccine, 33(34), 4180–4190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.040 Kaminer, D. (2021, September 14). Who’s covered by a vaccine mandate? Here’s a quick guide to America’s patchwork of COVID-19 shot requirements. The Conversation. Retrieved October 9, 2021, from https://theconversation.com/ whos-­c overed-­b y-­a -­v accine-­m andate-­h eres-­a -­q uick-­g uide-­t o-­a mericas-­ patchwork-­of-­covid-­19-­shot-­requirements-­167765 Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. Kulenkampff, M., Schwartzman, S. S., & Wilson, J. (1974). Neurological complications of pertussis inoculation. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 49(1), 46–49. Larsson, P. (2020, October 4). COVID-19 anti-vaxxers use the same arguments from 135 years ago. The Conversation. Retrieved October 8, 2021, from https://theconversation.com/covid-­19-­anti-­vaxxers-­use-­the-­same-­ arguments-­from-­135-­years-­ago-­145592 Loughlin, K. R. (2021, August 27). Behind vaccine resistance, there lies a dip in science education. The Boston Globe. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/ 08/27/opinion/behind-­vaccine-­resistance-­there-­lies-­dip-­science-­education/

78 

S. TAYLOR ET AL.

Madden, K., Nan, X., Briones, R., & Waks, L. (2012). Sorting through search results: a content analysis of HPV vaccine information online. Vaccine, 30(25), 3741–3746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.10.025 Madsen, K. M., Hviid, A., Vestergaard, M., Schendel, D., Wohlfahrt, J., Thorsen, P., et al. (2002). A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1477–1482. Mason, B., & Donnelly, P. (2000). Impact of a local newspaper campaign on the uptake of the measles mumps and rubella vaccine. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54(6), 473–474. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.54.6.473 Miller, D. L., & Ross, E. M. (1978). National childhood encephalopathy study: An interim report. British Medical Journal, 2(6143), 992–993. Mitra, T., Counts, S., & Pennebaker, J. (2016). Understanding anti-vaccination attitudes in social media [Paper presentation]. International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, North America. Retrieved October 9, 2021, from https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM16/paper/ view/13073 Montagni, I., Mabchour, I., & Tzourio, C. (2020). Digital gamification to enhance vaccine knowledge and uptake: Scoping review. JMIR Serious Games, 8(2), e16983. https://doi.org/10.2196/16983 Mooney, C. (2004, May 6). Think again: False objectivity in science reporting. Center for American Progress. Retrieved October 8, 2021, from http://www. americanprogress.org/issues/2004/05/b67755.html Motta, M., Callaghan, T., & Sylvester, S. (2018). Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning-Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes. Social Science & Medicine, 211, 274–281. Murphy-Marcos, C. (2021). United Airlines to fire workers who refused to get a vaccination. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/29/ business/united-­airlines-­vaccine-­mandate.html Nelkin, D. (1996). An uneasy relationship: The tensions between medicine and the media. The Lancet, 347(9015), 1600–1603. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-­6736(96)91081-­8 Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G.  L. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133(4), e835–e842. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-­2365 Opel, D. J., Taylor, J. A., Mangione-Smith, R., Solomon, C., Zhao, C., Catz, S., & Martin, D. (2011). Validity and reliability of a survey to identify vaccine-­ hesitant parents. Vaccine, 29, 6598–6605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. vaccine.2011.06.115 Palmer, C. (2021). Palmer responds to the TGA [Brochure]. Plotkin, S. (2014). History of vaccination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(34), 12283–12287.

  EDUCATING ABOUT MASS VACCINATIONS IN A POST-TRUTH ERA 

79

Plutzer, E., & Warner, S. B. (2021). A potential new front in health communication to encourage vaccination: Health education teachers. Vaccine, 39(33), 4671–4677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.06.050 Pouliot, C. (2008). Students’ inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: A case study. Science Education, 92, 543–559. Public Health England. (2020). e-Bug. Retrieved November 9, 2021, from https://www.e-­bug.eu/index.php?name=UK-­global-­teacher-­homepage Quick, J. D., & Larson, H. (2018, February 28). The vaccine-autism myth started 20 years ago. Here’s why it still endures today. Time. https://time. com/5175704/andrew-­wakefield-­vaccine-­autism/ Robinson, D., & Battenfield, A. (2020, March 24). The worst outbreaks in US history. Retrieved November 9, 2021, from https://www.healthline.com/ health/worst-­disease-­outbreaks-­history Rochel de Camargo, K., Jr. (2020). Here we go again: The reemergence of anti-­ vaccine activism on the Internet. Cad Saude Publica, 36(2), e00037620. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-­311X00037620 Sadaf, A., Richards, J. L., Glanz, J., Salmon, D. A., & Omer, S. B. (2013). A systematic review of interventions for reducing parental vaccine refusal and vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine, 31(40), 4293–4304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. vaccine.2013.07.013 Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93. Sadoh, A. E., Okonkwobo, C., Nwaneri, D. U., Ogboghodo, B. C., Eregiea, C., Oviawe, O., & Famuyiwa, O. (2018). Effect of peer education on knowledge of Human Papilloma Virus and cervical cancer among female adolescent students in Benin City, Nigeria. Annals of Global Health, 84(1), 121–128. https:// doi.org/10.29024/aogh.24 Schoeppe, J., Cheadle, A., Melton, M., Faubion, T., Miller, C., Matthys, J., & Hsu, C. (2017). The immunity community: A community engagement strategy for reducing vaccine hesitancy. Health Promotion Practice, 18(5), 654–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839917697303 Serow, P., Callingham, R., & Muir, T. (2019). Primary mathematics: Integrating theory with practice (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Shapiro, D. (2021). Teaching about vaccines. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://www.nsta.org/resources/teaching-­about-­vaccines Smith, T. C. (2017). Vaccine rejection and hesitancy: A review and call to action. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 4, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx146 Smith, N., & Graham, T. (2017). Mapping the anti-vaccination movement on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 22(9), 1310–1327. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1418406

80 

S. TAYLOR ET AL.

Solis-Moreira, J. (2020, December 15). How did we develop a COVID-19 vaccine so quickly? Medical News Today. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/ articles/how-­did-­we-­develop-­a-­covid-­19-­vaccine-­so-­quickly Tan, M.  T., & Matthews, K.  R. W. (2018). Scientific Misconceptions and Myths Perpetuated in the 2017 Texas Legislative Session (Issue brief no. 10.23.18). Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Taylor, B., Miller, E., Farrington, C. P., Petropoulos, M. C., Favot-Mayaud, I., Li, J., et al. (1999). Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: No epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet, 353, 2026–2029. Taylor, S., Rizk, N., Quinn, F., Coll, R. K., McClune, W., & Taylor, N. (2018). Subjective decision-making in healthcare: The case of vaccinations. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 26(5), 1–19. The Association for Science Education. (2021). Why you’ll never catch smallpox. Retrieved November 9, 2021, from https://www.schoolscience.co.uk/ whyyoullnevercatchsmallpox The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. (2021). History of vaccines. Retrieved October 7, 2021, from https://www.historyofvaccines.org/timeline/all Vally, H. (2019). What is herd immunity and how many people need to be vaccinated? The Conversation. Retrieved November 29, 2021, from https:// theconversation.com/what-­is-­herd-­immunity-­and-­how-­many-­people-­need-­to-­ be-­vaccinated-­to-­protect-­a-­community-­116355 Voices for Vaccines. (2015). Avoiding false balance: Vaccines in the media. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://www.voicesforvaccines.org/content/ uploads/2015/02/False-­Balance-­Toolkit-­VFV.pdf Wakefield, A. (2016). Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe [Documentary]. Autism media channel. Del Big Tree Production. Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A.  P., Thomson, M.  A., Harvey, P., Valentine, A., Davies, S.  E., & Walker-Smith, J.  A. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 352(9103), 637–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-­6736(97)11096-­0. (Retraction published 2010, The Lancet, 375(9713), 445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-­6736(10)60175-­4). Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387–1410. Wilson, K., Mills, E. J., Norman, G., & Tomlinson, G. (2005). Changing attitudes towards polio vaccination: A randomized trial of an evidence-based p ­ resentation versus a presentation from a polio survivor. Vaccine, 23(23), 3010–3015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.12.002

  EDUCATING ABOUT MASS VACCINATIONS IN A POST-TRUTH ERA 

81

Wilson, K., Atkinson, K., & Crowcroft, N. (2017). Teaching children about immunization in a digital age. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 13(5), 1155–1157. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2016.1271519 Wolfe, R., & Sharpe, L. K. (2002). Anti-vaccinationists past and present. The BMJ, 325(7361), 430–432. Yoost, J. L., Starcher, R. W., King-Mallory, R. A., Hussain, N., Hensley, C. A., & Gress, T.  W. (2017). The use of telehealth to teach reproductive health to female rural high school students. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 30(2), 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2016.10.002 Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Social and ethical issues in science education: A prelude to action. Science & Education, 17(8, 9), 799–803.

A Perspective on Drivers Impacting Science Teacher Preparation in Developing Countries William R. Veal, Patricia D. Morrell, Meredith A. Park Rogers, Gillian Roehrig, and Eric J. Pyle

Teachers are one of the most influential and powerful forces for equity, access and quality in education and key to sustainable global development. United Nations

W. R. Veal (*) The College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, USA e-mail: [email protected] P. D. Morrell The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia M. A. Park Rogers Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA G. Roehrig University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA E. J. Pyle James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. P. Thomas, H. J. Boon (eds.), Challenges in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_5

83

84 

W. R. VEAL ET AL.

Introduction A properly educated workforce is essential for a country’s growth and development. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) suggests that every $1 invested in an individual’s education is paid back 100–150% during that individual’s working life (Pro Bono News, 2012). In addition to addressing economic development, access to education is an equity concern. UNESCO (2015) states that “Education is a human right and a force for sustainable development and peace” and the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) #4 calls for “inclusive and equitable quality education [to] promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” by 2030 (UN, 2020). In order to achieve both these goals, teachers need to be passionate, equipped and knowledgeable, culturally sensitive, attentive to national standards, and familiar with a strong repertoire of pedagogical approaches. These qualities are dependent upon initial, high-quality teacher preparation programs (Darling-Hammond, 2021). Developing countries have embraced the UNESCO goals, resulting in a strong focus on public education. There has been a shift from simply measuring school attendance to examining student learning (The World Bank, 2019). This emphasis on student learning has resulted in efforts to maximize educational opportunities, such as increasing the length of time of free, compulsory education, and new policies related to the recruitment and preparation of teachers (Rizvi & Khamis, 2020). An ongoing concern is providing quality teachers to provide schooling for all students. Regardless of economic condition or geography, there is a clear connection between educational outcomes and teacher quality (Darling-­ Hammond et al., 2010; OECD, 2005, 2012). However, it is estimated that “only 85% of primary school teachers globally have been properly trained,” with untrained teachers typically working in developing countries (Reliefweb, 2020). While teacher preparation has become a policy focus internationally (Darling-Hammond, 2017), in many developing countries the educational requirements for entering the teaching profession “lack selectivity, and teacher entry-level qualifications might be set much lower than other professions” (The World Bank, n.d.). Additionally, the 2015 UNESCO educational summit asserted the need for a global focus on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education for global competitiveness, which has piqued this interest in science teacher

  A PERSPECTIVE ON DRIVERS IMPACTING SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION… 

85

preparation (STP) (Veal et al., 2022; Guerrero & Farruggio, 2012; Oz, 2021). Increased focus on the preparation of science teachers has become one way that countries have been able to focus on policies and initiatives related to STEM education. In addition, international tests that report results on science and mathematics achievement of students, such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), have provided the impetus for developing countries to improve their science education and STP (e.g., Schleicher, 2019). These international assessments are used by many countries to provide benchmarks for comparison with other countries, monitor a country’s progress/reform outcomes, and provide data for comparisons of demographics, program’s characteristics, and academic results (Mullis & Martin, 2012). Analysis of these international assessments reaffirms the importance of the need for highly qualified science teachers. For example, Thomson et al. (2003) found that teacher quality was significantly correlated with student performance on the TIMSS test. Thus, the preparation and development of pre-service science teachers are important to examine, particularly in developing countries where STP is often still in its infancy. As such, this chapter presents the findings of an examination of international STP practices, focusing on what is happening specifically in a select group of developing countries.

Theoretical Framework Policy initiatives related to STEM education are driven by the argument that economic development is intricately tied to education to prepare an educated workforce. Considering these connections, we chose a neoliberal perspective to frame our analysis. Neoliberalism is relevant as the ultimate goal of education policies is for countries to succeed economically and compete on an international level (Carney, 2009; Fernandez, 2018; Greenblatt, 2018; Guerrero & Farruggio, 2012). Neoliberal ideas in education “have been implemented in many countries in keeping with recommendations by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund” (as reported in Fernandez, 2018, p. 21). To succeed internationally, developing countries look to developed countries for economic guidelines and educational initiatives (Gupta, 2018). As such, a driving force to build a better educational system from a neoliberal framework is the borrowing of ideas (Fernandez, 2018).

86 

W. R. VEAL ET AL.

The purpose of government, from a neoliberal perspective, is to provide the minimum amount of interference in the operation of the market and enact only those policies and regulations that support market-driven competition. Competitiveness implies a sense of innovation, such that only those entities in the market that innovate are those that gain market advantage and, as a consequence, are successful. Often, science and mathematics and the related disciplines of technology and engineering (i.e., STEM) are viewed as critical areas for a country to invest in to achieve the innovation it desires to be globally competitive. Thus, within education, success is usually defined through policies related to high-stakes and international testing in these subject areas. However, the models that support the relationship between innovation, achievement, and funding are reductionist and intended to distill policies down to single variables that are assumed to have a linear correlation to the intended outcome (Carter, 2016). Public Choice Theory (PCT), as one aspect of neoliberalism, is based on the notion that government is not efficient at spending public money (Scheerens, 1997; Wright, 2012) and is subject to its own (or special interest groups’) self-interest (Loomis et al., 2008a). As applied to public education, Chubb and Moe (1990) contend that parent choice and competition between schools provide ‘consumer’ autonomy, superior student achievement, and ultra-personal democracy. In turn, competition will sort schools into those that are successful and those that are failing. From this perspective, the government’s function in the marketplace is to allocate public resources that match these market selections (Devine, 2005). In the context of this paper, PCT in educational policy is mirrored by the World Bank that stated, “The Bank’s preconditions for education can only be understood as an ideological stance, in promoting an integrated world system along market lines” (Jones, 1998). Simply put, this stance can be expressed as a series of consensus concepts (Carter & O’Neill, 1995) that include: 1. Improving national economics by closing linkages between education, employment, and market productivity inputs 2. Tying student outcomes to skills and competencies valued most for employment 3. Providing more direct control of curriculum and assessments to parents as consumers

  A PERSPECTIVE ON DRIVERS IMPACTING SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION… 

87

4. Reducing the overhead costs of education by restricting government bureaucracy 5. Facilitating more community input in school decision-making and market choice Parents, serving as rational actors in a marketplace, need information; thus, standards and metrics become an important source of the information they consider (Loomis et al., 2008a). As a result, the establishment and raising of performance standards for schools are important components of that information. In a public context, this is how the government enforces accountability of schools through standards. Standards for educational attainment, achievement, and school performance become the intended result, and all other policies, including school funding and teacher preparation, are expected to adhere to these goalposts if the workforce contribution to national competitiveness is to be attained. Freed from the restraints of inflexible bureaucracies, both parents and teachers are provided with an illusion of autonomy and of competitiveness (Wright, 2012). Considering these relationships together suggests a linear equation (Ball, 1998) similar to our representation in Fig. 1. Paradoxically, the neoliberal perspective that promotes opportunity through PCT also magnifies the accountability role of government, as it is best positioned to determine standards and curriculum for the purpose of gathering information for public choice. This also leads to the creation of standards, assessments, and accreditation policies across all levels of education, including post-secondary and teacher preparation programs; all of which a neoliberal perspective suggests are counterproductive and self-­ limiting (Hursh, 2005). Such market-focused rational approaches

Social markets/institutional devolution ↓ Raising standards of education performance ↓ Increased international competitiveness

Fig. 1  Linear relationship among neoliberal drivers

88 

W. R. VEAL ET AL.

produce a top-down, managerial model to ensure the goals set are reached by schools (Bates et al., 2021; Goldspink, 2007). However, what was predicted as the autonomy of schools to become more innovative, and thus more competitive, actually reduces choices by a drive to reach assessment goals derived largely from government policies (Wright, 2012). This effectively flattens the differences between publicly funded schools and private schools, with more affluent parents selecting private school options because they have the resources to do better when comparing school assessments. This is also expressed in teacher preparation with the more highly qualified or prepared teachers seeking schools with the best reputations and pay (Loomis et al., 2008b). As a result, the social equity function of education is abandoned in favor of national economic competitiveness. Policy drivers following a neoliberal perspective place education into a quasi-market condition, suggesting that a linear approach to education should work. Yet, while PCT creates the expectation of a linear set of benchmarks, policy development is non-linear by its nature (Blackmore, 1999). Most of the time, policies are a patchwork of different interests, interpretations, and dissemination, recognizing the ‘dispersion’ of relationships, practices, pedagogies, local values, and range of personal interests (Ball, 1994). Therefore, a linear approach to education reform does not take into account the multiple and diverse drivers needed for educational achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2006) and is ill-suited to complex problems. In this study, we examine how aspects of this tension between neoliberal perspectives and PCT are influencing STP in developing countries. Given that science is an important contributor to innovations and the global market, which developing countries are trying to contribute to in order to improve their economies, it is important to understand how a linear neoliberal approach to teacher education, and specifically STP, can or cannot deliver on the promise of economic competitiveness it claims it can provide (Scheerens, 1997).

Context of Study This study is part of a larger study of STP around the globe (Author, in review) that explored common themes across 17 developed and developing countries related to accreditation and structure of STP programs. This chapter focuses specifically on the 11 developing countries from the larger study. Classification based upon economic and income classification from

  A PERSPECTIVE ON DRIVERS IMPACTING SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION… 

89

the UN report World Economic Situation and Prospects (UN, 2020) was used to group countries that were similar, based upon economic and income characteristics. These economic classifications are a composite based on “basic economic conditions,” which includes the growth of Gross Domestic Product. The income classification is based upon the country’s “per capita GNI [gross national income], a human assets index and an economic vulnerability index” (UN, 2020, p. 164). Table 1 contains the economic and income classifications of the countries in this study. Data Collection and Analysis The specific selection of countries was purposeful and focused on those countries with whom we had contacts working in STP.  Contacts were former graduate students working as instructors or professors in teacher education at a university, research colleagues in science teacher education with whom we have collaborated previously on accreditation or writing projects, and science education contacts in K-12 schools and educational institutions. Some of these relationships were new, while others have been established for over 20 years. In five of the countries, there were two informants that provided data from the interview protocol. In the other six countries, only one informant provided interview data. Policy documents were both suggested by the informants and located by the researchers online. We wanted to learn from the perspectives of our colleagues who are living the experience of preparing science teachers about the influences Table 1  Listing of developing countries and their world economic and income classification Income classification

Geographic region

Country

High income

Asia

Republic of South Korea Israel Oman Chile South Africa Thailand Brazil Egypt Zimbabwe Pakistan Indonesia

Upper middle

Lower middle

South America Africa Asia South America Africa Asia

90 

W. R. VEAL ET AL.

on their STP programs. Therefore, we conducted 60-to-90-minute conversations with our colleagues, whom we refer to as informants in our descriptions below. The interview questions are provided in the Appendix. We are not situating these people as policy experts, as their research is not related to international policy education; nor are they associated/affiliated with any government systems in their countries that make the policy decisions about what is required to license or certify teachers. These contacts are mostly science teacher educators who teach science methods courses for initial certification. The informants also provided various policy documents or websites pertinent to our questions about accreditation and STP. Therefore, not all data are coming directly from the informants but represent a synthesis from what they talked about and other resources they provided for our review. We believe this approach to learning about STP from those who are ‘in the trenches’ of preparing science teachers provides a unique perspective on how the forces driving STP globally are being experienced similarly or differently across a range of developing countries of various income classifications. Data collection, policy retrieval, and interviews occurred over a ten-month period. Firstly, we compiled our interview responses and information retrieved from the documents/websites our informants shared with us into a spreadsheet organized by the interview questions. Secondly, we considered core features of the neoliberalism perspective and identified specific questions that focused on some of these same ideas; for example, government oversight (e.g., questions related to curriculum development and accreditation), competition (e.g., questions related to standards or testing), and autonomy or lack thereof (e.g., questions related to program requirements and pedagogical approaches). This process resulted in five of the seven main interview questions and few of their sub-questions being identified for further analysis. Questions 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 surfaced as the most germane to the purpose of the study. There were few details related to elementary science teacher preparation. Thus, we focused our data analysis on secondary STP. Thirdly, we read the responses to each of these questions across the 11 developing countries and identified themes based on similarities and differences. The analysis process included a grouping of countries under each theme that produced notable examples.

  A PERSPECTIVE ON DRIVERS IMPACTING SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION… 

91

Findings and Interpretations We have identified four salient themes that warrant in-depth discussion. We first present a summary of these themes, along with some examples from the developing countries highlighted/selected for in this chapter. Next, we share a summary of findings across the 11 countries based on STP.  The themes focus on the drivers we found impacting educational reforms. Building an Education System Following Independence Many of the countries we explored are relatively young countries, most often created following independence as a former colony. Under colonial rule, education for the local population was not a priority, and few people were educated or even literate. Upon gaining independence, these countries needed to establish economic independence and develop education systems. Neoliberal ideas were pervasive as these newly independent countries worked not only to develop their own economies but also to be able to compete on the international stage. For example, in 1947, the first leader, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, of independent Pakistan stated: There is an immediate and urgent need for giving scientific and technical education to our people in order to build up our future economic life…We should not forget that we have to compete with the world which is moving very fast in this direction. (Cited in Muborakshoeva, 2012, p. 77)

Unfortunately, none of these newly independent countries was positioned to deliver on this political rhetoric. For example, in 1947  in Pakistan, 80% of the population did not have access to modern schools (Anil, 2019). As the informant from Pakistan stated, “Ever since Pakistan came into being we had a lot of other teething issues like, for example, education for all is still a problem. Primary education for all, it’s still a problem, especially for girls.” Similarly, in Indonesia and Egypt, education became a focus with rapid increases in enrollment in elementary schools. This in turn created an unprecedented demand for elementary school teachers that also necessitated teacher preparation programs. Several countries had some infrastructure for teacher education. For example, the pribumi in Indonesia were established under Dutch rule to prepare elementary teachers for the local population. However, this was not even

92 

W. R. VEAL ET AL.

close to meeting the demand for new teachers. Subsequently, governments developed rapid certification processes. In 1951, the Indonesian government approved short courses provided to anyone with at least six years of basic education to fulfill the extreme demand for elementary teachers. Other countries, like Egypt, struggled to increase the reach of science education as stated by this university science educator: When Nasir was president of Egypt, he was trying to educate more students and enroll them into free education, but then things went out of hand because we needed a lot of teachers to step into the profession, but there were no universities at that point. The institutions who were supposed to prepare teachers were not equipped with the large number of teachers who were requested to come into the field.

Over time, each country has developed increasingly more rigorous requirements for teacher certification in an effort to address not just the quantity of teachers produced but also the quality. For example, in Indonesia, policies were changed in 1989 to require two years of university education for elementary teachers, as well as providing upgrades for in-service teachers. In the 1990s, a college degree was instituted as a requisite to teach in South Africa. As another example, in 2000, requirements in Egypt changed to more specific certification standards to address the large number of teachers working outside of their field of study. Zimbabwe did not get its independence until much later, but the result was the same. While the British influence on education remains in private schools, public schools have adopted a new system to produce scientifically literate citizens who can contribute to the economy. One informant, who was a K-12 science teacher, stated, “The reason we have developed the science program with STEM is to help the people grow and become better and competitive. Science is a way to get the students to become a part of the economy.” As a result, the government created teacher education standards for certification. Currently, there are not enough people going into science teaching. Mhishi et al. (2012) reported that most science teachers in rural schools in Zimbabwe “were either unqualified or required upgrading of their qualifications” (p. 73). There are programs to increase science teacher certification in rural areas of Zimbabwe through distance education. These programs focus on using local knowledge and training local people to become teachers in their communities while implementing these new teacher education standards.

  A PERSPECTIVE ON DRIVERS IMPACTING SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION… 

93

This changing landscape of policies related to teacher certification in turn created a series of changes in teacher preparation over time. As the number of faculties of teacher education increased, there was a parallel need to hire more teacher educators. As is the case in the K-12 system, the rapid demand for more teacher educators caused concerns about quality and resulted in the rapid expansion of private teacher education institutions in developing countries in addition to private K-12 schools. For example, in Zimbabwe, much of the teacher education occurs at private colleges that run as missionary stations with particular agendas. Additionally, the desire to compete in the global economy has promoted English as the desired language of instruction. At a private university in Oman and in graduate teacher education programs in South Africa, English is used as the language of instruction. Indeed, in Egypt, the rapidly growing private school system provides instruction in English, and teacher hiring prioritizes language proficiency over content preparation and teacher certification. Many governments, such as in Indonesia, have responded by sending their lecturers abroad to receive advanced degrees and improve the quality of teacher education. Other countries, for example, Pakistan and Egypt, rely on support from organizations such as USAID and World Bank to support advanced degrees for their teacher education faculty. The informant in Pakistan supported this by stating, “This was the time when the USAID project came into Pakistan, I am referring to this project because that project brought in a lot of change in teacher education.” This influence of developed countries on teaching and teacher education is discussed further in the next theme. Influences From Developed Countries While the countries described above have residual influences from their former colonial powers, the influence of developed countries is far more extensive. Developing countries look to developed nations for educational models, something Fernandez (2018) terms “policy borrowing” (p. 20). Borrowing includes curriculum, STP standards, accreditation measures, and K-12 curriculum. For example, K-12 science teaching in Indonesia is heavily influenced by policies and approaches from developed countries such as Finland, Japan, and the United States (U.S.). South Africa was influenced by outcome-based approaches being used in Australia in the 1990s. As another example of influences from developed countries on education policies, the Egyptian Ministry of Education is promoting

94 

W. R. VEAL ET AL.

technology integration in K-12 classrooms based on approaches employed in many developed countries, such as one-to-one device initiatives. These influences do not always result in meaningful outcomes, as the informant from Egypt described: The Education Vision 2.0 entails a lot of technology being incorporated and integrated into the system and a change of the curriculum itself. The Minister of Education always consults and brings in private companies from the UK and the US. I can’t even remember exactly the millions and billions of pounds spent on private companies to come in and make changes. But we find it problematic because we understand it has to be contextualized, you can’t just import examples from elsewhere.

In turn, this external aid and influence necessitate STP programs focusing their courses to make technology integration a central pillar of excellence. Specific to STP, Chile, Israel, Oman, South Africa, and South Korea have institutionalized perspectives of science-specific teacher accreditation and standards similar to those in developed countries. Some of these countries have adopted or developed their own science-specific standards (e.g., Chile and Israel) based upon the STP standards from the U.S. or directly adopted them from the accreditation body of the U.S. For example, one private university in Oman uses the STP standards directly from an accreditation body in the U.S. The adoption of STP standards has led to testing for teacher accreditation in some countries. A concern with adopting an outside educational system’s viewpoint is that it does not always mesh with the culture of the adopting country. As noted by Lee and Kaluarachchi (2020, p. 2), “what these education systems fail to address is the vast differences in culture, tradition and lifestyle that exist between developing nations and the Western world.” For example, in Muslim countries, there is a strong tradition of religious education that promotes memorization practices. However, the push to catch up with the economies of developed countries forced the adoption of developed countries’ approaches and a focus on technical and scientific education to promote economic development. This was exemplified in Oman at the private university in the preparation of their science teachers. As the informant stated, “We teach our students about inquiry and how to prepare their students to think and solve problems.” Economic drivers were the primary push to emulate developed country systems, with reformed

  A PERSPECTIVE ON DRIVERS IMPACTING SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION… 

95

classrooms, resources, curriculum, and even English as the language of instruction. The skills and content being taught to school students are not always in line with the existing economy of the country. So often, the workforce being educated is not prepared to assist with the local, equity, and social issues facing communities. These issues may be ignored, for example, with an emphasis placed on more neoliberal ideals of individual economic progress rather than promoting the existing welfare of the local community. Program Accreditation and Autonomy Across the 11 countries examined for this study, some form of accreditation, or assurance of quality, of teacher education programs existed, although some only within the last 5–10 years. The responsibility for identifying if program requirements were being met or what constitutes a quality program varies greatly but in all cases, the government is involved either directly or indirectly (through an appointed agency). This influence by the government suggests policies on STP program accreditation, and thus teacher quality, are not following core values of neoliberalism. In Brazil, for example, our informant stated, “The Ministry of Education should technically be overseeing the accreditation of private and public institutions, including visiting the institution. Thus, theoretically the Ministry of Education should also be warranting the standards of teaching and teacher preparation.” In another example, the Ministry of Education in South Korea applied national education standards to each teacher preparation program, and in Thailand, the Thailand Education Council accredits the schools of education every five years but is able to ‘spot-check’ a program at any time. In South Africa, the national government sets standards and accreditation practices for teacher preparation. These are assessed by the Council for Higher Education. As the informant stated, “The Council for Higher Education OKs it [teacher education program]. Do you have the facilities to offer the program, is your staff sufficiently qualified to offer the program, and they also have to ok the curricula and the contents of the curricula?” Similarly, in Zimbabwe a central university commissioned by the national government established the science standards used by all university preparation programs, and as such, these requirements influence how teacher educators design their syllabi for science methods courses. The university science educator stated, “We follow

96 

W. R. VEAL ET AL.

the guidelines of the Ministry and those are reflected in my syllabus for science methods.” There appears to be a sliding scale of autonomy in how developing countries design STP programs and, more specifically, syllabi for courses. Autonomy is dependent on the degree to which accrediting bodies dictate program structure and what evidence is needed to meet requirements. For example, the informant in Israel stated, “We have to teach the same courses but it is the grades that you have to submit to the Ministry of Education. The name of the course is there but everyone can design the course his own way.” In some countries, there are national exams teachers are required to take (e.g., South Korea, Israel, and Oman), or job placement exams (e.g., Thailand), and these can also determine the level of autonomy a teacher educator may have on what and how an STP is designed. In Egypt, the Supreme Council of Universities has determined the content of course syllabi based on what they determine is necessary for accreditation, leaving little autonomy for each institution to determine the nature of their STP. In contrast, in South Africa, the Council for Higher Education completes the accreditation. Individual programs are examined, based on whether the program is providing pre-service teachers with what is expected of a secondary science teacher. However, the driving force of what is taught in methods classes is based on the K-12 school curriculum. Because the accreditation is a national process but the teacher certification process is state-based, there is more autonomy afforded to individual teacher preparation programs to meet more localized needs. As accreditation influences what constitutes teacher quality, and this influence is driven by market economy and global competition, there appears to be less autonomy, and therefore choice, in developing countries’ STP programs. While a neoliberal perspective would suggest the promotion of autonomy concerning program development and implementation, this is not obvious in practice or policy. As seen in our data, the reliance of the education quasi market on meaningful data means that government entities retain a heavy influence on the structure and content of STP curricula. This influence drives STP providers in the same direction as schools; that is, away from potentially risky innovations that might not meet standards in the same manner or degree as traditionally presented practices. In creating a fantasy of autonomy, PCT actually creates a self-limiting situation such that STP providers have little choice but to adhere to the standards of accreditation and assessment as the government deems most needed for national market competitiveness.

  A PERSPECTIVE ON DRIVERS IMPACTING SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION… 

97

Competition Accreditation policies in some countries have also resulted in internal competition. In Indonesia, university ranking and subsequent funding is predicated by results of university-wide accreditation that includes the success of teacher education programs. In such cases, competition is for students and for access to funding for public teacher education programs. In some countries where teaching is seen as a highly regarded profession, entry into the teaching profession is selective as exemplified by entrance requirements to STP programs (e.g., South Africa, Oman, and South Korea). Some of these countries have teacher certification tests which drive competition between universities. For example, in South Korea, the number of students admitted to each teacher education program is based on the results of standing determined by a national accreditation process. This results in some private universities eliminating their teacher education programs due to a low score on their National College of Education Evaluation Test, resulting in unequal competition among universities. As the informant stated, “National universities are better at getting the good students from high school. Private universities are in local areas and find it hard to attract good students.” In other countries, the competition is also between public and private institutions. For example, in Pakistan, the more prestigious private universities prepare teachers who usually move directly into administration and leadership positions, skipping the classroom entirely. Alternatively, in Brazil, the state-run free public institutions are much more competitive to get into than private institutions. This leads to issues of inequity as to who is able to pursue post-secondary education; a concern especially for secondary science teacher education in Brazil which requires a degree in a science. Another area of competition, as illustrated by the informant in Brazil, is the establishment of “alternative pathways for science teachers.” The private, for-profit, universities have dominated the development of alternative programs in Brazil, which is a result of a neoliberal perspective. In addition to internal competition, external competition between countries was evident. Externally, countries use international test data (e.g., TIMSS, PISA) as a measure of their status in relation to other countries. Some countries explicitly address these rankings in their education reforms. For example, Egypt’s Strategic Plan 2030 specifically calls for Egypt to increase from 141 to 30 (out of 144) in primary education

98 

W. R. VEAL ET AL.

quality and increase from 41 to 20 (out of 48) on the TIMSS test. As addressed by the key informant in Egypt: International competition is definitely part of our Egypt Strategic Plan 2030. It actually shows that Egypt is adamant to make changes to the educational system. It has a very high goal; I would say maybe too optimistic and with little details about how this could be achievable. So, one indicator, which looks at Egypt’s rank in primary education, calls for our Quality Index value to increase, its 141 out of 144 countries and the target is actually to reach to up to the 30th level.

To address concerns about their ranking on TIMSS, the Indonesian government looked specifically to countries with high scores on TIMSS, such as Finland and Japan, to influence their education models. The informant from Indonesia stated: Unfortunately, Indonesia is always in the lower ranking [of PISA and TIMSS] and it actually influenced Indonesian regulation about the science education. So, they changed the paradigm, the government tried to combine, adopt, and adapt all the curriculum from Finland and Japan and United States; the United States has the most influence on the Indonesian curriculum actually. We don’t have our own curriculum model, so we tried to combine and mix to tackle this kind of problem regarding the PISA or TIMSS result.

In South Korea, the Ministry of Education, influenced in part by PISA test scores, is pushing STEAM education in teacher preparation. The informant stated that, “science educators have pressure about PISA because they looked at raising the country’s ranking.” Similarly, with respect to Thailand, there has recently been a greater push for STEM teacher education courses to have teachers prepared to engage students in a more integrated perspective to learning science with mathematics, technology, and engineering. This approach was taken because of a recognition that students were losing interest in science and mathematics, which was also being used to explain some of the decline in the science and mathematics on the PISA from 2012 to 2018 (OECD, 2018). The lack of high results on an international test can also potentially influence if a country will continue to receive feedback from an international test. As the informant in South Africa stated, “We always come last. We are slowly improving. At one point they were not going to do those anymore because we don’t do

  A PERSPECTIVE ON DRIVERS IMPACTING SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION… 

99

well in it.” The linear approach to producing one outcome measure as the indicator for science education has become detrimental for some countries, showing that a neoliberal approach to science education may not be the best approach.

Conclusion The themes presented in the results section point to a set of variables that influence drivers of STP in the different countries. While each theme was presented alone, there is overlap within different countries that emphasizes the connectivity of the variables. Drivers (e.g., a country’s history, influences from developing countries, program accreditation in determining teacher quality, and competition) that impact the preparation of science teachers vary among developing countries. When looking at these 11 countries, there is an inherent complexity to the implementation of STP policy initiatives, despite the drive to employ unitary policies from a neoliberal framework. From the set of countries explored, the status of teaching and becoming a teacher (standards and requirements) are similar within the income groups with few exceptions. For example, in the Upper Middle and Lower Middle income developing countries, the number of years of compulsory education has increased over time, which necessitated a need for more teachers. These countries have adopted a neoliberal framework toward education and implemented standards, accreditation, and STP programs to produce a certain output focused on competitiveness and a viable workforce. These can be considered quantitative outputs with government control and little free market functioning. In viewing the list of countries, the High-Income countries shape their education system through competition and accreditation, thus impacting the implementation of inputs like program requirements and syllabi. This can be seen in Egypt with the private schools and universities. In reality, the inputs or requirements are a set of diverse variables that must interact with one another, producing more of a mosaic of educational implementation. Neoliberal and Complex Systems Approaches There are many different and overlapping variables that influence STP that neoliberalism alone cannot explain. A neoliberal framework would suggest an algorithmic/linear approach to the implementation of science standards for pre-service programs and practicing teachers reinforced through

100 

W. R. VEAL ET AL.

robust non-governmental accreditation processes. However, the reality is governments are involved in determining the accreditation process as a driver and thus are influencing a plethora of other variables and how they are interacting with one another (e.g., competition in public vs. private teacher preparation programs, national examinations for teachers, and the design of science methods courses). Policy, as it stands now in most of these countries, is ill-equipped to handle the interaction of all the variables. Competition on the global stage raises the expectation that educational policies be developed and enacted that will ensure a technologically capable workforce. Operating under the guise of Public Choice Theory (PCT) (Aucoin, 1990; Stretton & Orchard, 1994; Udehn, 1996), education providers are put in competition with one another, with resources being provided to those entities that are innovative and thus successful and being denied to those that are not. The models that support the relationship among innovation, achievement, and funding are reductionist and intended to distill policies down to a single variable that will, when impacted, deliver the intended linear result. Standards for educational attainment, achievement, and school performance become the intended result, and all other policies, including school funding and teacher preparation, are expected to adhere to this standard if the workforce’s contribution to national competitiveness is to be attained. In practice, however, the expected result is seldom delivered, despite considerable time, effort, and financial resources. In fact, there is a certain perverseness to widening of gaps in achievement or school outcomes between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots,’ both between and within national entities. This problem is exacerbated within developing economies seeking to grow and become more competitive, investing greater resources in exactly the type of linear approaches that have failed to deliver elsewhere. This failure to become more competitive is not attributed to the failure of the model itself, but a failure of education policies. For PCT to work, even more stringent policies would need to be enacted so as to deliver on the expected educational goals the linear model predicts. Market competitiveness presupposes that the model is correct and, therefore, fidelity to the general model must be enforced through government policy, this in turn negating a core principle of neoliberalism. Developing countries look toward developed economies as models. Consequently, education systems are often becoming adopted as a means toward economic progress (Lee & Kaluarachchi, 2020; Senin et al., 2021). Upper Middle and Lower Middle Income developing countries are trying

  A PERSPECTIVE ON DRIVERS IMPACTING SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION… 

101

to grow their education system by ‘borrowing’ standards and curriculum from other countries that they view as having achieved a successful educational outcome. Sometimes this will work for a country, but countries largely have independent education goals, different societal needs, and policy initiatives that influence how well the different variables interact with one another. In the Upper Middle and Lower Middle-income countries, education is becoming compulsory for more years, which necessitates a need for more qualified teachers. This one input does have a direct output, but the process of how to get to that output varies among the countries studied. No single solution can adequately capture the interactions in an educational system, and as a result, a linear approach will always fall short of the desired pattern and serve as a blunt instrument (Holland, 1995). Complex systems approaches have demonstrated themselves to be impactful in the expected ways at different scales, from the individual school level (Goldspink, 2007) to major urban environments (Jacobson et al., 2019; Lemke & Sabelli, 2008; Maroulis et al., 2010; White & Levin, 2016). Social Justice While not a focus of this study, it was evident that issues related to social justice were not being considered as a driver nor variable when examining or describing STP. A systems approach allowed this theme to emerge. For example, in order to explain how issues of equity, social justice, advocacy, and race are infused into STP programs, governments and leaders need to be explicit about these aspects in the policy statements that certify teachers. Who gets to be educated, and even who gets to be educated as a teacher of science, and the quality of that education at all levels, often varies depending on socioeconomic status, race, and gender (UNESCO, 2018). Rather than education leveling the playing field, market-based approaches may actually exacerbate achievement gaps, and thus acceptances into some universities. This pattern holds for most developing countries, especially in small villages and regional population areas away from cities (Mhishi et al., 2012). Thus, the “unequal and stratified educational system” and “systems of power and privilege” are perpetuated (Fernandez, 2018, p. 6). In order for STP to succeed in the future, social justice issues need to be included in the theoretical lens of the programs, government policy documents, and science methods courses. This is due

102 

W. R. VEAL ET AL.

to the fact that every country studied was built upon a diverse ethnic, social, religious, and cultural mixture of people. Looking Forward In considering a future-oriented, non-linear approach to science education in general and STP in particular, one should start with consensus on the current pattern that has resulted from the neoliberal approach. Campbell’s ‘law’ (Campbell, 1979) summarizes how market-driven standards of performance distort the meaning and effectiveness of these standards: The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-­making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor. (p. 85)

A complex systems approach to policy does not impose a deterministic outcome, and is in fact, incapable of doing so. As a result, ‘distortion’ of the outcome is not possible. What it can do is describe emergent patterns and the role and interactions of the drivers of the system over time. However, this would require substantial change in policy makers’ thinking and how governmental authority is applied or devolved. Education, when viewed as a resource rather than a commodity, is renewed by government funding and by new teachers entering the system. In contrast to the neoliberal ideal of competition increasing value through innovation, self-­ interest and competition ultimately degrade the resource of education to the point of collapse, denying an equitable education for everyone. The government then becomes the top-down sanctioning agent to enforce rules of use and benefit, which is exactly what neoliberalism seeks to suppress. What can occur in education, given appropriate channels for communication among the participants/actors/users, is the emergence of self-­ organizing structures of performance, renewal, reward, and sanction. However, if the assumption is that the state alone is to monitor and enforce the rules, the development of local or regional norms for designing, testing, and adjusting education and STP governance is devalued. In order to

  A PERSPECTIVE ON DRIVERS IMPACTING SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION… 

103

increase perceived benefits among participants in the education system, the participants themselves need some level of autonomy to define and enforce local norms. Negotiation of tiered norms requires a common understanding of the complex nature of the interaction of resources within the system and the benefits of the emergent pattern if they are to ultimately value the sustainability of the education system. Real-world examples of the establishment and interaction of tiered norms are seen in water resources and ecosystems management in developing countries, such that the systems are sustainable with clear, high-level national goals, and support for locally derived systems of implementation, measurement, and enforcement. One locality’s solution may look different than the next, but the general pattern of sustainability toward meeting the high-level outcomes will look more similar at scale. In education, this outcome is observed in studies in South Australia (Goldspink, 2007), such that norms based on the acceptance of change, introspection on internal world-views, motivational resources, and shared responsibility for actions and outcomes are accepted rather than imposed. Shortfalls from expectations are taken as opportunities to adjust system inputs rather than opportunities for external sanctions. The result is a sustainable pattern of educational success for teachers and their students. We propose that, with respect to educational policy, the linear neoliberal model fails to deliver the desired outcomes because the educational policy-scape is non-linear by its nature. How, for example, can a linear model account for students’ socioeconomic status, staffing levels, historical resourcing for schools by location, teacher preparation and credentials, standards, accreditation, opportunities for teacher professional learning, etc., and reasonably expect a deterministic outcome? As science teacher educators, we view the complexity of this issue from the perspective of complex systems in science, meaning consideration must be given not only to the drivers and variables of the system but also to the interactions between these drivers and variables for the system to work (Hmelo-Silver & Azevedo, 2006; Jacobson et al., 2019; Lemke & Sabelli, 2008). A neoliberal policy approach cannot provide what is necessary in most countries and would be better informed by a complex systems approach.

104 

W. R. VEAL ET AL.

Appendix Interview Questions . How is the teaching profession viewed in your country? 1 2. Does your country view itself in competition with other countries in terms of science/STEM education? For example, international assessment (PISA)? For example, workforce issues and drivers? For example, competition within your own regions (such as European Union)? 3. Have the historical and/or cultural roots of your country influenced science teacher preparation? For example, former colony? Former Soviet bloc? Muslim country? 4. Who in your country is responsible for certifying/licensing/registering teachers? • Does this entity offer different pathways of certification? • Are primary teachers able to be certified with a specialization in science? What does that involve? • Can people teach in areas they are not certified to teach? How does that process work in your country? 5. Does your country have an accreditation process for institutions of higher education that prepares teachers? If yes, who is responsible for administering this and what does the process look like? • What are the requirements or standards within the accreditation process specific to science teacher preparation? • Are there differences in requirements for primary and secondary science teacher preparation? 6. Are there external influences or policies that impact your science teacher preparation programs? • Is there a national curriculum that influences…?

  A PERSPECTIVE ON DRIVERS IMPACTING SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION… 

• Are there teacher testing/assessment requirements influence…? • Are there employment hurdles that influence…?

105

that

7. Based on these policies and accreditation procedure, how much autonomy do you have to design a science teacher preparation program at your institution? • What are the mandatory courses and experiences for primary teachers learning to teach science? • What are the mandatory courses and experiences for secondary teachers learning to teach science?

References Anil, K. (2019). Teacher education in Pakistan. In K. G. Karras & C. C. Wolhuter (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education worldwide (Vol. 2, pp. 675–692). HM Studies and Publishing. Aucoin, P. (1990). Administrative reform in public management: Paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums. Governance, 3(2), 115–137. Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Open University Press. Ball, S. J. (1998). Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, 34(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050069828225 Bates, A., Choi, T., & Kim, Y. (2021). Outsourcing education services in South Korea, England and Hong Kong: A discursive institutionalist analysis. Compare, 51(2), 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1614431 Blackmore, J. (1999). Editorial: Teacher professionalism – Collaborative and/or collegial work? Australian Educational Researcher, 26(2), i–vi. Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Education and Program Planning, 2, 67–90. Carney, S. (2009). Negotiating policy in an age of globalization: Exploring educational “Policyscapes” in Denmark, Nepal, and China. Comparative Education Review, 53(1), 63–88. Carter, L. (2016). Neoliberalism and STEM Education. Journal of Activist Science & Technology Education, 7(1), 31–41. Carter, D. S. G., & O’Neill, M. H. (1995). International perspectives on educational reform and policy implementation. Falmer. Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. The Brookings Institute.

106 

W. R. VEAL ET AL.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 120–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105283796 Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399 Darling-Hammond, L. (2021). Defining teaching quality around the world. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(3), 295–308. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/02619768.2021.1919080 Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.  C., & Andree, A. (2010, August). How high-­ achieving countries develop great teachers. Standard Center for Opportunity policy in Education Research Brief. Devine, N. (2005). Is analytic Marxism possible? A ‘socialist’ interpretation of Public Choice Theory. Philosophy of Management, 5(2), 89–95. Fernandez, M. B. (2018). Framing teacher education: Conceptions of teaching, teacher education, and justice in Chilean national politics. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(34), 1–33. Goldspink, G. (2007). Transforming education: Evidential support for a complex systems approach. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 9(1–2), 1–18. Greenblatt, D. (2018). Neoliberalism and teacher certification. Policy Futures in Education, 16(6), 804–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210318771827 Guerrero, M.  D., & Farruggio, P. (2012). Neoliberal teacher preparation: Conceptualising a response in the US borderlands. Education Inquiry, 3(4), 553–568. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v3i4.22053 Gupta, A. (2018). How neoliberal globalization is shaping early childhood education policies in India, China, Singapore, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Policy Futures in Education, 16(1), 11–28. Hmelo-Silver, C.  E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_7 Holland, J.  H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Addison-Wesley. Hursh, D. (2005). Neo-liberalism, markets, and accountability: Transforming education and undermining democracy in the United States and England. Policy Futures in Education, 3(1), 3–15. Jacobson, M. J., Levin, J. A., & Kapur, M. (2019). Education as a complex system: Conceptual and methodological implications. Educational Researcher, 48(2), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19826958 Jones, P. W. (1998). Globalisation and internationalism: Democratic prospects for world education. Comparative Education, 34, 143–155. Lee, K., & Kaluarachchi, J. (2020). Western education in developing countries: Why it isn’t as beneficial as we might think. Melbourne Microfinance

  A PERSPECTIVE ON DRIVERS IMPACTING SCIENCE TEACHER PREPARATION… 

107

Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.melbournemicrofinance.com/new-­ blpog/2020/15/9/western-­education-­developing-­countries Lemke, J. L., & Sabelli, N. H. (2008). Complex systems and educational change: Towards a new research agenda. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-­5812.2007.00401.x Loomis, S., Rodriguez, J., & Tillman, R. (2008a). Developing into similarity: Global teacher education in the twenty-first century. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(3), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02619760802208288 Loomis, S., Rodriguez, J., Tillman, R., & Gunderson, J. (2008b). The logic of convergence and uniformity in teacher production. Teaching Education, 19(1), 1–10. Maroulis, S., Guimerà, R., Petry, H., Stringer, M.  J., Gomez, L.  M., Amaral, L. A. N., & Wilensky, U. (2010). Complex systems view of educational policy research. Science, 330, 38–39. Mhishi, M., Bkukuvhani, C.  E., & Sana, A.  F. (2012). Science teacher training programme in rural schools: An ODL lesson from Zimbabwe. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(1), 72–86. Muborakshoeva, M. (2012). Islam and higher education: Concepts, challenges, and opportunities (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203117873 Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (2012). Using TIMSS and PIRLS to improve teaching and learning. Recherches en education. https://doi. org/10.4000/ree.5835 OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. https://doi.org/10.1787/19901496 OECD. (2012). Equity and quality in education: Supporting disadvantaged students and schools (Vol. 9789264130). https://doi.org/10.178 7/9789264130852-­en OECD. (2018). Country note: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results from PISA 2018. Available at https://www.oecd.org/pisa/ publications/PISA2018_CN_THA.pdf Oz, E. (2021). Comparability of teachers’ educational background items in TIMSS: A case from Turkey. Large-scale Assessment in Education, 9, 4. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s40536-­021-­00097-­2 Pro Bono News. (2012, October 16). Education failure in developing countries – Report. https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2012/10/education-­failurein-­developing-­countries-­report/ Reliefweb. (2020, February 7). 20 reasons why, in 2020, there are still 260m children out of school. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/20-­reasons-­why2020-­there-are-­still-­260m-­children-­out-­school Rizvi, N. F., & Khamis, A. (2020). Review of DFID and USAID initiatives for the development of teacher education in Pakistan. Compare, 50(8), 1210–1221.

108 

W. R. VEAL ET AL.

Scheerens, J. (1997). Conceptual models and theory-embedded principles on effective schooling. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(3), 269–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345970080301 Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and interpretations. OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20 Interpretations%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf Senin, M. S., bin Nordin, M. N., Abidin, N. Z., Fauzi, A., & Roni, M. (2021). Teacher education: Issues and considerations between Malaysia and Australia. Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, 32(3), 4797–4803. Stretton, H., & Orchard, L. (1994). Public goods, public enterprise, public choice: Theoretical foundations of the contemporary attack on government. Palgrave Macmillan. The World Bank. (2019, January 22). The education crisis: Being in school is not the same as learning. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/ i m m e r s i v e - s t o r y / 2 0 1 9 / 0 1 / 2 2 / p a s s -­o r-­f a i l -­h o w -­c a n -­t h e -­w o r l d do-­its-­homework The World Bank. (n.d.). Teachers. https://www.worldbank.org/en/ topic/teachers Thomson, S., Lokan, J., Stephen, L., & Ainley, J. (2003). Lessons from the third international mathematics and science study. https://research.acer.edu.au/ timss_monographs/9 Udehn, L. (1996). The limits of public choice: A sociological critique of the economic theory of politics. Routledge. UNESCO. (2015). Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. http://uis. unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-­2 030-­i ncheon-­ framework-­for-­action-­implementation-­of-­sdg4-­2016-­en_2.pdf UNESCO. (2018). 2017/8 Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. Global Education Monitoring Report. https://en.unesco.org/gem-­ report/report/2017/accountability-­education United Nations. (2020). World economic situation and prospects 2020 (pp. 165–169). Retrieved June 14, 2021, from https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-­content/uploads/sites/45/publication/WESP2020_ FullReport_web.pdf Veal, W. R., Morrell, P. D., Park Rogers, M., Roehrig, G. H., & Pyle, E. J. (2022). Preparing science teachers across the world. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 11(1), 137–157. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jtee/ issue/69772/1002980 White, D. G., & Levin, J. A. (2016). Navigating the turbulent waters of school reform guided by complexity theory. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 13(1), 43–80. Wright, A. (2012). Fantasies of empowerment: Mapping neoliberal discourse in the coalition government’s school policy. Journal of Education Policy, 27(3), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2011.607516

Everyday Science for Building Schoolchildren’s Informed Agency for Action Helen J. Boon and Donna Rigano

Introduction Published before the global coronavirus pandemic, the United Nations Environment Programme’s sixth Global Environment Outlook (GEO-6) (Messerli et al., 2019) documents that the overall environmental situation globally is deteriorating rapidly, leaving an increasingly closing window for action. The report urgently emphasizes what has been commonly understood for a long time but is now even more obvious in light of the global pandemic that has been battering countries worldwide since late 2019. Namely, a healthy environment is both a prerequisite and a foundation for economic prosperity, and human health and well-being. It addresses the main challenge of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015) that no one is left behind, and that all should live healthy, fulfilling lives for the full benefit of all, for both present and future generations. Pressing challenges which are likely to become more urgent for future generations include global population explosion, rampant

H. J. Boon (*) • D. Rigano James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. P. Thomas, H. J. Boon (eds.), Challenges in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_6

109

110 

H. J. BOON AND D. RIGANO

urbanization, economic contractions fueling trade wars, diverse conflicts resulting in large-scale migration and refugee surges, direct and indirect results of climate change; the wicked problems of our era (Glenn et al., 2007; Head, 2019; OECD, 2015). Future generations, the children of today, need to be prepared to respond to a world beset by such challenges and to be able to make informed decisions that will secure the aforementioned economic prosperity, and human health and well-being. Since the 1970s, students’ emerging identities have been characterized as future consumers, future workers, and taxpayers (Molnar, 1996) and, as such, an ethical imperative emerges to ensure that they are accurately informed and prepared to respond to decisions about matters that affect them across all domains of life. This ethical imperative emerges from notions of intergenerational justice— what do we owe to future generations? (Byskov et  al., 2021). Coupled with this point is that children and youth need to be well informed because it is evident that they have political power that can manifest in activism. Greta Thunberg is a recent powerful example of youth activism through her protest in the context of lack of governmental action on the climate crisis. And there have been others, for example, the Children’s March by over 1000 school students in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963 to talk to the mayor about segregation in their city. Such initiatives are driven by children’s and youths’ emergent agency.

Agency Agency, the socio-psychological construct, refers to the development and growth of one’s capacity to act purposefully in socially constructed interactions with the intent of effecting change (Holland et al., 2001). Agency is characterized by one’s assessment of their capacity to control their actions and their outcomes, or the feeling that as an agent, they can control outcomes in the environment through their actions (Ben Yehuda, 2019; Zacarian & Silverstone, 2020). Agency is fostered through specific learning experiences and interactions with others that slowly build one’s confidence to critically examine or investigate particular issues so that people can enact specific actions for change, such as, for example, initial participation in citizen science programs which lead students to demonstrate environmental science agency via activism or other conservation actions. Youths enact environmental science agency when they use scientific knowledge and investigations and

  EVERYDAY SCIENCE FOR BUILDING SCHOOLCHILDREN’S INFORMED… 

111

feel capable of supporting environmental activism (Ballard et  al., 2017; Walsh & Cordero, 2019). Children’s agency grows through early schooling activities. It is connected to initiatives for children and children’s own initiatives and evolves via interaction with others and the sociocultural environment (Edwards & D’Arcy, 2006). That is, children’s agency increases as they engage in activities initiated by others and as they mimic and independently practice those activities. Therefore, agency develops in situ and over time, and it is evident when learners copy or repeat a learned activity but also, critically, transform it (Kajamaa & Kumpulainen, 2019). A focus on children’s socio-scientific agency is important in building children’s confidence to engage in activities on matters that influence their everyday life, such as nutrition, health, and pollution. It is doubly important in the context of the wicked problems facing future generations because to respond to the issues that matter in their lives as informed citizens, children need scientific thinking (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Sharma, 2007). Furthermore, from a pedagogical perspective, student agency through science learning reflects a shift in science education toward understanding science learning as a complex, transformative social activity (Arnold & Clarke, 2014). Agency helps learners to raise questions around particular issues with greater confidence; questions such as, “What do we need to know?”, “What should we do?”, “On what grounds should we base our actions?”, and “Why should we be the agents of change?” An example that illustrates the importance of science education on children’s resulting agency is a study conducted with elementary children in Uganda (Nsangi et al., 2017). The researchers of this study were interested in helping elementary school children select accurate health advice because in Uganda there are multiple lay claims about the efficacy of remedies for a range of medical problems, including HIV. The study used a two-group cluster-randomized trial with over 10,000 year 5 pupils in 120 elementary schools in the central region of Uganda. The aim was to see if children were better able to assess claims about the effects of health treatments after a school science intervention using a range of learning resources. The intervention consisted of lessons addressing 12 concepts the children needed to learn, understand, and apply so they could assess claims about treatment effects and make informed health choices. The concepts addressed centered around fair tests and recognizing the need for fair comparisons of treatments, judging whether a comparison of treatments was a fair comparison, understanding the role of chance,

112 

H. J. BOON AND D. RIGANO

considering all the relevant fair comparisons, understanding the results of fair comparisons of treatments, and judging whether fair comparisons of treatments are relevant in the context of interest. The results of the study showed vast improvements in the children’s ability to discriminate between proposed health remedies for a range of medical issues, with a 40% improvement shown in the intervention group of children compared to the control group. The onus for increasing children’s agency, agency that will serve them into the future, rests primarily with their parents, their caregivers, and teachers. This is because children’s beliefs, values, confidence, and agency develop in the early years through their interactions and experiences at home and at school, as Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory of development posits (Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). Overall, belief and values’ development depend on the interactions of physical, environmental, economic, and social factors, the very elements which themselves create wicked problems. Bronfenbrenner’s theory accounts for, and assigns according to strength of effect, all possible sources of influence upon the development of a child’s values, beliefs, and agency. Figure 1, constructed by the authors to summarize and illustrate Bronfenbrenner’s theories, indicates the different levels from which influences arise to affect one’s development and functioning. The theory posits that an individual’s experiences within the various systems interact with their genetic makeup to mold their development, perceptions, behavior, values, and, as a corollary, their agency (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). It is clear that the strongest influences upon children, particularly in the early years, emanate from parents and teachers, the actors in what Bronfenbrenner defines as the microsystem. The terms used in Fig. 1 are defined as follows: Microsystem  – strongest influences on the individual; home, school, neighborhood Mesosystem  – combined effects of microsystems reinforcing influences upon the individual Exosystem  – facilities, organizations available to the individual or their family, environmental features (river, forest, urban) Macrosystem – policies, values, geographical location, the cultural fabric of one’s society, which can support or challenge the individual Chronosystem – time as it relates to events in the individual’s environment

  EVERYDAY SCIENCE FOR BUILDING SCHOOLCHILDREN’S INFORMED… 

113

Macrosystem Societal, Cultural, Political

family

Welfare

Hospitals

Community based services

INDIVIDUAL

neighborhood

Media

Economy

workplace

Microsystem Church

Exosystem

Fig. 1  Conceptual scheme of Bronfenbrenner’s systems and their interactions embedded in the individual’s environmental context

Notwithstanding the above, it is of no surprise that the home, a microsystem entity, is not a consistently positive influence when it comes to exposure to science activities. Parents often feel like they lack the confidence and knowledge they need to support their young children’s science learning (Silander et al., 2018). Moreover, this view is especially prevalent among parents with low incomes who often value learning but have limited opportunities to learn and engage in science with young children, either inside or outside of school. Such home effects persist because science achievement disparities that begin early in children’s lives only increase in later school years (Raynal et al., 2021). In general, children’s excitement for science activities is at its peak when they enter school. Then, as they begin secondary school and commence puberty, their engagement with science appears to wane (e.g., Christidou,

114 

H. J. BOON AND D. RIGANO

2011; Wang & Eccles, 2012; Sinatra et al., 2015). It has been documented that student interest in science at age ten has been shown to be high, with minimal gender differences (Murphy & Beggs, 2005). Research has shown that the point of decline begins when students are aged 10/11 (Christidou, 2011; Murphy & Beggs, 2005). This decline is serious and clearly requires attention from curricula designers and teacher educators to provide teachers of secondary science with resources and skills to encourage adolescents to engage more readily in science. Nonetheless, it is imperative that young children are encouraged to engage in school science through activities and teaching that is accessible, relatable, and transformative. Experiencing science activities that are directly relevant to their lives is important so they can become acculturated to scientific thinking early on. Children will then retain a way of looking at the world around them with a lens that is grounded in critical thinking, allowing them from an early age to develop the agency that is required to promote, and act in, ecologically sustainable ways that will serve them throughout secondary school and into adulthood. The responsibility for forging such interest and engagement in science, along with a concomitant growth of agency, falls within the remit of elementary school teachers. Until recently, teachers in the elementary sector have been found to be disinclined to pursue science teaching in the classroom or to limit it severely. This situation is seen in Australia as well as in the US, where a survey showed that 67% of elementary teachers reported feeling unprepared to teach any science (Banilower et  al., 2013). Various reasons to explain this have been proposed. In Australia, for example, pre-service teachers training for the elementary sector of schooling have been able to enter degree programs with little to no secondary science qualifications. Further, prior research has documented that pre-service teachers have poor K-12 school science experiences, leading to the emergence of negative science beliefs, which in turn affect their classroom instructional practices (Kazempour & Sadler, 2015). Compounding these negative experiences, pre-service teacher science content courses tend to consist of pedagogy that is instructor-centered, mainly using lectures, readings, and worksheets, all of which promote rote memorization but lead to poor science understanding and knowledge (Trundle et al., 2002; Appleton, 2003).

  EVERYDAY SCIENCE FOR BUILDING SCHOOLCHILDREN’S INFORMED… 

115

Elementary Education Reforms for Teaching Science in Australia Elementary teachers are key to success in science because of the instrumental role they play in nurturing young students’ knowledge and attitudes toward science (Goodrum & Rennie, 2007; Rennie et al., 2001). Hence, since 2019, pre-service teachers wishing to specialize in elementary education in Australia must have successfully completed a secondary-­ level science course, such as chemistry, biology, or physics, before gaining entry to a Bachelor of Education degree course. Moreover, in order to graduate, elementary teachers now have to specialize in a specific teaching area, for example, English and literacy, mathematics, technologies, or science, much like those training to teach in secondary schools (Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), 2019). This means that as of 2019, across Australia, there is now a science specialization strand offered for prospective elementary teachers (AITSL, 2019). This welcome and timely reform has led to a swathe of science subjects that an elementary science specialist must complete to be prepared to tackle science teaching in elementary classrooms with more confidence and skill. In an endeavor to support those specializing in elementary science at James Cook University, we introduced into the degree leading to a science specialization strand a course to enable prospective elementary teachers to bring science into elementary children’s daily deliberations and actions. The course’s content is designed to assist elementary pre-service teachers, who typically lack confidence in science, to not only deliver effective science instruction but also take a leadership role in promoting and supporting science in their school. The course was implemented for the first time in 2021. The instruction that was used to deliver the course was designed to promote science teaching confidence and agency in the classroom, as proposed by Menon and Sadler (2018). Incorporating blended learning approaches, it included strategies and course-related factors that enhanced science conceptual understanding, invited active learning experiences, illustrated teaching strategies, and instituted the instructor as a role model. The intention behind all these elements was to increase science-teaching confidence and facilitate the building of agency in the pre-service teachers so that they, in turn, become better prepared to assist in building science agency in their future students. The course structure aimed to demonstrate to pre-service

116 

H. J. BOON AND D. RIGANO

teachers how to enable their students to draw on science knowledge and thinking in their everyday lives.

Science in Context for Elementary Science Specialists Undergraduate pre-service teachers who wish to become elementary science specialists at James Cook University undertake a four-year program of study comprising four courses: two science content courses, for example, chemistry, biology, geology, or physics, a core curriculum pedagogy course, and the specifically designed elementary science specialist course. The core pedagogy course focuses on interpreting the science curriculum, instructional decision-making, classroom management, and lesson planning. The science specialist course offers opportunities for pre-service teachers’ in-depth exploration and mastery of science concepts and skills through accessible everyday contexts, using models of pedagogical strategies for their future use in elementary school. Instructional Design The specialist course runs for 12 weeks in the first semester of the third year of the degree program. The course comprises of lectures blended with online coursework and practical sessions. In its first iteration, the second author conducted all the teaching. The course was designed by both authors to follow constructivist principles where pre-service teachers are guided to make meaning through experiential learning. Inquiry-based learning in science gives learners opportunities to practice investigation skills within an authentic context, leading to deep conceptual understanding and improved attitudes toward science (Bergman & Morphew, 2015; Tessier, 2010). As such, materials based on everyday applications of science were organized into weekly modules aligned with the 5-E Model of science instruction (Bybee, 2002): Engage: Explore:

Online content to orient pre-service teachers to the weekly topic Independent study where pre-service teachers undertake guided online learning activities related to science content

  EVERYDAY SCIENCE FOR BUILDING SCHOOLCHILDREN’S INFORMED… 

117

Explain:

Face-to-face session where the instructor presents pedagogical approaches for science teaching and explains key science concepts Elaborate: Face-to-face laboratory-based session where the instructor models translating science content into hands-on activities that pre-service teachers undertake Evaluate: Weekly tasks that alternately assess content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge This newly designed specialist course differs from the core science pedagogy course in that the focus is on learning designed to appeal to learners’ interests and, most importantly, to demonstrate real-world application of science concepts. For example, the topic of electrical circuits is contextualized by exploring how a touch screen works. Other contexts include forensic science, crumple zones, kitchen chemistry, and our place in the cosmos. Pre-service teachers in the first cohort who undertook the course reported, as exemplified by Sam (all students’ names are pseudonyms), that they found the content “Extremely relevant and practical for the classroom…and as such one of the more engaging subjects I’ve had at university.” Brief Outline of Science in Context for Primary Science Specialists Course Contents Table 1 provides an outline of the ten course modules and their respective broad focus areas. Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of the Course ‘Science in Context for Primary Science Specialists’ The course was delivered for the first time in 2021 at James Cook University. The small first cohort of pre-service teachers who undertook the specialist science course (N = 5) were young, typically aged 23 years, having entered university directly following their high school studies. In Australian high schools, science must be studied to Grade 10 (junior) level. Science is not compulsory during the final two years (senior) of high school, but a science subject is a prerequisite to enter the Bachelor of Education program. The pre-service teachers in this cohort had studied biology, physics, or chemistry to senior level. By the time the course

118 

H. J. BOON AND D. RIGANO

Table 1  Science in context for primary science specialists course contents Module Name

Brief outline of content

 1

Genetic modification; genetic modifications in the food chain; corn chip fair test; socio-scientific issues

 2

Are mutants taking over the world? Whodunit?

 3

Kitchen science

 4

The hobbit and human evolution The brain and drugs

 5

 6  7

 8

 9 10

Car crashes and crumple zones We are star stuff

How does a touch screen work? It’s a disaster! Deep dive

Forensic science; strawberry DNA extraction; chemistry in the laboratory; chemical analysis; analytical tests States of matter; chemical and physical change; making ice cream; growing yeast; concept maps Predictable bones; scientific literacy and the use of evidence in making claims; reading and writing scientifically A brainy solution (a chemical sleuthing activity); blood alcohol simulation investigation; integrating information; deductive and inductive thinking Egg-drop crumple zone experiment; the physics of motion, momentum, and gravity; energy and inertia The solar system; the earth-moon-sun system; the expanding universe; do the stars move? Moon craters; models and representations Electrical circuits; Lego haptics

Tsunamis; making waves; modeling a tsunami Cartesian diver; ocean chemistry, physics, and biology; the great barrier reef ecosystem; the spheres (atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere) of our planet

began, pre-service teachers had completed the two science content knowledge courses from the range offered at the university and the science pedagogy course; they had completed two practicum placements in elementary schools, comprising 25 days in duration. At the conclusion of the course, after all teaching and assessment was completed, we informally invited the pre-service teachers of this first cohort to reflect on the course. The purpose of this was to improve future iterations of the course. We asked them, via email, to respond to the following: Reflect on the delivery, content and intent of the course and comment on how, and if, you think this course has influenced your approach to science teaching. For example:

  EVERYDAY SCIENCE FOR BUILDING SCHOOLCHILDREN’S INFORMED… 

119

. Was the content relevant? Too difficult, too easy? 1 2. What did you think of the lab sessions? 3. Was the delivery suitable? Timing, format? 4. Is there anything else that could help us improve the subject?

The 2021 cohort of pre-service teachers rated the science specialist course very highly. They endorsed Sam’s estimation of the course: “The delivery of the subject was very effective and made engaging with the content a lot easier” (Gina). The blended mode used to deliver the course was particularly suited to the changed conditions in tertiary education during the 2021 COVID-19 pandemic, and pre-service teachers were overwhelmingly positive about the course design: Designing the subject with modules in which we can work through at our own pace and setting them out to learn each part of the topic in different sub-sections was the most effective subject design I have experienced in the degree. (Sally)

The blended mode of delivery included online real-time lectures and workshops and detailed in-lab, face-to-face instructions for completing the assigned experiments. In addition, the online teaching platform included many videos as well as comprehension and self-testing assessments. The following anecdotes, compiled from pre-service teachers’ perceptions and the instructor’s observations throughout the course, serve to illustrate the impact that the science specialist course had on pre-service teachers’ self-confidence to teach elementary science authentically, through topics based on everyday life, and their perceived capacity to inspire agency in their future students. Increasing Pre-service Teachers’ Self-Confidence for Science Teaching By electing to become elementary science specialist teachers, the pre-­ service teachers already believed they possessed a degree of competence in many areas of science. Nevertheless, whilst they all indicated that they enjoyed science in high school, they were not equally confident in their knowledge across all science disciplines. Their engagement in the space science and physics modules, for example, led them to question how they could teach these topics effectively. The following two anecdotes illustrate

120 

H. J. BOON AND D. RIGANO

that pre-service teachers’ initial doubts about their competence in specific science topics were resolved as they encountered examples of science activities and teaching strategies for applying fundamental science concepts in an elementary setting. Sam Sam expressed concern about her ability to teach earth and space science, as she was unsure how students could carry out investigations due to the lack of opportunity to interact with materials directly. One of the investigations in the course involved a meteorite simulation: different masses were dropped from different heights into a tray of sand covered with flour. Measurements of the depth and width of the impact crater were plotted on a graph against the mass and circumference of the ‘meteors.’ Sam became enthusiastic about the idea of using simulations and followed up this session by searching online for similar activities. Sam aspired to teach in a rural setting where she could integrate science throughout the elementary teaching curriculum. In the next session, she presented an idea for creating a simulated meteorite landing in the schoolyard. The scenario would provide an integrated approach to learning where, in addition to exploring the science concepts, students would conduct mock interviews for English and make various measurements for Maths. The subject gave me ideas on how to engage students into the classroom by providing the learning with a suitable and engaging context. Confidence has definitely shot up and sparked me to build resources and get more creative with lessons. (Sam)

Sam’s concerns around teaching difficulties or concepts she thought were inaccessible to young children were alleviated following her exposure to the highly applied and creative teaching approaches in this course. Sally During a STEM/ICT session, Sally was reluctant to build a robot using LEGO Mindstorms. In comparison, other students who were unfamiliar with the equipment were content following the step-by-step instructions, while another more experienced student elected to independently create something more sophisticated. Sensing her hesitation, the instructor sat with Sally and started sorting through the pieces while talking aloud, demonstrating a very simple function (touch sensor). This piqued Sally’s

  EVERYDAY SCIENCE FOR BUILDING SCHOOLCHILDREN’S INFORMED… 

121

interest, and she began picking up pieces to find out how they connected to make a moving object. Positive feedback from the instructor continued to support and reward Sally’s efforts. From there, working together with the instructor at first, and then independently as the instructor gradually removed guidance over time, Sally went on to build the final robot, finishing before others who were diligently following the steps. The increase in Sally’s confidence was palpable. She had never played with LEGO before and yet had constructed an operational robot. The experience not only increased her own self-confidence but also served as an example for supporting her future students who might be reluctant participants in a learning activity. Learning lots of new experiments and the real science behind how they work. Doing them for ourselves was a great way to help me understand and learn the science. Making it easier to teach to students having done it myself. (Sally)

Like many students tackling difficult skills or concepts, Sally was initially demonstrating performance avoidance behavior. As the instructor modeled scaffolding strategies, Sally witnessed first-hand how to scaffold student learning when motivation and confidence are low, while at the same time increasing her self-confidence. The dual focus on content and pedagogy appeared to enhance the pre-service teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and thinking about their capacity as future science teachers. In relation to the laboratory work, the pre-service teachers found that all embedded experiments were useful and would be a good resource for their future teaching: I found all labs relevant … yes all of them. They all offered different ideas of ways to teach science to students in a hands-on interactive way. (Leanne) It is hard to pick one…they all offered something different to learn and were all so much fun. Maybe the crumble zone one where we dropped a weight on to an egg protected by popcorn. Not only was it fun but provided a great example of a simple, informative and engaging experiment that could be used within a classroom context to teach children. (Gina) …the one where we looked at the alcohol concentration within blood was very interesting and I think could be a very visual and hands on experience to educate children about the effects of alcohol. (Wesley)

122 

H. J. BOON AND D. RIGANO

Although one pre-service teacher wondered if the experiments might be too difficult for elementary school children: I felt at times some pracs may have disengaged primary school aged students. Maybe some more outdoors pracs? (Sally)

Increasing Pre-service Teachers’ Self-confidence for Teaching Sustainability Pre-service teachers’ confidence for teaching sustainability goes hand in hand with sustainability content knowledge acquisition (Ferreira, 2019; Kennelly et al., 2008; Maidou et al., 2019; Boon, 2011) and opportunities to demonstrate agency (Kalsoom & Qureshi, 2021; Merritt et  al., 2018). Agency, as discussed earlier, requires one to believe that, as an agent, they can exert control on the environment through their actions (Ben Yehuda, 2019). Teacher confidence is a requirement for professional agency (Nolan & Molla, 2017) because a sense of agency over the outcomes of one’s actions, decisions, and responses is coupled with a feeling of confidence that one’s choices are correct in order to bring about the expected effect (Ben Yehuda, 2019). Therefore, in relation to teaching about sustainability, a relationship between confidence and agency exists; gains in confidence result from the acquisition of knowledge and skills, which then increase one’s ability to exercise professional agency in teaching about sustainability (Nolan & Molla, 2017). Pre-service teachers in this cohort reported that prior to undertaking the science specialist course they felt ill-equipped to incorporate sustainability into their elementary school teaching. They had few teaching strategies about sustainability besides general ideas around the benefits of recycling or discussing the pros and cons of renewable and non-renewable energy sources. The contexts of the knowledge content of this course were chosen because they drew attention to current challenging issues where the science is publicly debated, thus stimulating conversations that were open-ended rather than conclusive. The following anecdote illustrates how undertaking contextualized modeling activities increased pre-service teachers’ self-confidence for teaching sustainability. The issue of climate change in module 9 was approached by examining the El Niño and La Niña weather patterns that influence severe weather events in the Pacific region. The practical activities explored natural disasters and the effects on ecosystems, including human communities. For

  EVERYDAY SCIENCE FOR BUILDING SCHOOLCHILDREN’S INFORMED… 

123

example, a tsunami simulation was designed in a glass water tank. The effects on the simulated onshore built environment were measured and options to mitigate the impact were actively investigated. Pre-service teachers expressed enthusiasm for the activity as they believed it would strongly appeal to students’ interests while, at the same, illustrating important aspects of disaster management and climate effects. It allowed the topics to be covered in detail and provided a great structure for what content is important. The content that was taught was very relevant to not only us but to content that can be taught within a classroom context. (Gina)

In addition, pre-service teachers appreciated that “The tsunami tank practical gave a good visualisation for students for something that is so large scale” (Leanne). Pre-service teachers perceived that linking science concepts directly to environmental issues provided an authentic entry point for wide-ranging sustainability discussions to support student agency. Other topical issues included Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and coral bleaching events. This university is located in close proximity to the Great Barrier Reef, and therefore coral bleaching is not only highly relevant but also visible to both pre-service teachers and the school students in the vicinity, making this topic an authentic context for learning a range of scientific principles. Pre-service teachers’ attitudes about incorporating sustainability into their teaching improved considerably due to these learning experiences. Pre-service Teachers’ Agency Through Inquiry Teaching Before undertaking the science specialist subject, the pre-service teachers had completed two entry-level content subjects, choosing either chemistry or biology in addition to geology. They reported that they’d struggled with some aspects of these subjects because they could not relate the content to teaching at an elementary level. They also felt that there was often no real-world application of the content they were learning. Consequently, the pre-service teachers had a store of content knowledge that they did not know how to translate effectively into elementary science lessons, despite having already completed the core pedagogy subject that focused on implementing the curriculum using an inquiry approach. While the

124 

H. J. BOON AND D. RIGANO

pre-service teachers had practiced planning lessons for inquiry, they remained hesitant about the extent to which they could implement this approach in the classroom, especially since they reported that limited examples of inquiry-based learning manifested during their practicum experiences. In particular, they were concerned that inquiry-based lessons would be messy and unstructured and so felt ill-equipped to deal with unexpected outcomes or difficult questions from students. All practical experiences in the specialist course were presented as a form of inquiry with real-world applications. While some early activities were guided inquiry (Schoffstall & Gaddis, 2007), as the course unfolded, pre-service teachers were given more autonomy to direct their own learning. For example, the first activity was a simple fair test to determine which brand of corn chip was the tastiest in the context of GMOs. This type of activity was very similar to experiments they would have completed in the science pedagogy course and served as a refresher. By the end of the specialist course, the pre-service teachers were devising their own inquiry questions and manipulating available materials to plan investigations. For example, the topic of living organisms began as a simple question about “What is yeast?” and ended with a water bath filled with balloon-covered test tubes as students investigated multiple variables affecting yeast growth. The activity is clearly relatable to baking, an activity elementary children love; “These topics informed my science teaching as they helped refresh my memory of the correct structure we should teach science.” (Sam). Children also love swimming and spending time at the beach. This university is a coastal university situated in the Tropics where water sports are very popular, and so the activities on the topic of the ocean are a very authentic context to learn principles of water chemistry and physics. While exploring buoyancy in the topic of oceans, the pre-service teachers investigated Cartesian divers by creating a range of examples that demonstrated different characteristics depending on size, shape, material, and mass. The concepts associated with Cartesian divers were challenging for pre-service teachers who initially doubted they would ever incorporate this activity into their teaching. Of great concern was their fear that they could not answer students’ questions about the science behind the activity or could not solve any problems if the activity did not work. To combat this ‘fear of failure,’ the instructor deliberately provided very little assistance to pre-­ service teachers while they undertook the investigation, apart from encouraging them to find out how it worked for themselves by asking

  EVERYDAY SCIENCE FOR BUILDING SCHOOLCHILDREN’S INFORMED… 

125

questions, making observations, adjusting variables, and developing explanations. By the end of the activity, all the pre-service teachers understood that the process of inquiry in a real-world context empowered them to make decisions about how to proceed for themselves, leading to deeper conceptual understanding and greater agency. Furthermore, they began to appreciate that planning inquiry-based lessons involves some degree of risk-taking but that the results are beneficial for younger learners who crave hands-on activities. The pedagogies and content informed my science teaching as there was multiple opportunities to practice applying the pedagogies for a classroom context. Also, how the science content could be applied within the classroom. I feel like my confidence has improved greatly with being able to design science lessons that are engaging, hands-on and effective. (Leanne)

The extensive modeling of inquiry learning used in the delivery of the science specialist course appears to address some of the concerns expressed by pre-service teachers about the complexities of translating science content into real-world applications for elementary science students.

Discussion This chapter offers a rationale for the importance of focusing on elementary teachers’ agency for science teaching. We also describe the scope and delivery of a newly designed science course included in the Bachelor of Education degree for elementary pre-service teachers specializing in science at James Cook University. This course is based on authentic everyday science applications and contexts, incorporating inquiry-learning strategies. Perceptions from the first cohort of pre-service teachers who undertook the science specialist course provided valuable feedback about their transition from passive learners to potentially agentic teachers of science. The decision to include a dual focus on pedagogy as well as science content was deliberate in order to span the divide that pre-service teachers perceive exists between deep content knowledge and practical pedagogical knowledge. Learning in this course involved more than just providing science content learning experiences; the instructor also modeled effective science pedagogy and incorporated strategies to pique interest, reward small achievements, and ultimately motivate pre-service teachers to

126 

H. J. BOON AND D. RIGANO

engage, practice, and eventually, master the necessary content and skills (Palmer et al., 2015; Menon & Sadler, 2018). In line with previous studies that found a relationship between undertaking customized elementary science courses and personal confidence for science teaching, pre-service teachers report increased self-confidence through improved attitudes and beliefs, competency, and confidence (Bergman & Morphew, 2015). As pre-service teachers’ self-confidence in doing and understanding science increased, so did their perceived identity as a future science leader in a school setting (Kier & Lee, 2017). Prior to commencing the science specialist course, pre-service teachers were not sure what their role might be once employed in a school. The prominent belief held by all was that, at the very least, employers would consider them favorably due to their science specialization. At the end of the module, pre-service teachers expressed clear indications that they looked forward to taking the lead in shaping the science curriculum at their future schools. They were confident that they could bring creativity and innovation as well as knowledge and skills to their future role, indicating they were developing agency as effective science teachers. Teachers’ lack of confidence to conceptualize and practice sustainability has been a key barrier to its implementation generally (Boon, 2011) and in elementary school (Maidou et  al., 2019; Evans et  al., 2012). Sustainability issues receive superficial treatment in elementary schooling and almost negligible attention in the high school setting. Despite strong international Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) policies, there is little evidence that the tenets of ESD are being realized in Australian schools (Barnes et  al., 2019). Even recent changes to the senior school curriculum in Australia to revise the Earth and Environmental Science syllabus fail to engage school students with ESD (Tomas et  al., 2020). Consequently, pre-service teachers’ agency in the classroom is limited to tokenistic activities with short-term impact (Saylan et al., 2011). Without a meaningful context, the relevance of these issues is often lost on young learners, who may think that the best they can do to be active decision-­ makers is to sort and recycle rubbish. Such an approach and its consequences limit opportunities for elementary school students to develop the knowledge and skills to see themselves as future agents of change. Teacher agency is powerful and has the potential to enhance sustainable futures when teachers use appropriate teaching contexts to inform their students (Durrant, 2019). Teaching sustainability through contexts encountered in the media and everyday life experiences via inquiry has the

  EVERYDAY SCIENCE FOR BUILDING SCHOOLCHILDREN’S INFORMED… 

127

potential to increase elementary students’ agency. This is because students are encouraged to engage with significant global challenges by asking questions, solving problems, and exploring alternative scenarios (Murphy et al., 2020). The cultivation of risk-taking, innovation, and creativity is an important aspect of all science and sustainability education practice (Green & Somerville, 2015). A strong determining factor in the types of activities and contexts teachers utilize in their teaching practice is the feeling of competence to overcome perceived barriers (Herbert & Hobbs, 2018). A specific objective of the specialist course was to convey the message that teachers do not need to know the answer to everything if they adopt the view that children can be collaborators and decision-makers, thus developing and enhancing agency in their students. Contextualized learning experiences, for example, exploring the impact of GMOs on agriculture with topics children can easily relate to, such as food, or mitigating and adapting to the effects of natural disasters, encouraged pre-service teachers to move away from a ‘fear of failure’ conceptualization of inquiry teaching. It helped them to expand their repertoire of teaching strategies to incorporate socio-scientific issues that not only promote deep science content learning but can also contribute to their future students’ developing a sense of agency (Zangori et al., 2018; Trott & Weinberg, 2020). In utilizing an inquiry-based pedagogy, we provided pre-service teachers with transformative learning experiences that develop creative and critical thinking skills, empowering them to feel capable of addressing science and sustainability issues in meaningful ways. Despite the small cohort involved in this first iteration of the course, reflections from these pre-service teachers provide us with confidence that the aims of the course were realized. Feedback from the next iteration of the course will help us refine the course as required. The Science in Context for Primary Science Specialists course was designed to prepare pre-service teachers to be confident teachers of science who will establish themselves as change agents in shaping the science identities of future generations. Increasing pre-service teachers’ self-­ confidence in teaching science and sustainability issues through learning contexts situated in familiar and accessible everyday life, using inquiry-­ based approaches that provide transformative learning experiences goes some way to satisfying Tytler’s (2007) wish that science education should be about the “spark of excitement” (p. iii) that stems from discovery, with relevant open-ended, rather than prescriptive tasks.

128 

H. J. BOON AND D. RIGANO

References Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Toward an understanding of science teaching practice. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023666618800 Arnold, J., & Clarke, D. J. (2014). What is ‘agency’? Perspectives in science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.825066 Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2019). Accreditation standards and procedures. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/deliver-­ite-­ programs/standards-­and-­procedures Ballard, H. L., Dixon, C. G., & Harris, E. M. (2017). Youth-focused citizen science: Examining the role of environmental science learning and agency for conservation. Biological Conservation, 208, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2016.05.024 Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weiss, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Horizon Research Inc. Barnes, M., Moore, D., & Almeida, S. (2019). Sustainability in Australian schools: A cross-curriculum priority? Prospects, 47, 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11125-­018-­9437-­x Ben Yehuda, M. (2019). Agency and confidence: On the function of metacognition in action (PhD diss). University of Oxford. Bergman, D.  J., & Morphew, J. (2015). Effects of a science content course on elementary pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy of teaching science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(3), 73–81. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/43631942 Boon, H.  J. (2011). Beliefs and education for sustainability in rural and regional Australia. Education in Rural Australia, 21(2), 37–54. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/aeipt.191911?casa_ t o k e n = f 1 Y w f Z T M n m k A A A A A : 0 6 D e _ a 0 E u d y i K H K s V P I I U g F E f h -­ D6XIsRYIszPo9RpcDQ9afyMqp-­JXdLd_Mxa6rMkdJO7yvwAJgfbQ Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development, 6, 187–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­0753-­5_ 3438 Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S.  J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-­295X.101.4.568 Bybee, R. W. (2002). Learning science and the science of learning: Science educators’ essay collection. ProQuest Ebook Central. Byskov, F. M., Hyams, K., Satyal, P., Anguelovski, I., Benjamin, L., et al. (2021). An agenda for ethics and justice in adaptation to climate change. Climate and Development, 13(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1700774

  EVERYDAY SCIENCE FOR BUILDING SCHOOLCHILDREN’S INFORMED… 

129

Christidou, V. (2011). Interest, attitudes and images related to science: Combining students’ voices with the voices of school science, teachers, and popular science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6, 141–159. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ944846 Durrant, J. (2019). Teacher agency, professional development and school improvement. Routledge. Edwards, A., & D’Arcy, C. (2006). Relational agency and disposition in sociocultural accounts of learning to teach. Educational Review, 56(2), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031910410001693236 Evans, N., Whitehouse, H., & Gooch, M. (2012). Barriers, successes and enabling practices of education for sustainability in far North Queensland schools: A case study. The Journal of Environmental Education, 43(2), 121–138. https://doi. org/10.1080/00958964.2011.621995 Ferreira, J.-A. (2019). The embedding change model. In J.  Ferreira, N.  Evans, J. M. Davis, & R. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning to embed sustainability in teacher education (pp. 22–30). Springer. Glenn, J.  C., Gordon, T.  J., & Florescu, E. (2007). State of the future. World Federation of United Nations Associations. Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. (2007). Australian school science education: National action plan 2008–2012, Volume 1, The National Action Plan. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. https://apo.org.au/node/4048 Green, M., & Somerville, M. (2015). Sustainability education: Researching practice in primary schools. Environmental Education Research, 21(6), 832–845. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.923382 Head, B.  W. (2019). Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to policy studies. Policy and Society, 38(2), 180–197. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/14494035.2018.1488797 Herbert, S., & Hobbs, L. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ views of school-based approaches to pre-service primary science teacher education. Research in Science Education, 48, 777–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-­016-­9587-­x Holland, D. C., Lachicotte, W., Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (2001). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard University Press. Kajamaa, A., & Kumpulainen, K. (2019). Agency in the making: Analyzing students’ transformative agency in a school based makerspace. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 26(3), 266–281. http://doi:10.1080/10749039.2019.1647547 Kalsoom, Q., & Qureshi, N. (2021). Impact of sustainability-focused learning intervention on teachers’ agency to teach for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(6), 540–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1880983 Kazempour, M., & Sadler, T. D. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and self-efficacy: A multi-case study. Teaching Education, 26, 247–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2014.996743

130 

H. J. BOON AND D. RIGANO

Kennelly, J., Taylor, N., & Maxwell, T. (2008). A student teacher’s personal pathway to education for sustainability. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 24, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0814062600000550 Kier, M. W., & Lee, T. D. (2017). Exploring the role of identity in elementary pre-service teachers who plan to specialize in science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016. 10.016 Maidou, A., Plakitsi, K., & Polatoglou, H. (2019). Knowledge, perceptions and attitudes on education for sustainable development of pre-service early childhood teachers in Greece. World Journal of Education, 9(5), 1–15. https://eric. ed.gov/?id=EJ1232274 Menon, D., & Sadler, T. D. (2018). Sources of science teaching self-efficacy for pre-service elementary teachers in science content courses. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(5), 835–855. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10763-­017-­9813-­7 Merritt, E., Hale, A., & Archambault, L. (2018). Changes in pre-service teachers’ values, sense of agency, motivation and consumption practices: A case study of an education for sustainability course. Sustainability, 11(1), 155. https://doi. org/10.3390/su11010155 Messerli, P., Murniningtyas, E., Eloundou-Enyegue, P., Foli, E. G., Furman, E., Glassman, A., … & van Ypersele, J. P. (2019). Global sustainable development report 2019: The future is now–science for achieving sustainable development. http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/16067/1/24797GSDR_report_2019.pdf Molnar, A. (1996). Giving kids the business. Westview Press. Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2005). Primary science in the UK: A scoping study (Final report to the Wellcome Trust). Wellcome Trust. Murphy, C., Smith, G., Mallon, B., & Redman, E. (2020). Teaching about sustainability through inquiry-based science in Irish primary classrooms: the impact of a professional development programme on teacher self-efficacy, competence and pedagogy. Environmental Education Research, 26(8), 1112–1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1776843 Nolan, A., & Molla, T. (2017). Teacher confidence and professional capital. Teaching and Teacher Education, 62, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tate.2016.11.004 Nsangi, A., Semakula, D., Oxman, A.  D., Austvoll-Dahlgren, A., Oxman, M., Rosenbaum, S., et  al. (2017). Effects of the Informed Health Choices primary school intervention on the ability of children in Uganda to assess the reliability of claims about treatment effects: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 390(10092), 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-­6736(17)31226-­6 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2015). The changing face of strategic crisis management. Author.

  EVERYDAY SCIENCE FOR BUILDING SCHOOLCHILDREN’S INFORMED… 

131

Palmer, D. H., Dixon, J., & Archer, J. (2015). Changes in science teaching self-­ efficacy among primary teacher education students. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(12), 3. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n12.3 Raynal, A., Lavigne, H., Goldstein, M., & Gutierrez, J. (2021). Starting with parents: Investigating a multi-generational, media-enhanced approach to support informal science learning for young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1–11. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10643-­021-­01209-­x Rennie, L. J., Goodrum, D., & Hacking, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31, 455–498. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013171905815 Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042 Saylan, C., Blumstein, D., & Blumstein, D. (2011). The failure of environmental education (and how we can fix it). University of California Press. ProQuest Ebook Central. Schoffstall, A. M., & Gaddis, B. A. (2007). Incorporating guided-inquiry learning into the organic chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(5), 848. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed084p848 Sharma, A. (2007). Making (electrical) connections: Exploring student agency in a school in India. Science Education, 92(2), 297–319. https://doi. org/10.1002/sce.20246 Silander, M., Grindal, T., Hupert, N., Garcia, E., Anderson, K., Vahey, P., & Pasnik, S. (2018). What parents talk about when they talk about learning: A national survey about young children and science. Education Development Center, Inc., & SRI International. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED603163 Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924 Tessier, J. (2010). An inquiry-based biology laboratory improves pre-service elementary teachers’ attitudes about science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(6), 84–90. https://www.proquest.com/docview/521209955?pq-­origsi te=gscholar&fromopenview=true Tomas, L., Mills, R., Rigano, D., & Sandhu, M. (2020). Education for sustainable development in the senior Earth and Environmental Science syllabus in Queensland, Australia. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 36(1), 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2020.7 Trott, C.  D., & Weinberg, A.  E. (2020). Science education for sustainability: Strengthening children’s science engagement through climate change learning and action. Sustainability, 12(16), 6400. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12166400

132 

H. J. BOON AND D. RIGANO

Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher, J. E. (2002). A longitudinal study of conceptual change: Pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 303–326. https://doi. org/10.1002/tea.20121 Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. ACER Press. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development (A/RES/70/1). UN General Assembly. https://sdgs.un. org/2030agenda Walsh, E. M., & Cordero, E. (2019). Youth science expertise, environmental identity, and agency in climate action filmmaking. Environmental Education Research, 25(5), 656–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019. 1569206 Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development, 83(3), 877–895. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-­8624.2012.01745.x Zacarian, D., & Silverstone, M. (2020). Teaching to empower: Taking action to foster student agency, self-confidence, and collaboration. ASCD. Zangori, L., Foulk, J. A., Sadler, T. D., & Peel, A. (2018). Exploring elementary teachers’ perceptions and characterizations of model-oriented issue-based teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29, 555–577. https://doi. org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1482173

Pre-service Elementary Teachers as Game Designers: Emotional Experiences from the Field Laura Martín-Ferrer, Elizabeth Hufnagel, Arnau Amat, Mariona Espinet, and Alberto Bellocchi

Introduction In recent years, the use of games as a tool to teach specific content has attracted much attention from teachers and educators in general. However, studies of how teachers use games to teach science are scarce. Our position in this chapter is that pre-service teachers (PSTs) bring a wide range of L. Martín-Ferrer (*) • A. Amat Universitat de Vic—Universitat Central de Catalunya, Vic, Spain e-mail: [email protected] E. Hufnagel University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA M. Espinet Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdnayola del Vallès, Spain A. Bellocchi Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. P. Thomas, H. J. Boon (eds.), Challenges in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_7

133

134 

L. MARTÍN-FERRER ET AL.

past learning experiences that influence their learning from new coursework experiences. Past and emerging experiences, including those involving gaming, configure PST views about science learning, how it should be taught, and what role, if any, games might play in science teaching and learning processes. Roth and Jornet (2013) revisited Dewey’s (1934/2008) and Vygotsky’s (1935/2001) ideas by highlighting that experience is the minimum analytical  unit that retains all the emotional, cognitive, and social features of the whole learning experience. In this study, we focus on the emotional dimension of experience in order to seek to understand elementary PSTs’ experiences in their science methods courses in which they were exposed to the possibility of using games as tools to teach science. We interrogated the PSTs regarding the main challenges they faced when designing and implementing game-based activities to teach science content. Our main purpose is to expand the discussion regarding the use of games to teach science and the ways in which emotions provide a lens for exploring meaningful moments in pre-service teachers’ experiences related to using game-­based learning. The present study was conducted with pre-service teachers in two mandatory science education courses in the elementary teaching degree at the Universitat de Vic—Universitat Central de Catalunya in Catalonia (Spain). One course took place in the third year of the degree (Teaching Science I) and the other course took place in the fourth year (Teaching Science II). The approach taken in these courses seeks to promote reflexivity in pre-­ service teachers to uncover conscious and unconscious social structures that frame their mental schemas and practices (Alexakos, 2015). The courses are built on: (a) reflective approaches that emphasize the need to provide opportunities for PSTs to confront and transform their initial views of science teaching and learning (Abell et al., 2010) and (b) the use of self-report methods, such as diaries, group discussions, or the reflection of specific events, as specific tools to confront and transform their beginning pedagogies (Amat & Sellas, 2020).

Contextualizing Science Learning Games Teachers’ and researchers’ interest in the application of instructional games has led to the emergence of new words to refer to different ways of applying games in education, such as gamification, serious games, educational games, game-based learning, or simulators.  In this project, we consider Game-Based Learning (GBL) as a broad concept that includes the

  PRE-SERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AS GAME DESIGNERS: EMOTIONAL… 

135

processes of teaching and learning (Holmes & Gee, 2016). GBL refers to a pedagogical approach that introduces a game with an educational purpose. In contrast, gamification is not strictly educational as it aims to engage participants in a non-game context using game elements such as medals, points, or storytelling (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). The key difference between GBL and gamification lies in the game’s purpose: in GBL, this purpose is to learn, while in gamification, the purposes are purely to motivate and entertain. Games involve a set of features such as: an objective of winning the game; rules that regulate time, space, materials, participation, and the way in which players must relate to one another; decision-making; and fun and enjoyment (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). In the context of GBL, we can add another feature to further characterize a science game-based activity. A science game-based activity must also involve science learning objectives and scientific practices. In science education, valued learning objectives and practices may include using inquiry-based learning, including data collection and analysis or phenomena explanation and prediction, and engaging students to understand scientific phenomena (Martí, 2012). Honey and Hilton (2011) suggest that games have the potential to promote multiple science learning objectives, including enhancing science students’ motivation and conceptual learning skills inherent to the scientific process, promoting students’ identity with science and the learning of science, and their learning about the nature of science, scientific discourse, and argumentation. Moreover, games can provide simple or intermediate models of science concepts that students can understand, thereby providing a platform for them to (re)structure fundamental concepts into more complex ideas (Linn et  al., 2010). Therefore, scientific games can help extend student learning beyond the acquisition of fundamental concepts and facts by promoting authentic scientific practices. The effective design of games to promote science requires the mastery of skills related to scientific literacy (Chmiel, 2009). In the literature, several challenges in designing an educational game have been reported. According to Weitze (2014), one of the difficulties of designing educational games is integrating learning objectives and content. Successful learning through play will occur if learning objectives and game objectives are aligned in such a way that the content is  coordinated and the likelihood of fun is increased. Incorporating structures that attend to students’ metacognition into science games to encourage student reflection through question prompts and linking game content to

136 

L. MARTÍN-FERRER ET AL.

students’ lives are two additional challenges that educational games present for game designers (Kim et al., 2009). Staalduinen and Freitas (2011) propose the inclusion of ‘debriefing’ as a part of educational games. Debriefing is an activity that takes place upon completion of a game-based science activity whereby student ‘players’ reflect on the relationship between the science content and the game’s dimensions. A similar reflective moment during a lesson’s introduction also helps students become familiar with the purpose and context of the game-based activity or, in some cases, which content knowledge to apply to that activity (Alklind Taylor, 2014; Crookall & Thorngate, 2009). Another challenge in educational game design is to achieve fine-tuned autonomy through regulation of decision-making and to adjust the difficulty level of the game objective to achieve a state of flow, which refers to the balance between the difficulty of overcoming the game challenge and the skill or experience to achieve it (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990; Young et al., 2012). To overcome the challenges of science game design in a GBL approach, PSTs need to develop competency in science pedagogy and also in game design. Weitze (2014) notes that it is necessary to learn about game design before designing educational games. Weitze’s position and the aforementioned literature have led us to ask, “What role could game design play in the initial training of primary school teachers?”, “Does it add to PST’s learning load?”, and “To what extent should the inclusion of games in science education be an individual teacher’s decision?” While these are all important questions, in this chapter we focus on specific challenges relevant to the design and implementation of games that promote science learning through inquiry. In doing so, we attempt to answer each of these questions, albeit to varying extents.

Considering Emotional Experiences of Pre-service Teachers Studies of science teachers’ emotionality indicate that emotions are part of teacher learning and development (Hufnagel, 2015; Jaber et  al., 2019; Ritchie & Beers Newlands, 2017; Zembylas, 2002). Since pre-service teachers’ beliefs about teaching are often incongruous with what teaching entails in practice, attending to their emotional experiences as they unpack their beliefs while learning to teach is critical for their development (Feiman-Nemser, 2001).

  PRE-SERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AS GAME DESIGNERS: EMOTIONAL… 

137

PSTs’ emotions are prevalent throughout their experiences in coursework (Bellocchi et al., 2013; Zembylas & Barker, 2002) and early teaching (Dreon & McDonald, 2012). Bellocchi et  al. (2014) demonstrated that emotions are linked to PSTs’ collective and individual experiences with science demonstrations, reflective discussions, and professor monologues. In doing so, Bellocchi et  al. challenged a prevailing assumption that emotions and cognition are separate. In a study of PSTs, Zembylas (2007) reported how PSTs’ past experiences had an impact on their emotions regarding science and also how discourse about science prevented pre-service teachers from developing positive relations with science. In a study conducted in the same courses presented in this study, Amat and Sellas (2020) presented a case study in which a PST shifted their emotions regarding science and teaching science. They reported, in particular, how the anger experienced when the PST was in high school became a fuel to change their pedagogical views but also how the shame the PST felt due to the lack of self-confidence with the topic changed to enthusiasm due to group cooperation. The role of emotions in transforming practices for teachers is also well-documented by Zembylas and Barker (2002), who reported how teachers’ expressed emotions provided ways to connect to the discipline of science as well as to indicate a shift in their views of science that shaped their science teacher identities, pedagogies, and views of children. In this study, emotions are theorized as mechanisms by which people make sense of information, knowledge, and experiences in relation to their goals and identities, including those related to science teaching (Barrett, 2017; Zembylas, 2002; Hufnagel & Kelly, 2018; Rivera Maulucci, 2013; Jaber et  al., 2019). Underlying this orientation is the assumption that emotions are not separate from cognition (Dewey, 1894). In particular, emotions are sense-making mechanisms of environmental stimuli that are socially and culturally constructed by the brain/body (Barrett, 2017) and expressed in the discourse of science education settings (Hufnagel, 2018, 2019). As such, emotional expressions indicate what is personally relevant through the aboutness, label, and valence, all of which are constituted within the discourse of emotional expressions (Hufnagel & Kelly, 2018). The aboutness of the emotional expression is the object of the emotion or the particulars of what is deeply personal or urgent. The emotion label is the type of emotion (i.e., anger, sadness, excitement) and, in conjunction with the valence of the emotion, indicates the evaluative nature of emotions. The valence of the emotion is conceptualized along a continuum of

138 

L. MARTÍN-FERRER ET AL.

whether the emotions impede, maintain, or enhance personal goals. Emotions that impede goals are often referred to as uncomfortable emotions and include frustration, anger, and so forth. Contentment and excitement are examples of emotions that maintain or enhance, respectively, personal goals. In the research reported in this chapter, pre-service teachers’ emotions about science game design and implementation unveiled tensions and challenges of engaging in this work. Thus, the main purpose of this chapter is to identify these challenges in order to expand the discussion on using games to teach science.

Methodology This chapter reports an exploratory study framed in a hermeneutic phenomenological research approach (Alexakos, 2015). Our purpose was to construct new understandings of how PSTs experienced, emotionally, the design and the implementation of a game to teach science using the PSTs’ own voices. Participants were a convenience sample of PSTs undertaking two science education courses in the elementary teaching degree. All 61 PSTs taking the third year (Teaching Science I) and the fourth year (Teaching Science II) courses agreed to participate in the study. The courses were taught by author 3, and author 1 contributed 2 lessons on game design. In the first session of author 1, the main purpose was to discuss the differences between GBL and gamification. In the second session, pre-service teachers’ game activities were supported by her feedback in group tutorials. This feedback consisted of reviewing the game activities and providing some gaming resources. Data were obtained through audio and video recordings of three focus group interviews. In these focus groups, nine PSTs, three per group, were encouraged to recall and explain their learning experiences related to the use of games to teach science. The focus group interviews were conducted during the period of the two science education courses. As shown in Table 1, the scheduling of the focus group interviews was established to correspond with the main teaching and learning goals of the courses. In the first phase of the course, which took place in the first week, pre-service teachers were asked to design a science teaching and learning sequence, including a game activity, using only what they knew from their previous experiences. In the subsequent phase of the last two weeks of the course, and after working on the main features of model-based teaching and learning, the PSTs revisited

  PRE-SERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AS GAME DESIGNERS: EMOTIONAL… 

139

Table 1  Correspondence between the goals of the different stages in the courses and the goals of the focus groups Course

Goals of the moments in the course

Goals for the focus group interviews

Teaching science I (3rd year) Week 1 of 15 Teaching science I (3rd year) Weeks 14 and 15 of 15

To design an initial science teaching and learning sequence with a game activity To design a final science teaching and learning sequence with a game activity

Teaching science II (4th year) Week 12 of 15

To implement part of the final science teaching and learning sequence

To understand their previous experience of science learning and their first experience as science game designers To understand their experience as science game designers, after constructing a reference teaching and learning sequence that utilized a game activity To understand their experience as teachers who are managing a game with students

and modified their initial teaching and learning sequence using what they learned about game design and implementation since their first attempted design in week 1. The third phase was in the second course in the fourth year, after 12 weeks of class, when pre-service teachers applied their science teaching and learning sequences to a game activity in a workshop with elementary students. While the 61 pre-service teachers who took part in the 2 courses were divided in 20 groups, not all groups implemented their game activity. Some of the groups considered the game activity was not coherent with the purpose and the length of the workshop. For the purposes of this chapter, we selected three groups’ transcriptions for analysis and reporting. These groups focused on the same scientific topic for their teaching, frictional force, and implemented the game they designed with elementary students in Teaching Science II. As seen in Table 2, each of these three groups was composed of three students with different profiles regarding scientific and game knowledge background. All PST names are pseudonyms. As summarized in Table 3, the three groups constructed games with a similar science focus but with different aims, materials, and relation between students. Transcriptions of the focus group interviews were analyzed for emotional expressions based on the framework of Hufnagel and Kelly (2018).

140 

L. MARTÍN-FERRER ET AL.

Table 2  Profiles of selected groups for data analysis Group

Students

Profiles

Group 1 Joan, Jordi, and Alba

Two males and one female with experience and interest in playing sports in non-formal education One of the members studied scientific baccalaureate. Their experiences of science schooling were mostly unpleasant Group 2 Nora, Neus, and Three females who had not studied science since their high Gisela school years. Two of them had experience in non-formal education. Their experiences of science schooling were mostly unpleasant Group 3 Mireia, Mariona, Three females in their early 30s who have experience in and Judit games in the field of non-formal education. They had only vague memories of their science schooling

For each emotional expression detected in their recollections of their experiences, the following codes were used: (a) the aboutness (or the object of the emotion), (b) the emotion label (or the type of emotion), and (c) the context in which each emotional expression was referenced (whether the emotion was expressed in relation to either the design and/ or implementation phase). Four categories of aboutness were identified in this study. These objects of the emotion were game activities, science activities, the tensions between game and science aspects, and responding to the elementary students’ emotions during the implementation. Fifteen different categories of emotion labels were identified in student reflections during the interviews. These emotion labels were: irritation, hate, despair, disappointment, stress, anxiety, fear, shame, guilt, surprise, interest, pride, contentment, pleasure, and joy. In the next section, we present evidence of how the PSTs’ emotional experiences shifted when designing and implementing their science game activities, and we describe the PSTs’ dilemmas and challenges in introducing a science game into their teaching and learning sequences through descriptions of the aboutness of their emotional expressions. We use the four categories of aboutness referred to above to situate the PSTs’ emotional experiences that they reported to us.

Winning aims Wooden ramp, wooden blocks with different textures, and a stopwatch

Materials

Wooden ramp, cars with different surfaces (sponge, cork, plastic…) Group 3 To win, a player’s ball Wooden must stop as close as ramp, balls, possible to a and four previously marked surfaces of point of the trajectory different textures (grass, plastic…)

Group 2 To win, a player’s car must move as far as possible

Group 1 To win, a player’s wooden block must cross the ramp faster than other wooden blocks

Group

Class group – cooperative in small groups, but competitive with other groups

Students choose in which order to place the surfaces along the ball’s trajectory to try to get the ball as close as possible to a target point. The team that gets closest to the target point wins the game. This is followed by questions to reflect on what they have observed and what they can conclude

A sub-auction is held where the students decide which wooden block with a particular texture to buy in order to achieve the goal of running a ramp quickly. Subsequently, the wooden blocks of each group are launched down the ramp and the data are collected in a table on the blackboard. The block with the texture that has taken the shortest time to run the ramp wins the game. Afterward, they reflect on the different results and on the explanation of why some textured blocks slide faster than others Small groups – Participants freely choose a car to release down the ramp and competitive with make it go as far as possible. Participants test the results of the other students in different cars and note them down in their notebooks. Then, the small group students are given the opportunity to change cars up to three times. Afterward, they are asked, “which car did they choose in the different rounds?”, “what can be concluded from the data collected?” and, “why do certain cars stop before others?”

Class group – cooperative in small groups, but competitive with other groups

Relation between Description participants

Table 3 Definition of science game activities designed by PSTs at the end of the courses

  PRE-SERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AS GAME DESIGNERS: EMOTIONAL… 

141

142 

L. MARTÍN-FERRER ET AL.

PSTs’ Emotional Experiences Shift When Designing and Implementing a Science Game Activity Emotional Expressions About Game Activity In the focus groups, the PSTs reflected on the problems that they faced during the contexts of designing and implementing a game activity. The PST groups did not report being emotionally engaged in their games’ aspects during the design context, as only five emotional expressions were identified. In contrast, when the PSTs reported on the implementation context, 20 emotional expressions were detected that related to rules, materials, and time management. One aboutness about the game activity that was mutual among the groups was a concern about time and the game implementation. Concerns were expressed about the “lack of time” and Group 1 mentioned the “need to provide more material so students would not have to wait their turn.” The PSTs also reflected on another aspect of the game activity, the game rules, that emerged as a consideration in the implementation context. The elementary students’ use of the materials stimulated them to reflect on how to better explain the rules of the game activity. For example, Group 2 considered how to explain to students that during the throws, the rule was “not to throw the piece, but only to let it fall” in order to not modify the variable of the throwing force. These unpleasant tensions related to materials, time, and rules produced two different reactions in the PST groups, associated with the valence of their emotions when self-assessing the overall implementation. Interestingly, all three groups that evaluated the implementation as being positive overall still expressed emotions of stress and guilt, the emotional labels, in managing the game. Yet, they positivized the weaknesses by not only articulating them but also by suggesting potential solutions to mitigate these tensions. For instance, Group 1 shared, “if we do it [the science game activity] next year that is a variable we should control, that all the pieces of wood are the same size.” On the other hand, Group 3, which evaluated their game implementation negatively, did not report any possible positive aspects of having identified weaknesses in their implementation. For example, the members of Group 3 explained their frustration about the problems they had with the measurements of their materials, “again, we had problems with the material. Here we found that the ramps were very narrow, and the textures were very short, and the balls were

  PRE-SERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AS GAME DESIGNERS: EMOTIONAL… 

143

exiting from the texture path.” They offered no ideas to remediate such issues. Therefore, when the overall implementation was positive but with specific weaknesses, some PSTs balanced their emotional experiences by recasting tensions into opportunities to learn and to consider future possibilities. However, this was not the case for all the PSTs. Emotional Expressions About Science Activity The aboutness coded as science activity refers to the scientific ideas that the game activity was to target for the elementary students to learn, and also to the scientific practices that needed to be planned for to promote the development in the elementary students of processes such as formulating questions, collecting data, drawing conclusions, and constructing explanations. Two themes emerged from the PSTs’ reports of their emotional experiences: an unfamiliarity with science content and the difficulty in scaffolding students’ thinking to guide their construction of scientific knowledge. The design of the game activity was a context wrought with PSTs’ tensions about their unfamiliarity with science content and, more specifically, frictional force. This context elicited emotions of frustration and anxiety in relation to a lack of content knowledge. For example, when reflecting on their teaching and learning sequence at the beginning of the course, Student 4 from Group 2 said, “we didn’t know how to do it [design a friction force teaching and learning sequence], we were lost…I think we clung to the activities we were taught in class [in the first science education course]. We said, “Oh, it’s the key, we have found it! We already know what the frictional force is, so let’s go this way.”” Even if they were initially frustrated and anxious about not knowing the science content, their emotions shifted to interest and satisfaction as they came to realize that they knew the content and the related resources and activities taught to them in their science education courses. Students reported emotional expressions of disappointment related to their difficulties in scaffolding students’ science learning and reasoning processes during the implementation context. The details of how to implement these processes step-by-step were not considered by them in the design phase, although some questions were considered. Members of Group 1 spoke of a gap they experienced when they shared that they had struggled to improvise questions to help students explain students’

144 

L. MARTÍN-FERRER ET AL.

findings or scientific explanations. “having the questions at hand, I think that also would have been useful. When you’re not accustomed to teaching and you’re not very expert, you need to have the questions at hand to be able to get where you want to go in learning…”. The unpleasant emotional experiences of disappointment triggered a realization in the PSTs of the importance of high-­quality questioning that was necessary to shape students’ ideas. Emotional Expressions About Science Game Activity The aboutness coded as Science Game Activity refers to the interrelationship between the game aspects and those concerning the science content. Three themes emerged from the PSTs’ reports of their emotional experiences related to this aboutness during the design phase: (1) game and science elements balance, (2) competitiveness in science games, and, (3) tensions in science games concept. Firstly, the PSTs were concerned about how to integrate educational content into the game activity. Group 3, for instance, experienced some anxiety about how to teach about frictional force with a game and about how to design a game with specific rules and elements to represent forces, collectively sharing: You think in games, or you think in friction, and you think in sliding things. But how do you really make children understand that there is a force that they do not see, that is very difficult for them to see because a body stops [though a game]?

Group 3 also explained the multiple unsuitable game ideas they had considered, such as curling, sliding with socks of different textures, or the tug-­of-war game. They collectively considered these unsuitable because they misrepresented the frictional force or because many variables needed to be contemplated in the inquiry proposal: We didn’t see it [friction force topic] clearly? The games didn’t fit because if we have a constant friction force, it must be the same, then the force of the legs against the ground and the weight of each child was different.

For the PSTs, designing a game to teach science was a complex assignment because of their lack of knowledge of the science content, and also

  PRE-SERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AS GAME DESIGNERS: EMOTIONAL… 

145

because of their lack of knowledge about game design. Therefore, linking games and science became a challenge. In Group 3, the emotional expressions remained obstacles for the design task. However, in Group 1, this difficulty aroused an interest in learning. For example, Jordi said, “it [teaching science through games] is very complicated, but if you know how to manage it, it is a good tool. I would like to master it.” Secondly, the PST groups that implemented a competitive game, Groups 1 and 3, had difficulties in getting the elementary students to engage in the sought-after scientific practices. This was because the students’ focus was on winning the game rather than learning science. For example, in Group 3, the game design focused on forces associated with the motion of objects on an inclined plane and then along various textured surfaces. The school students were arranging the surfaces in order to achieve the fastest possible braking of the thrown object. Mariona from Group 3 explained: They [the school students] were not attentive, they wanted to try more, more textures and more things, and more things [to try to win]. [The students said -]‘And can’t we pull from here? What about if we change the inclination of the ramp? Can we make it faster?’ Then, it was a little bit unfocused [to reflect on science aspects]”.

Mireia from the same group added: And being a competition, you can see that they were trying to let them [pieces with different textures] go [pushing instead of letting the pieces go], and I said [to the students], “I saw you. We don’t do that” and they answered, “No, I didn’t push it.

Judit suggested further, “It was impossible for students not to cheat. It was very complicated.”  Conversely, Group 2, which implemented the game while avoiding the objective to win, was able to maintain a meaningful dialogue with the students regarding the target scientific content. When students’ focus was on the non-competitive game activity, they engaged with the scientific ideas. Gisela explained: We didn’t say there’s a winner or anything…we said, “We’ll make a game of throwing cars, you have to make sure they get as far as you can. Which ones arrive farther and which ones less?” We liked it very much because it was

146 

L. MARTÍN-FERRER ET AL.

very clear that it depends on the surface and the material that they slide more or less.

Thirdly, the results suggest that designing a scientific game aroused the interest of the PSTs in the use of GBL in science education. The PSTs expressed interest in three tensions during the design phase: those between experiment and game, those between games and gamification, and those between fun and science learning. As the PSTs engaged with science game activity design and implementation, they also reported experiencing emotions, such as contentment, interest, and stress, about passive playing, the roles of games in other disciplines or science topics, and unconscious learning. The PSTs in Group 3 reflected on differences between game activities and experiments and concluded that games are “more difficult to apply…because most games do not include an explanation” (Mariona). They considered that games do not necessarily require students to reflect on the science theme that was being addressed in a game. One of the group members, Judit, emphasized the benefit of a post-game debriefing, stating, “I think we played, and when the game is over, they realized that they have learned, and they can draw their own conclusions.” In a similar vein, a member of group Neus expressed concern about passive learning, stating, “there is a danger of letting [them] play and that’s it.” Group 1 members agreed, “the most important thing is the connection you develop with what they are doing. If you play for the purpose of playing, it ends up being a playful activity, but if you play with a reflection, then it’s perfect” expressed Jordi. Students in Group 1, as well as some students from Group 3, proudly defended the necessity of including questions or using other strategies to stimulate students to reflect on the science content that was being addressed by the game activity. Another tension evident in the emotional discourse was between games and gamification. This discussion took shape in the PSTs’ differing views of games and the dichotomy between fun and science learning. Members of Group 2 were concerned by the difference in designing a gamified activity instead of a science game activity with scientifically appropriate game objectives and structure. Group 3, who had a positive view of gamification, affirmed that: …applying gamification in activities, that’s good. Because it is like a wink to the kids, [it] incentivizes a little bit. But I live the game in a different way,

  PRE-SERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AS GAME DESIGNERS: EMOTIONAL… 

147

with freedom of enjoyment and pleasure, and it’s hard for me to see it as a game in the classroom. (Mariona).

In her explanation, the idea that playing a game is a fun activity and science activities are not for pleasure was evident. Finally, emotional experiences about games being used in other disciplines were also evident. Mariona from Group 3 expressed with despair, “In another subject, we did games and mathematics, how through the game we can Mathematics mathematics, card games and games… here [in the science field] I see [this as] a little more infeasible…” Yet her fellow group member, Neus argued the opposite by giving an example “You could also make a science card game. I imagine you must follow the insects. ‘Do you have a bee?’ Unconsciously you are thinking about invertebrates…I don’t know. I’m inventing it, eh.” Embedded within this expression, Neus was arguing that it is possible to create a science game to Mariona, who was defending that science can be gamified, but that it is difficult to make a game to learn science because there is no moment for reflection. Emotional Expressions About School Students’ Emotions In the implementation phase, a new dimension of aboutness of emotional expressions emerged that related to the PSTs’ reactions to the students’ emotions. The PSTs did not consider the elementary students’ emotions until the game’s implementation in the microteaching context. The PSTs were not oriented to the students’ prospective emotional experiences while designing the game. However, the emotional expressions of the PSTs when reflecting on their experience of implementing the science game activity were often stress and anxiety about the elementary students’ emotions in relation to the game lesson. When asked to explain their experience implementing the science game activity, the PSTs in Group 1 pointed out the students’ emotions. In particular, Alba shared: Of course, as there was only one ramp, the children were very nervous and very impatient to throw them [pieces of wood with different textures]. Well, this, the implicit part of the game of… “I want to throw it, I want to throw it”, and … they may not focus so much on the outcome and on what was

148 

L. MARTÍN-FERRER ET AL.

happening but more on the play and throwing, and that it fell really fast or that it didn’t fall. And that slightly distorted the dynamics for us.

This group realized students were excited to throw the pieces. However, the students’ exclusive attention on throwing a piece changed the dynamics and altered the implementation of the planned activity. The elementary students’ ‘overexcitement’ for the game and ensuing lack of concentration on the science idea of friction were tensions for the PSTs in Groups 1 and 3. However, the PSTs in Group 2, which presented the science game activity without emphasizing the objective of winning, did not orient their implementation to account for their students’ emotions. The PSTs in Groups 1 and 3 reported responding to their students’ emotions during the implementation context by seeking ways to resolve the students’ overexcitement. For instance, Jordi of Group 1 stated: I think you must be very clear that you play to learn and therefore you need to have very clear questions. Also, you need to have more materials so that everyone in the class does not stop. One is doing and the other is watching…because of course, it is a game and the kids want to play. And so, it brings you to this over-­excitement that makes you distract a little from the activity. But overall, I think it’s OK.

Group 1 proposed to attend to the students’ overexcitement by explaining clearly the pedagogical objective and the way to achieve it, through effective questioning during the game. They also identified the importance of having sufficient materials available for the games in order to avoid students having to wait their turn, as this waiting time seemed to have been a factor that also affected the students’ emotions. Finally, they acknowledged that students, as children, want to play, thereby identifying another tension between students playing the game and teachers managing the game as a learning activity.

Conclusions This study identifies a range of challenges that PSTs experienced when designing and implementing a science game. Through the PSTs’ emotional expressions, we are able to gain insights into these challenges and the PSTs’ reflections on and responses to them. By attending to the aboutness, valence, and emotion type within their emotional expressions, we

  PRE-SERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AS GAME DESIGNERS: EMOTIONAL… 

149

gain insights into the PSTs’ grappling with and unpacking of important assumptions about what counts as a game vs. activity, the ways in which winning is (not) part of such games and the intersection between students’ orientations to a game and the game’s educational purposes. Learning how to design and implement a science game is an emotional experience that can promote PSTs’ learning about science teaching. When the PSTs were confronted with unfamiliar design context, like game-based activities in a scientific TLS, intense emotions like anxiety and despair emerged. Our findings align with Weitze (2014), who states that game design is a complex assignment that arouses unpleasant emotions. The design context was wrought with challenges for the PSTs, especially in relation to how to embed science practices into their games. This might be due to the course being focused on science education rather than game design, but further research would be needed to establish if this were so. At the same time, the challenge of balancing science content and game elements (Weitze, 2014) was the object of PSTs’ deep reflection during the design context. In this context, PSTs’ interest in the definition of science games and different tensions about games emerged. These included: dilemmas between game and gamification; balancing science content and fun; and gaming in different disciplines. These tensions were also evident in the implementation context when some groups used the debriefing strategy, as described by Staalduinen and Freitas (2011), to balance students’ attention to science content with game elements. The design and implementation experiences of the groups included common occurrences. Unforeseen events regarding time and resource management generated unpleasant emotions, probably as their expectations remained unfulfilled. However, some PSTs continued the discourse positively by suggesting potential solutions to these challenges. Further, the elementary students’ emotional reactions to the science game activity, which were not anticipated in the design context, also challenged the PSTs. In fact, PSTs did not take into account students’ emotions in the game activity. How to manage the competitiveness and overexcitement of the science game activity during implementation was a crucial factor drawn to the PSTs’ attention. Some PSTs were able to positivize the experience to transform it into a constructive learning experience; others were not. Furthermore, it is shown how different groups of PSTs respond differently to the different emotional responses of their own and of the students they are teaching, and some of the responses are more educationally appropriate.

150 

L. MARTÍN-FERRER ET AL.

Hence, we, as teacher educators, argue that it is essential to guide and support PSTs in anticipating students’ emotions during science game implementation and in making sense of what happens during the implementation to help them improve their pedagogy. Additionally, the implementation context generated more expressions from the PSTs that were emotional. Therefore, we propose that PST training courses should contemplate microteaching practices in realistic educational contexts, especially when requiring game-based learning assignments. This research leads us to ask ourselves what role game design should play in PST education. In light of the results, game design in PST education has been revealed as a way to uncover not only their ways of using games to teach science but also their pedagogical orientations and their views of science. Furthermore, after reflecting on their designs and their implementation, it can be seen how these orientations and views changed during the courses. However, further research on tensions and dilemmas about the game design in pre-service teacher education is necessary to extend our knowledge.

References Abell, S. K., Appleton, K., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2010). Designing and teaching the elementary science methods course. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780203859131 Alexakos, K. (2015). Being a teacher|researcher: A primer on doing authentic inquiry research on teaching and learning. Sense Publishers. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­94-­6300-­295-­0 Alklind Taylor, A.-S. (2014). Facilitation matters: A framework for instructor-led serious gaming (PhD thesis at the school of informatics). University of Skövde. Amat, A., & Sellas, I. (2020). Self-reflection methods to study emotional experiences in science and mathematics pre-service teacher education. In K. Tobin & K. Alexakos (Eds.), Doing authentic inquiry to improve learning and teaching (pp. 205–228). Brill|Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004446885_011 Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Bellocchi, A., Ritchie, S.  M., Tobin, K., Sandhu, M., & Sandhu, S. (2013). Exploring emotional climate in pre-service science teacher education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8(3), 529–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11422-­013-­9526-­3 Bellocchi, A., Ritchie, S.  M., Tobin, K., King, D., Sandhu, M., & Henderson, S. (2014). Emotional climate and high-quality learning experiences in science

  PRE-SERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AS GAME DESIGNERS: EMOTIONAL… 

151

teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 1301–1325. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21170 Chmiel, M. (2009). Game design towards scientific literacy. International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 14(2)–15(1), 32–42. Crookall, D., & Thorngate, W. (2009). Acting, knowing, learning, simulating, gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 40(1), 8–26. Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row. Dewey, J. (1894). The theory of emotions: Emotional attitudes. The Psychological Review, 1, 553–569. Dewey, J. (2008). The later works vol. 13: Experience and education. In J.-A.  Boydston (Ed.). Southern Illinois University Press. (First published in 1938). Dreon, O., & McDonald, S. (2012). Being in the hot spot: A phenomenological study of two beginning teachers’ experiences enacting inquiry science pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching, 18(3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13540602.2012.629837 Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-­4681.00141 Holmes, B., & Gee, E. (2016). A framework for understanding game-based teaching and learning. On the Horizon, 24(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/ OTH-­11-­2015-­0069 Honey, M. A., & Hilton, M. (Eds.). (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. National Academies Press. Hufnagel, E. (2015). Pre-service elementary teachers’ emotional connections and disconnections to climate change in a science course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(9), 1296–1324. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21245 Hufnagel, E. (2018). Emotional discourse as constructed in an environmental science course. In G. J. Kelly & J. L. Green (Eds.), Theory and methods for sociocultural research in science and engineering education (pp. 155–180). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351139922 Hufnagel, E. (2019). Emotional discourse as constructed in an environmental science course. In G. J. Kelly & J. L. Green (Eds.), Theory and methods for sociocultural research in science and engineering education (pp. 155–180). Routledge. Hufnagel, E., & Kelly, G.  J. (2018). Examining emotional expressions in discourse: Methodological considerations. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-­017-­9806-­4 Jaber, L. Z., Hufnagel, E., & Radoff, J. (2019). “This is really frying my brain!”: How affect supports inquiry in an online learning environment. Research in Science Education, 1–24.

152 

L. MARTÍN-FERRER ET AL.

Kim, B., Park, H., & Beak, Y. (2009). Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using metacognitive strategies in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 52(4), 800–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.004 Linn, M. C., Chang, H. Y., Chiu, J., Zhang, H., & McElhaney, K. (2010). Can desirable difficulties overcome deception clarity in scientific visualizations? In A.  S. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting. A Festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 239–262). Routledge. Marti, J. (2012). Aprendre ciències a l’educació primària. Editorial Graó. Ritchie, S. M., & Beers Newlands, J. (2017). Emotional events in learning science. In A. Bellocchi, C. Quigley, & K. Otrel-Cass (Eds.), Exploring emotions, aesthetics, and wellbeing in science education research (pp. 85–106). Springer. Rivera Maulucci, M. S. (2013). Emotions and positional identity in becoming a social justice science teacher: Nicole’s story. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 453–478. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21081 Roth, W.  M., & Jornet, R. (2013). Toward a theory of experience. Science Education, 98, 106–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21085 Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT Press. van Staalduinen, J. P., & de Freitas, S. (2011). A game-based learning framework: Learning game design and learning outcomes. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Learning to play: Exploring the future education with video games. Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Vygotskij, L.  S. (2001). Lekcii po pedologii [Lectures on pedology]. Izhevsk, Russia: Udmurdskij University. (A translation of Lecture 5 to which we refer here exists as Vygotsky, L.  S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 338–354). Basil Blackwell.) (Original work published in 1935). Weitze, C. L. (2014). Developing goals and objectives for gameplay and learning. In K.  Schrier (Ed.), Learning, education and games: Volume one: Curricular and design considerations (Vol. 1, pp. 225–249). Carnegie Mellon University ETC Press. Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital Press. Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Simeoni, Z., Tran, M., & Yukhymenko, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82, 61–89. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.3102/ 0034654312436980 Zembylas, M. (2002). Constructing genealogies of teachers’ emotions in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 79–103. https://doi. org/10.1002/tea.10010

  PRE-SERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AS GAME DESIGNERS: EMOTIONAL… 

153

Zembylas, M. (2007). Emotional ecology: The intersection of emotional knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.002 Zembylas, M., & Barker, H.  B. (2002). Pre-service teacher attitudes and emotions: Individual spaces, community conversations and transformations. Research in Science Education, 32(3), 329–351.

The Nature of Teacher Educators’ Professional Learning: Reflections of Two Science Teacher Educators Karen Goodnough and Saiqa Azam

Introduction Learning to teach involves a complex set of activities and processes usually completed as part of a formal teacher preparation program situated in universities, although alternate pathways to becoming a teacher are becoming more prevalent (Ell et  al., 2019; Grossman & Loeb, 2008). Teacher candidates (TCs) need to develop knowledge, skills, dispositions, and practices that are highly integrated to become successful as beginning teachers. Preparing TCs to become effective teachers is challenging, requiring teacher educators (TEs) to develop a complex set of abilities, skills, and dispositions as well. In the context of this chapter, the authors work with two groups of TCs—primary/elementary (K-grade 6) and intermediate/secondary (grades 7–12) through offering separate science curriculum courses and school-based experiences to each group. This

K. Goodnough (*) • S. Azam Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. P. Thomas, H. J. Boon (eds.), Challenges in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_8

155

156 

K. GOODNOUGH AND S. AZAM

preparation not only influences TCs’ knowledge of science topics such as classroom-based assessment, inquiry-based instruction, engineering and design processes, and inclusive science pedagogy, but it also impacts the development of skills (e.g., questioning, scaffolding) and dispositions (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, and values). Thus, as second-order practitioners, TEs indirectly influence the quality of K-12 education and, hence, the learning of K-12 students (Lunenberg et al., 2014; Murray & Male, 2005). While the nature of teachers’ learning is well-documented, less is known about the nature and sources of TEs’ professional learning (PL). Even less has been documented about the work of science teacher educators (STEs), the focus of this chapter. Moreover, understanding the nature of TEs’ work is complicated because this group is not homogenous. They have varying roles, backgrounds, experiences, and PL needs (Dengerink et al., 2015; Goodwin et al., 2014). For example, some are tenure-track faculty who have completed doctoral degrees and assume roles focused on teaching, research, and public engagement. Others may be retired educators with graduate degrees who have responsibilities for school-based mentoring and support of TCs. Yet others may be course instructors who teach courses as part-time faculty. Pathways to becoming TEs also vary. In the case of tenure-track and tenured faculty, TEs have often taught as K-12 practitioners before becoming faculty or have completed higher degrees in their respective disciplines (e.g., Biology, Chemistry). Regardless of the pathway followed, there is evidence that TEs may not be adequately prepared to assume their roles as university-based faculty (Swennen et al., 2009) in terms of developing a pedagogy of teacher education, a TE identity, and a knowledge base for teacher education (Ping et al., 2018). The research on the work of TEs is emerging and beginning to grow. The literature stemming from this research has focused on the pedagogy of TEs (Fletcher et al., 2018; Kavenuke & Muthanna, 2021; Loughran, 2014); the nature of TEs’ work and how it informs their identity, knowledge base for teaching, and practice (Hinman et al., 2021; Jegstad et al., 2021; Kosnik et  al., 2015; Widodo & Allamnakhrah, 2020); and the nature of their research (Barkhuizen, 2021; Gong et  al., 2021; Sousa et al., 2019). In addition, the approaches and strategies to engage TEs in PL (Bilican et al., 2021; Byman et al., 2021; Hamilton & Pinnegar, 2014) and their motives for participating in PL activities have been examined (Ping et al., 2020, Williams & Ritter, 2010).

  THE NATURE OF TEACHER EDUCATORS’ PROFESSIONAL LEARNING… 

157

Like the broader body of research on TEs’ PL and the nature of their work, the existing research on STEs’ work has focused on the content of PL, the activities of PL, and the reasons for engaging in PL (Ping et al., 2018). For example, the literature has reported on various aspects of STEs’ pedagogical content knowledge, perspectives, and practice (Abell et al., 2009; Demirdögen et al., 2015; Fraser, 2017; Smith 2000), such as culturally relevant pedagogy, inclusive education, inquiry-based instruction, and multicultural education (Atwater et al., 2013; Campbell et al., 2012; Dotger, 2011; Underwood & Mensah, 2018). A limited body of literature exists on the PL activities of STEs. One PL activity that has been used by STEs is self-study, a systematic approach to examining one’s own teaching and practice and student learning, while engaging in and disseminating knowledge about the scholarship of teaching and learning (Bullock & Russell, 2012; Kitchen et al., 2020; Loughran, 2005). For example, O’Dwyer et al. (2020) engaged in two self-studies simultaneously (undergraduate elementary science and football coaching), creating opportunities for new learning about relational teaching. Allen et al. (2016) completed a self-study to examine his transition from being a teacher to becoming a field experience instructor with elementary science and mathematics TCs. Being part of a doctoral program community of practice allowed him to develop his professional identity, while examining the impact of his teaching on TEs’ development as teachers. In another study, Christou & Bullock (2014) engaged in a self-study focused on investigating the benefits and pitfalls of offering TCs cross-curricular courses in teacher education. In addition to self-study, other PL activities of STEs have been documented, such as lesson study, shadowing, and PL communities (Adams, 2021; Bilican et al., 2021; Hanuscin et al., 2021). In this chapter, the authors contribute to the literature on the nature of PL of TEs by reflecting on and sharing their professional trajectories as tenured STEs. They examine the strategies they have adopted and how these have impacted their learning and practice over time.

Conceptual Framework The authors adopt the tripartite framework proposed by Ping et al. (2018) to structure their reflections and sharing. This framework consists of three categories: the ‘what’ or content of PL, the ‘how’ or activities of PL, and the ‘reasons’ or why for PL. The descriptions for each of the three categories proposed by Ping and colleagues were based on their analysis of 75

158 

K. GOODNOUGH AND S. AZAM

articles selected from a larger sample. Each of the 75 selected articles reported on TEs working in higher education. Also, the articles selected had to focus on at least one of the three categories in the tripartite framework. Each of the three categories is described briefly as follows: 1. The what or the content of PL This category consists of four sub-categories: (a) pedagogy of teacher education, (b) research and reflection, (c) professional identity, and (d) knowledge base for teacher education. The pedagogy of teacher education includes knowing about and being able to explain to TCs the underlying assumptions and reasons for teaching, being cognizant of TCs’ concerns and needs and of ways to support them, and having the skills to mentor TCs as they are engaged in a range of learning activities such as research tasks and practicum teaching. Research involves TEs valuing research and being able to conceptualize, design, and implement research to “strengthen their practices or contribute to their professional knowledge” (Ping et al., 2018, p.  97). Finally, reflection relates to TEs reflection on their own practices, as well as enabling and supporting TCs to engage in reflection on their own practices. Professional identity refers to the professional roles TEs assume such as being a teacher of teachers and a researcher. The last content category includes the knowledge TEs need to prepare future teachers such as subject-matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge for teaching particular subjects, knowledge of curriculum, and knowledge of the professional context of teacher education. 2. The how or the activities used by TEs to participate in PL PL activities in this category include learning through academic engagement (research to produce theoretical knowledge, practitioner research, and/or reading and writing research articles or attending conferences), learning through collaborative activity (learning with colleagues, teachers, or students; participating in learning communities), learning by participating in formal PL programs, and learning through reflective activity both individually and collectively. 3. The why or the reasons for engaging in PL

  THE NATURE OF TEACHER EDUCATORS’ PROFESSIONAL LEARNING… 

159

TEs engage in PL for three reasons: to meet external requirements such as changes in teacher education programs or policies or to meet assessment requirements of an institution, personal responsibility, a desire to be wellpositioned to meet the needs of TCs, and role transition such as moving from the role of teacher to the role of TE. Using these three categories as a tool to guide and structure their reflections, the authors share their insights about their PL trajectories and make recommendations for how to address the PL needs of STEs. Like the authors, others may wish to use one or all categories of this framework to make choice and decisions about how to engage in and identify the focus of their PL.

Methodology The authors followed a self-study approach to explicate their PL, which extended over each of their unique pathways and professional trajectories. They considered their diverse experiences throughout their academic careers, focusing primarily on their last five years as colleagues in a public university in eastern Canada. This self-study inquiry is an ongoing collective effort to engage in the scholarship of teaching and learning (Loughran & Russell, 2002). It is “an extension of reflection on practice, with aspiration that goes beyond professional development” aimed at the generation and communication of new “knowledge and understanding” (Loughran & Northfield, 1996, p. 15) about PL. The purpose of the authors’ self-study inquiry reported in this chapter was to “promote intersections between pedagogy, self, and reflections” and to generate meanings about the content, strategies, and reasons for the authors’ PL as STEs (Ragoonaden et al., 2015, p. 3). This self-initiated inquiry allowed the authors to be critical and reflective about their pedagogical practices and helped them understand their PL needs and the available opportunities and supports. Self-study inquiry may have many facets and can be conducted in multiple educational contexts (Craig, 2006) using diverse methods depending on “what is sought to be better understood” (Loughran, 2006, p. 15). In this self-study research, the authors established a critical friendship (Loughran & Brubaker, 2015), which provided a lens for them to examine their PL in order to become effective STEs. Being interactive in nature, this self-study inquiry used qualitative methods (LaBoskey, 2004), including written reflections and recorded collegial conversations in formal and

160 

K. GOODNOUGH AND S. AZAM

informal settings where the authors discussed their diverse perspectives and practices, asked stimulating questions, and analyzed data. The participants in this self-study were two STEs, Karen and Saiqa, the authors. Karen had worked as a STE for 24 years and a classroom teacher for 13  years, and had assumed a mentoring role with Saiqa when she joined the Faculty of Education as an assistant professor in 2015. Saiqa was already an experienced STE with decades of experience teaching science methods courses and additional experiences in K-12 for ten  years teaching secondary physics and general science. The authors’ critical friendship developed organically and resulted in formal self-study inquiries and informal dialogue and reflective exchange about science teacher education practices. They observed each other in their respective classrooms and supported their PL through multiple activities, such as sharing reflective diary entries, debriefing sessions after teaching classes, and analyzing self-study data together. In their current academic positions, Karen and Saiqa both teach primary/elementary methods and intermediate/secondary science curriculum courses. More recently, they introduced a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) course into the primary/elementary science curriculum. Throughout their critical friendship, Karen and Saiqa reflected on various aspects of their science teacher education practices and the situated context of their learning. Recently, they discussed and developed reflections on their PL as STEs, generating three reflective narratives to capture their PL efforts throughout their careers. They also considered previously generated reflections over the last five years; these served as another source of data. All written reflections (10  in total) were approximately 1200 words. To analyze the data and to generate and contribute new ideas on the nature of PL of STEs, the authors used the aforementioned three categories of Ping et al. (2018): (1) content, (2) activities or strategies, and (3) reasons for PL. In the following sections, we present our findings.

Outcomes and Discussion Content of Professional Learning (PL) The content of PL entails four areas: (a) the pedagogy of teacher education, (b) research and reflection, (c) professional identity, and (d) the knowledge base of teacher education. The authors attend to their reflections on each of these in that order.

  THE NATURE OF TEACHER EDUCATORS’ PROFESSIONAL LEARNING… 

161

 edagogy of Teacher Education P As previous science teachers, Karen and Saiqa brought a robust body of knowledge and skills about how to teach science or learning about teaching (e.g., knowledge of curriculum, instruction, assessment, teaching practice, how to scaffold K-12 student learning) to their academic positions. They continued to expand and strengthen this knowledge as they gained more experience as TEs. For example, Saiqa noted the development of her understanding of school science students’ alternative ideas and the importance of making this a germane topic in her pre-service courses, thus enabling TCs to, in turn, understand the nature of students’ alternative ideas and how to address them in their practices. Through in-­ depth conversations with her supervisor and completing a graduate thesis on this topic, students’ alternative ideas became “a very important area for [her] pre-service teachers to focus on… [she] always included a unit on students’ alternative ideas in [her] science courses.” She noted: Over the years, I have planned many different learning activities [e.g., curriculum mapping, micro-teaching, school-based teaching while completing a university course] and course assignments to allow prospective TCs to become aware of students’ misconceptions and alternative ideas in different science topics, learn about strategies to identify students’ alternative ideas, and use research-based strategies to allow conceptual change.

Like Saiqa, Karen continued to strengthen her pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching as she completed her PhD thesis, which focused on how elementary teachers interpreted multiple intelligences theory and how they applied key tenets of the theory to their classroom practice. She reflected on this many years later, “Working collaboratively with teachers as a facilitator and critical friend was an incredible growth experience. It enhanced many aspects of my PCK for teaching science.” Another specific example of enhancing PCK for learning about teaching is reflected in Karen’s early career interest in Problem-Based Learning (PBL). While her first attempt at adopting PBL as an instructional approach in her pre-service classes presented several challenges (e.g., being too ambitious, introducing PBLs that were too large or complex, ensuring groups functioned effectively), she persevered and continued, during her career, to use it as an instructional approach. Moreover, she modeled how it could be adopted as an instructional approach in K-12 classrooms. She stated in a reflection: “My work on PBL through reading and

162 

K. GOODNOUGH AND S. AZAM

collaborative reflection with colleagues allowed me to develop considerable insight into how to structure PBL for use with young children.” Being an effective TE also requires an in-depth knowledge of teaching about teaching, or making underlying assumptions about teaching practices explicit, sharing the principles that underpin a particular teaching approach, and demonstrating how to use particular approaches. As stated by Loughran and Berry (2003), “there is a need to offer student teachers access to the pedagogical reasoning, feelings, thoughts, and actions that accompany practice across a range of teaching and learning experiences” [abstract]. In addition, TEs need to make their thinking accessible as TCs assume the role of K-12 students when completing inquiries, responding to probing questions, sharing journal reflective entries, discussing instances of teaching based on experience, and examining the artifacts of teaching. The authors have always been conscientious in making modeling a part of their practices as STEs. During a recent self-study, Karen and Saiqa explored the nature of their modeling during their pre-service classes with an emphasis on their explicit modeling of teaching practices. They concluded that explicit modeling is a complex activity that requires constant reflection on the nature of the modeling and how it benefits the TCs. Moreover, modeling allows the TCs and Karen and Saiqa to examine and learn from each other. Mentoring and supervision have been key elements of the authors’ work as STEs. Saiqa shared some of her mentoring/supervisory experiences prior to becoming an assistant professor at their current university: Another important source of PL for me was supervising and mentoring pre-­ service science teachers as a STE. I had multiple opportunities to supervise and mentor pre-service science teachers. I always valued following my pre-­ service science teachers in the field after completing their science methods courses. I supervised pre-service teachers during their field placements in two different programs in Pakistan and at the University of Punjab as a sessional instructor.

Saiqa acknowledged the importance of “these experiences [to help her] learn about theory and practice in science education and to [keep her] connected with the K-12 classrooms and student learning.” While Karen and Saiqa have both been directly involved in mentoring and supervision of TCs during their careers, supervision during internships at their current university is not typically completed by tenured and tenure-track faculty.

  THE NATURE OF TEACHER EDUCATORS’ PROFESSIONAL LEARNING… 

163

Therefore, opportunities for such PL are not currently present for them or are limited. Research and Reflection An integral part of the authors’ development as STEs has been conducting research and engaging in reflection. In terms of research, they have conceptualized and designed many studies that have informed their practice as STEs through the generation of new knowledge. For example, in a recent study, Saiqa conceptualized a study focused on pre-service elementary science teachers’ identity. This study is described briefly by her as follows: In a collaborative research project with a colleague from the USA, I investigated changes in pre-service elementary teachers’ beliefs around science teaching, their self-efficacy, and science teaching identities. A mixed-­ methods methodology was employed, and both quantitative and qualitative data were collected through multiple sources. This research further expanded my knowledge of pre-service teachers’ learning during the science methods courses, especially how their background knowledge and experiences of science influenced their learning during science methods courses.

When designing studies and disseminating research outcomes, the authors record their developing ideas and insights in a written electronic journal, noting how the outcomes of a study might inform their classroom practice as STEs. At times, they have sought the support of another colleague to act as a critical friend, thus moving beyond individual reflection to collaborative reflection. Furthermore, reflection by TCs is a strong element of their science methods classes and across the teacher education programs. To exemplify this, as part of a school-university partnership embedded in one of their science methods courses, elementary TCs prepared inquiry-based, inclusive science lessons for implementation with small groups of primary and elementary students in a neighboring school. “TCs find this to be one of the highlights of the course, helping them to develop aspects of their pedagogical content knowledge and foster critical reflection on what works well and what needs improvements” (Karen). Professional Identity While a consensus on the meaning and the nature of identity does not exist in the literature, the authors view identity as both individual and social (Akkerman & Meijer, 2011). In other words, the construction and

164 

K. GOODNOUGH AND S. AZAM

reconstruction of the professional identity of the TE is influenced by both individual dimensions and social elements and relationships (Karaolis & Philippou, 2019). Karen and Saiqa state that they view themselves as “STEs and researchers” with “a dialogical relationship existing between both roles.” Teaching informs their research and scholarship and simultaneously, research practice and the dissemination of outcomes inform teaching.” Aligning with Boyer’s (1990) work and the Scholarship of Application, they apply the knowledge they and others have generated through research to serve their professional communities and to foster strong connections between theory and practice in teacher education. For example, Saiqa’s involvement in a local math and science special interest council and Karen’s leadership roles as associate dean and dean reflect their commitment to the growth of their professional communities and, ultimately, science teacher education. Knowledge Base As the authors developed as STEs and engaged in various types of PL, they have enhanced many aspects of their subject-matter knowledge (e.g., knowledge of the engineering design process, knowledge of inclusive science education), pedagogical content knowledge, and knowledge of the contexts of local, national, and international teacher education. (e.g., provincial policy regarding inclusion, national K-12 curriculum frameworks). Saiqa, in one of her reflections, expressed her strong interest in describing and documenting the development of TCs’ PCK. Building on her doctoral work (Azam, 2015), she continues to work with a topic-specific PCK framework she developed both as a reflective tool and a research conceptual framework for PCK. This framework has been influential in helping her develop her own PCK, especially as it relates to “helping pre-service teachers develop their own PCK… [and using the] … heuristic to design science education courses.” Her courses have been modified over the last few years to “include knowledge of science content and pedagogy and to help pre-service teachers integrate these two types of knowledge around curriculum topics.” One of the challenges Karen and Saiqa encounter in teaching how to teach particular science topics has been having to teach generic science education methods courses in preparing junior high and high school teachers. Karen’s subject area specialization is Biology/Chemistry while Saiqa’s is Physics. Their faculty does not offer subject-specific methods courses (e.g., Chemistry or Biology methods courses), thus they often feel

  THE NATURE OF TEACHER EDUCATORS’ PROFESSIONAL LEARNING… 

165

like teachers who sometimes have to teach outside their areas of expertise (Sheppard et  al., 2020; Singh, 2022). They need to help TCs develop specific pedagogical content knowledge for teaching in their subject area without having strong subject-matter knowledge themselves in those particular areas. Strategies and Activities to Promote Professional Learning Throughout their careers as STEs, Karen and Saiqa have used a range of strategies and participated in varied activities to enhance their PL.  An essential part of their academic engagement has been and continues to be self-study. Karen’s pathway to self-study started with action research. She has facilitated many teacher action research groups; “however, at one point, [she] began to realize that she needed to study her own practice.” Her early self-study work used action research to examine the strengths and limitations of problem-based learning and “how it could help pre-­ service students connect theory and practice.” One of the highlights of Karen’s career has been establishing a self-­ study community of practice in her faculty. This work started as part of her work as Chair of Teaching, one of many chairs across the University. She describes the formation of the self-study group: As part of my Chair initiative, I invited faculty to join me in establishing a self-study community of practice. Initial meetings, for at least a year, were open to all – a drop by situation – to allow faculty to explore self-study in an informal manner. After about 12–16 months, a core of faculty emerged to form a more stable structure that met on a weekly to bi-weekly basis.

Saiqa become a core member of this group, commenting, “Our first formal self-study (8 faculty members) involved universal design for learning or UDL and how some of its key elements could guide our work with our students.” Using the guidelines and principles, group members identified two areas that they felt were well-represented in their practice and two areas where they felt improvement was warranted. “[The group] worked in pairs to design a study that would be implemented in their respective classrooms.” See Goodnough et al. (2020) for more details on how this group evolved into a community of practice. Saiqa described some of her experiences as a member of this group:

166 

K. GOODNOUGH AND S. AZAM

The self-study group’s focus was to learn about self-study as a tool to improve our teacher education practices and create a safe place to share and discuss our ideas related to effective teacher education. It took us two years to establish a group of seven members committed to exploring and using self-study as a tool for PL.  Our regular self-study meetings led to several collaborative self-study projects. Two projects became most influential in shaping my view of effective science teacher education and allowed inclusion to become a focal point for my PL.

In addition to self-study becoming a core part of their research agendas, the authors have implemented numerous research studies with practicing teachers and their students and TCs (e.g., Azam, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c; Menon & Azam, 2021; Azam & Menon, 2021; Goodnough, 2018; Goodnough et al., 2019; Goodnough, 2019). Karen has facilitated numerous K-12 teacher action research groups, while Saiqa has engaged in collaborative inquiry and action research with both practicing teachers and TCs. Saiqa reflected on her experiences of mentoring TCs during her role as a TE at a university in Pakistan. Working with groups of four to five, I helped them formulate their inquiry questions and develop their plans for collecting data to answer their inquiry questions. Students developed reports and presented their learning to peers at the end of their programs. This unique experience of supervising and mentoring students was a rich source of PL.

The authors have shared and disseminated the outcomes of their research through conferences, book chapter publications, and scholarly articles. This engagement in research activities has been instrumental in informing other areas of their PL, especially learning about teaching and teaching about teaching. Collaborative activity underpins most of their PL activities. Karen and Saiqa consistently seek feedback from colleagues through networking at conferences and consulting with faculty and staff. For example, while conducting a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council study focused on the perspectives and practices of STEs regarding inclusion, Karen and Saiqa consulted with their own Special Education faculty when designing a national survey. Offering feedback to each other and engaging in collaborative reflection is a key part of the self-study group’s activity as well. Through its ongoing activities, the self-study group “created a safe space to share and

  THE NATURE OF TEACHER EDUCATORS’ PROFESSIONAL LEARNING… 

167

discuss ideas related to effective teacher education” (Saiqa). Often, to foster individual and collaborative reflection, members of the self-study group would draft individual written reflections based on particular questions (e.g., “How do you feel the group is functioning? What suggestions do you have for enhancing group dynamics?”), and then reflections would be shared collectively, for whole-group discussion. Moreover, TCs have been an important source of learning, as their feedback allows Karen and Saiqa to gain better insight into “how to design courses and programs and support TC learning” (Karen). For example, in 2019, Saiqa taught in the Inuit Bachelor Education (IBED) program. Saiqa reflected that she “used this as an opportunity to design a culturally relevant science education course.” Based on the suggestion of TCs in the program, she invited a non-profit organization to “offer a session on building a teepee and connected these experiences to the science curriculum.” In addition, Saiqa has mentored TCs who have completed action research as a component of their internships, and she has noted how “rich this was as a source for her own PL” and a means for “TCs to engage in reflective practices while documenting their own learning.” In the Ping et  al. (2018) framework, service and public engagement activities are not mentioned explicitly as sources of PL. The authors consider these to be vital to their growth and development as STEs. For example, a dozen years ago, Karen established a long-standing partnership with a local K-6 school. She established this partnership to provide TCs with an opportunity to develop theory-practice connections early in their preparation. TCs prepare inquiry-based, inclusive science lessons for implementation with small groups of K-6 students. Because the school has a diverse student population, students are exposed to working with a wide range of learners with diverse needs. TCs take their first steps into implementing inquiry-based, student-centered lessons with children. “Through this ongoing partnership, [Karen and Saiqa] have helped TCs make connections between educational theory and classroom practice and gain insight into TC needs in terms of how to structure inquiry-based lessons” (Karen). Reasons for Professional Learning Over the years, the authors have engaged in PL for a variety of reasons. In their faculty, programs are formally reviewed every five to seven years, which entails completing an audit of faculty programs and having external

168 

K. GOODNOUGH AND S. AZAM

educators review programs. This has resulted in recommendations regarding the strengths of programs, as well as suggestions for improvement. Areas of improvement have included introducing new content into the curriculum, considering new ways of helping TCs connect theory and practice, and examining university-school partnerships. For example, Karen reflected on areas of the curriculum that have changed in her courses: In the early days, my courses did not have a heavy emphasis on Indigenous perspectives or social justice. So, in my courses today, new content and approaches have been incorporated to reflect the needs of K-12 schools and to respond to program reviews mandated by the University and external agencies.

Similarly, Saiqa reflected on her international experiences of learning and teaching science education, and how these experiences guided her PL. I completed my Masters in Education program in Australia, and this eye-­ opening PL experience helped me realize my professional needs in the international context, which further motivated me to continue my PL in the area of science education. As a result, I modified my science education courses to include learning opportunities for pre-service teachers to facilitate the integration of content and pedagogy to help them develop their science PCK. After I started teaching science education courses in Canada and became aware of the history of Indigenous people, I completed Indigenous Relations Training Program at the University of Calgary to update my knowledge of inclusive science education. I expanded my knowledge of culturally relative science teaching, in the context of my experience of teaching science methods courses in our Inuit Bed program. (Azam & Goodnough, 2018)

The authors have always been strongly committed to ensuring they are well-positioned “to support the TCs with whom [they] work” (Karen). This entails staying abreast of current research in teacher education, science education, and the practice of science teaching and learning. For example, with a greater emphasis on engineering and design in the K-12 curriculum, the authors have introduced the design process into the university science education curriculum, thus assisting TCs in making explicit connections amongst science, technology, and engineering. Being professionally responsible and keenly interested in their work has helped Karen and Saiqa assist TCs in developing a strong foundation for their early years of teaching.

  THE NATURE OF TEACHER EDUCATORS’ PROFESSIONAL LEARNING… 

169

Final Thoughts This chapter shared the insights and experiences of the authors using a conceptual framework (Ping et  al., 2018) focused on the “what” of, “how” of, and reasons for PL. While the framework can serve as a very useful guide for reflection about and on classroom practice, its elements overlap and are not discrete entities. This needs to be considered when adopting the framework as a tool to gain insight into perspectives and practices as it relates to learning and teaching. Furthermore, it needs to be recognized that PL trajectories will vary for each STE (or teacher educators) and how the framework is applied to practice will vary. For example, the authors shared some commonalities in their PL trajectories (e.g., both had been school teachers for several years), but they experienced differences in their pathways to becoming STEs and their professional learning needs. The authors also noted that the framework does not address how service and public engagement may be important factors influencing PL. In Canada and other countries, many STEs have had experiences as K-12 teachers prior to entering academia. In some jurisdictions, STEs enter teacher education by completing a doctoral degree in a science discipline. Regardless of the pathway followed, their PL needs will vary. For example, some may need a stronger emphasis on teaching about teaching whereas others may need to develop an aspect of their pedagogical content knowledge. In addition to varying pathways and professional needs, STEs often engage in PL as the context of teacher education changes. In other words, changing policies and practice, new research about teacher education, and new insights about how students learn may result in PL occurring on a ‘need to know’ basis rather than in a systematic, intentional manner. One implication of this is that STEs need mentoring and support throughout their careers. Formal induction programs should be available to new TEs, and ongoing formal PL should supplement TEs’ ongoing self-directed PL. Both STEs themselves and those in leadership positions can play a key role in advocating for this support. Because teacher education is complex and challenging and STEs, and TEs in general, play a critical role in preparing TCs for K-12 classrooms, TEs need to be highly reflective about their own PL needs. The framework of Ping et al. (2018) may provide a tool for this reflection, may provide a tool for this reflection,

170 

K. GOODNOUGH AND S. AZAM

helping identify PL opportunities and needs. The authors highly recommend that more research be completed in science teacher education to better understand the work of STEs and how to support their PL needs in terms of content, effective PL strategies, and the reasons for engaging in PL.

References Abell, S.  K., Rogers, M., Park, A., Hanuscin, D.  L., Lee, M.  H., & Gagnon, M.  J. (2009). Preparing the next generation of science teacher educators: A model for developing PCK for teaching science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10972-­008-­9115-­6 Adams, M. S. (2021). An exploration of teacher educators’ coaching and teacher candidates’ considerations of developmentally appropriate practice in lesson study. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida]. Akkerman, S., & Meijer, P. (2011). A dialogical approach to conceptualizing teacher identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 308–319. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.013 Allen, J., Park Rogers, M., & Borowski, R. (2016). “I am out of my comfort zone”: Self-study of the struggle of adapting to the professional identity of a teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 12(3), 320–332. https://doi. org/10.1080/17425964.2016.1228048 Atwater, M. M., Butler, M. B., Freeman, T. B., & Carlton Parsons, E. R. (2013). An examination of black science teacher educators’ experiences with multicultural education, equity, and social justice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(8), 1293–1313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-­013-­9358-­8 Azam, S. (2015). Stories of teaching force and motion: A narrative inquiry into pedagogical content knowledge of science teachers. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary]. Azam, S. (2020a). Locating personal pedagogical content knowledge of science teachers within stories of teaching force and motion. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology, 16(12). https://doi.org/10.29333/ ejmste/8941 Azam, S. (2020b). Addressing student diversity in science classrooms: Exploring topic-specific personal pedagogical content knowledge of high school teachers. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.333 Azam, S. (2020c). An inquiry into personal pedagogical content knowledge of science teachers: Stories of teaching electricity. Canadian Journal of Curriculum

  THE NATURE OF TEACHER EDUCATORS’ PROFESSIONAL LEARNING… 

171

Studies, 18(1), 149–150. https://jcacs.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/jcacs/ article/view/40555 Azam, S., & Goodnough, K. (2018). Learning together about culturally relevant science teacher education: Indigenizing a science methods course. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 26(2), 74–88. https://openjournals.librar y.sydney.edu.au/index.php/CAL/article/ download/12610/11611 Azam, S., & Menon, D. (2021). Pre-service elementary teachers’ science teaching beliefs: Influence of science learning and teaching experiences. Electronic Journal of Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 21–46. https:// ejrsme.icrsme.com/issue/download/1628/158 Barkhuizen, G. (2021). Identity dilemmas of a teacher (educator) researcher: Teacher research versus academic institutional research. Educational Action Research, 29(3), 358–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965079 2.2020.1842779 Bilican, K., Senler, B., & Karısan, D. (2021). Fostering teacher educators’ professional development through collaborative action research. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(2), 459–472. https://doi.org/10.29329/ ijpe.2021.332.28 Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bullock, S. M., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2012). Self-studies of science teacher education practices. Springer. Byman, R., Jyrhämä, R., Stenberg, K., Maaranen, K., Sintonen, S., & Kynäslahti, H. (2021). Finnish teacher educators’ preferences for their professional development  – Quantitative exploration. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 432–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1793952 Campbell, T., Der, J. P., Wolf, P. G., Packenham, E., & Abd-Hamid, N. H. (2012). Scientific inquiry in the genetics laboratory: Biologists and university science teacher educators’ collaborating to increase engagement in science processes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(3), 74–81. Christou, T., & Bullock, S. M. (2014). Learning and teaching about social studies and science: A collaborative self-study. The Social Studies, 105(2), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2013.850053 Craig, C. (2006). Change, changing, and being changed: A self-study of a teacher educators’ becoming real in the throes of urban school reform. Studying Teacher Education, 2(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960600557538 Demirdögen, B., Aydin, S., & Tarkin, A. (2015). Looking at the mirror: A self-­ study of science teacher educators’ PCK for teaching teachers. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(2), 189–205. https://doi. org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1315a

172 

K. GOODNOUGH AND S. AZAM

Dengerink, J., Lunenberg, M., & Kools, Q. (2015). What and how teacher educators prefer to learn. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(1), 78–96. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.992635 Dotger, S. (2011). Exploring new territories: My trajectory toward becoming an inclusive science teacher educator. Reflective Practice, 12(3), 415–426. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2011.571871 Ell, F., Simpson, A., Mayer, D., Davies McLean, L., Clinton, J., & Dawson, G. (2019). Conceptualising the impact of initial teacher education. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46, 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-­018-­ 0294-­7 Fletcher, T., Ní Chróinín, D., Price, C., & Francis, N. (2018). Teacher educators’ enactment of pedagogies that prioritise learning about meaningful physical education. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, 9(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2018.1425125 Fraser, W.  J. (2017). Science teacher educators’ engagement with pedagogical content knowledge and scientific inquiry in predominantly paper-based distance learning programs. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 18(4), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.340375 Gong, Y., MacPhail, A., & Young, A. (2021). Chinese higher education-based physical education teacher educators’ PL needs for involvement in research activities. Professional Development in Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/19415257.2021.1895286 Goodnough, K. (2018). Addressing contradictions in teachers’ practice through professional learning: An activity theory perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 40(17), 2181–2204. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069 3.2018.1525507 Goodnough, K. (2019). Understanding primary teachers’ professional learning and practice: An activity theory lens. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(3), 362–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1488997 Goodnough, K., Azam, S., & Wells, P. (2019). Adopting drone technology in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics): An examination of elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 19(4), 398–414. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10972-­016-­9485-­0 Goodnough, K., Arnold, C., Azam, S., Maich, K., Moghaddam, A., Penney, S., & Young, G. (2020). Cultivating a self-study community of practice: Reflections of faculty on issues of evolution and functioning. Studying Teacher Education, 16(2), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2020.1737928 Goodwin, A. L., Smith, L., Souto-Manning, M., Cheruvu, R., Tan, M. Y., Reed, R., & Taveras, L. (2014). What should teacher educators know and be able to do? Perspectives from practicing teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 284–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114535266

  THE NATURE OF TEACHER EDUCATORS’ PROFESSIONAL LEARNING… 

173

Grossman, P., & Loeb, S. (2008). Alternative routes to teaching: Mapping the new landscape of teacher education. Harvard Education Press. Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (2014). Self-Study of teacher education practices as a pedagogy for teacher educator professional development. Advances in Research on Teaching, 22, 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1108/ S1479-­368720140000022010 Hanuscin, D., Donovan, D., Acevedo-Gutiérrez, A., Borda, E., Debari, S., Melton, J., Le, T., Whitney, M., & Ronca, R. (2021). Supporting the professional development of science teacher educators through shadowing. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 19, 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-­021-­10154-­5 Hinman, T.  B., He, Y., & Bagwell, D. (2021). Developing teacher educators’ hybrid identities by negotiating tensions in linguistically responsive pedagogy: A collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education: Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 1(20). https://doi.org/10.1080/1742596 4.2021.1960814 Jegstad, K. M., Fiskum, T. A., Aspfors, J., & Eklund, G. (2021). Dichotomous and multifaceted: Teacher educators’ understanding of professional knowledge in research-based teacher education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1958255 Karaolis, A., & Philippou, G.  N. (2019). Teachers’ professional identity. In M. Hannula, G. Leder, F. Morselli, M. Vollstedt, & Q. Zhang (Eds.), Affect and mathematics education (ICME 13 monographs). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­13761-­8_18 Kavenuke, P.  S., & Muthanna, A. (2021). Teacher educators’ perceptions and challenges of using critical pedagogy: A case study of higher teacher education in Tanzania. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 18(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.18.4.10 Kitchen, J., Berry, A., Bullock, S. M., Crowe, A. R., Taylor, M., Guðjónsdóttir, H., & Thomas, L. (Eds.). (2020). 2nd international handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­1710-­1 Kosnik, M., Menna, L., Dharamshi, P., Miyata, C., Cleovoulou, Y., & Beck, C. (2015). Four spheres of knowledge required: An international study of the professional development of literacy/English teacher educators. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(1), 52–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260747 6.2014.992634 LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–30). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

174 

K. GOODNOUGH AND S. AZAM

Loughran, J. (2005). Researching teaching about teaching: Self-Study of teacher education practices. Studying Teacher Education, 1(1), 5–16. https://doi. org/10.1080/17425960500039777 Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education. Routledge. Loughran, J. (2014). Professionally developing as a teacher educator. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 271–283. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022487114533386 Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2003). Modelling by teacher educators. Paper presentation. American Educational Research Association. https://eric.ed. gov/?id=ED478762 Loughran, J., & Brubaker, N. (2015). Working with a critical friend: A self-study of executive coaching. Studying Teacher Education, 11(3), 255–271. https:// doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2015.1078786 Loughran, J., & Northfield, J.  R. (1996). Opening the classroom door: Teacher, researcher, learner. Falmer Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203450543 Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2002). Improving teacher education practices through self-study. Routledge Falmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203018637 Lunenberg, M., Dengerink, J., & Korthagen, F. (2014). The professional teacher educator: Roles, behaviour, and professional development of teacher educators. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­6209-­518-­2 Menon, D., & Azam, S. (2021). Pre-service elementary teachers’ identity development in learning to teach science: A multi-site case study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(5), 558–577. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1046560X.2020.1870810 Murray, J., & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 125–142. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.006 O’Dwyer, A., Hamilton, M., & Bowles, R. (2020). Learning with and from others: Self-Study of teacher education within a landscape of practice. Studying Teacher Education, 16(3), 364–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/1742596 4.2020.1784132 Ping, C., Schellings, G., & Beijaard, D. (2018). Teacher educators’ professional learning: A literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.003 Ping, C., Schellings, G., Beijaard, D., & Ye, J. (2020). Teacher educators’ professional learning: Perceptions of Dutch and Chinese TEs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2020.1725808 Ragoonaden, K.  O., Sivia, A., & Baxan, V. (2015). Teaching for diversity in teacher education: Transformative frameworks. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.5206/ cjsotl-­rcacea.2015.3.6

  THE NATURE OF TEACHER EDUCATORS’ PROFESSIONAL LEARNING… 

175

Sheppard, K., Padwa, L., Kelly, A.  M., & Krakehl, R. (2020). Out-of-field teaching in Chemistry and Physics: An empirical census study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(7), 746–767. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1046560X.2019.1702268 Singh, H. (2022). Understanding and supporting science teachers teaching outside their expertise: Studies of teachers and those who support them [ProQuest Information & Learning]. In Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences (Vol. 83, Issue 3–A). Smith, D. C. (2000). Content and pedagogical content knowledge for elementary science teacher educators: Knowing our students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(1), 27–46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43156231 Sousa, R. T., de Lopes, A., & Boyd, P. (2019). Research: An insight on how it is valued by Portuguese and English teacher educators. Teaching Education, 30(4), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1495704 Swennen, A., Shagrir, L., & Cooper, M. (2009). Becoming a teacher educator: Voices of beginning TEs. In A. Swennen & M. van der Klink (Eds.), Becoming a teacher educator. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4020-­8874-­2_7 Underwood, J.  B., & Mensah, F.  M. (2018). An investigation of science teacher educators’ perceptions of culturally relevant pedagogy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1046560X.2017.1423457 Widodo, H. P., & Allamnakhrah, A. (2020). The impact of a blended PL community on teacher educators’ professional identity: Towards sustainable teacher professional development. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(3), 408–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1761249 Williams, J., & Ritter, J.  K. (2010). Constructing new professional identities through self-study: From teacher to TE. Professional Development in Education, 36(1–2), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415250903454833

Breaking the Vicious Circle of Secondary Science Education with Twenty-First-­ Century Technology: Smartphone Physics Labs Marina Milner-Bolotin and Valery Milner

Introduction The launch of the first artificial Earth satellite in 1957 (Dickson, 2001) signified a pivotal point in the science education movement in the West (DeBoer, 1991; Frelindich, 1998). Sputnik was the catalyst that forced US policymakers to view their investment in science education as a national priority. They challenged educators to increase students’ engagement in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) so that more of them would be interested in pursuing these fields at post-­ secondary institutions (Center for Education Reform, 2018; Moritz, 1999). Since then, STEM-education researchers, especially in the field of physical sciences, have begun accumulating extensive evidence pointing to

M. Milner-Bolotin (*) • V. Milner University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. P. Thomas, H. J. Boon (eds.), Challenges in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_9

177

178 

M. MILNER-BOLOTIN AND V. MILNER

active engagement as one of the key elements in successful STEM learning at both K-12 and post-secondary levels (Bransford et  al., 2002; Fagen et al., 2002; Hake, 1998; Mazur, 1997a). By active engagement pedagogies, we mean teaching methods that involve students in doing science (e.g., making observations, building models, predicting experimental results, collecting and analyzing data, and discussing competing explanations for observed phenomena) as opposed to passively receiving and regurgitating information provided by the teachers (Martinovic & Milner-­ Bolotin, 2021; Milner-Bolotin, 2004, 2012, 2018a, 2020; Moore et al., 2014). With the rapid development of novel educational technologies in recent decades, these active learning strategies spurred the utilization of data collection and analysis tools, such as sensors (Milner-Bolotin, 2012), video analysis software (Milner-Bolotin et  al., 2020; Tembrevilla & Milner-­ Bolotin, 2019), instant feedback and classroom response systems (Fagen et al., 2002), as well as computer simulations and visualizations (Donnelly-­ Hermosillo et  al., 2022; Milner-Bolotin, 2018b; Perkins et  al., 2006; Pullen et al., 2022). These technology-rich, STEM-learning environments have positively affected STEM learning for thousands of students (Ben-­ David Kolikant et al., 2020a), yet their high cost has made access to them prohibitive for less affluent K-12 schools and post-secondary institutions (Ben-David Kolikant et al., 2020b). Furthermore, the use of these tools is often physically restricted to academic institutions, thus limiting student STEM engagement to the classroom. Additionally, STEM teachers need support in purposefully incorporating these tools into their lessons, which might mean altering teachers’ pedagogical approaches (Milner-Bolotin, 2016). Since access to STEM professional development is often limited, especially in rural schools where one science teacher might teach all STEM subjects, these teachers are less likely to implement innovative pedagogies, unless the teachers are members of communities of practice where they can be mentored and supported (Ben-David Kolikant et al., 2020b). Recent challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic have underscored the importance of designing hands-on student STEM experiences that are not restricted to the classroom but can be carried out by students at home with simple equipment. This is especially relevant to learning physics, as this subject is fraught with abstract concepts that many students and even future teachers find challenging (Milner-Bolotin et  al., 2020; Milner-Bolotin & Zazkis, 2021). While some of these concepts might be familiar to the students from everyday life, their lay meanings often differ

  BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF SECONDARY SCIENCE EDUCATION… 

179

from their precise scientific definitions, generating additional tensions (Arons, 1997). Understanding these concepts often requires extra time, more advanced mathematical knowledge, as well as the ability to connect algebraic, verbal, and visual representations. These concepts include, but are not limited to, velocity and acceleration, force, momentum, mechanical energy and its transformations, waves and pressure, heat and temperature, sound level, and sound intensity (Hammer, 1996). For example, the concept of free fall is first introduced in elementary school and later during the study of kinematics in secondary physics (Hawkes et al., 2018). While the concept is deceptively simple, it requires students to connect visual, verbal, algebraic, and graphical representations. And yet free fall is one of the ‘easiest’ and less abstract concepts in the physical science curriculum taught in both secondary school and undergraduate physics courses (McDemott et al., 1987). Many concepts in secondary science curricula suffer the same fate, forcing students to memorize, as opposed to make sense of science ideas (Arons, 1997). Not surprisingly, Eric Mazur (1997b), a notable physics educator, asked if we are even teaching the right thing; understanding or memorization? Unfortunately, science teachers might hold similar misconceptions as their students, as we found in our own study of how future physics teachers understand the concept of logarithm and its applications (Milner-Bolotin & Zazkis, 2021). Yet, understanding these abstract concepts can be aided by collecting, visualizing, and interpreting real-life data in the process of inquiry-based learning. This inquiry can rely on students’ using applications (apps) freely accessible on modern smartphones (Maciel, 2015; Staacks et al., 2018; Vieyra et al., 2015). Fortunately, smartphones, unlike some expensive digital tools that are yet uncommon in secondary schools, are typically owned by the majority of students (Milner-Bolotin et al., 2021). In light of these findings, this chapter has three goals. First, we propose a pedagogical approach for using smartphones in a science classroom to conduct hands-on inquiry labs that focuses on experimental design, data collection, and analysis. Second, we describe our experience of using this approach in a secondary physics classroom and during the province-wide Physics Olympics event that engaged hundreds of secondary students from urban and rural schools (Milner-Bolotin et  al., 2019; UBC Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2022). Third, we discuss how science educators can support new and practicing teachers in implementing

180 

M. MILNER-BOLOTIN AND V. MILNER

this novel technology in their classrooms through mentorship and communities of practice. It is important to mention that this chapter is written from the philosophical perspective that to make students interested in STEM, we have to engage them on their own turf, instead of imposing on them the same education that we—science teachers—experienced decades ago and found effective. We also have to give students multiple opportunities to take charge of their own learning, make mistakes, fail, find solutions, and feel proud of what they have achieved. Modern technology can help accomplish these goals (Milner-Bolotin, 2018b). We can do it through mentoring the next generation of STEM teachers and challenging them to experience a different kind of science learning that we often find in contemporary schools, so that teacher-candidates will be ready and willing to implement it with their own students. Finally, instead of considering smartphones to be a distraction or an obstacle to STEM learning, we call on educators to consider the possibilities offered by these omnipotent gadgets already found in students’ pockets, thus engaging students in authentic and meaningful STEM learning, be it in school or at home.

Phyphox: A Research-Based Science Smartphone Application This chapter aims to showcase the pedagogical potential of smartphones as tools for increasing student-STEM engagement. We realize that there are many other technologies that might have complementary applications, but we deliberately want to focus on only one of them. We believe smartphones can be used to engage students in learning science in a way that reflects how science is done by practicing scientists. Smartphone-enhanced science learning can open ample opportunities for students to slow down and reflect on their learning in terms of the process, as well as the product. As Michael Matthews (1998) noted more than two decades ago, having ‘modest goals’ is not a problem, but a necessary requirement to making progress. While arguing for the inclusion of the history and philosophy of science in science education, he wrote: Philosophy begins when students and teachers slow down the science lesson and ask what the above terms mean and what the conditions are for their correct use. All of these concepts contribute to, and in part arise from, philosophical deliberation on issues of epistemology and metaphysics: questions

  BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF SECONDARY SCIENCE EDUCATION… 

181

about what things can be known and how we can know them, and about what things actually exist in the world and the relations possible between them. Students and teachers can be encouraged to ask the philosopher’s standard questions: What do you mean by … ? and How do you know … ? of all these concepts. Such introductory philosophical analysis allows greater appreciation of the distinct empirical and conceptual issues involved when, for instance, Boyle’s law, Dalton’s model, or Darwin’s theory is discussed. It also promotes critical and reflective thinking more generally. (p. 169)

Authentic science learning reflects the philosophy, epistemology, and nature of science (Matthews, 1998) by inviting every student to ask their own science questions and seek their own answers that can be empirically tested, debated, and discussed with their teachers and peers. Smartphone-­ based data collection and analysis tools provide ample opportunities for the students to do so and experience science as a vibrant field, where the process of doing science is as important as its product. We invite STEM educators to consider how rapidly developing technologies, such as a research-based smartphone app phyphox (Goertz et  al., 2017; Staacks et al., 2018), can facilitate this process. Phyphox (PHYsics PHOne eXperiments) app was designed at the University of Aachen, Germany, and was spearheaded by Sebastian Staacks and his team (Staacks et al., 2019). We decided to adopt phyphox app for the following reasons: 1. Relevance to science curriculum: Phyphox allows students to collect and analyze data relevant to the secondary science curriculum (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2021). While phyphox was originally designed to support physics learning, it can be expanded to other science fields, such as chemistry, biology, earth science, and mathematics (Stampfer et al., 2020). 2. Opportunities for student creativity: While many educational tools, such as PhET computer simulations (Wieman et al., 2010), have a structured experimental design, where students have limited degree of freedom for its manipulation, phyphox allows students to creatively use sensors already available in their smartphones, such as motion detector, accelerometer, magnetometer, and pressure and light sensors. The experiments are not limited to the ones already developed by the phyphox community but widely open to students’ imagination. The only limitations are the observables that can be measured

182 

M. MILNER-BOLOTIN AND V. MILNER

(smartphone sensors) and the range and sensitivity of the measurement. For example, students can measure the acceleration, rate of rotation, ambient pressure, magnetic field, and frequencies and intensities of sound. Then they can export data into their favorite software (e.g., Excel, Google Sheets, Desmos) and conduct the data analysis on their computers. Thus, phyphox invites students to take charge of their experimental design and its implementation. 3. Ease of use and versatility in a teaching lab: The learners can collect and analyze data in real time, as well as transfer it to their computers for additional in-depth analysis. The app is also versatile in terms of its level of engagement, offering opportunities for both secondary and post-secondary STEM studies. Moreover, phyphox can connect wirelessly to the computer through its remote access option. Hence, while the smartphone works as the measuring device, the data can be simultaneously displayed on students’ computers. 4. Affordability: The app is freely available for both Android and iPhone operating systems and does not require Internet access after it has been downloaded. The phyphox community also has extensive instruction videos and examples of possible experiments. 5. Research-based: Phyphox community is grounded in STEM education research (Milner-Bolotin et al., 2021; Staacks et al., 2018). The app has undergone significant testing in terms of its capabilities and modes of implementation with various student populations (from middle school to post-secondary science classrooms), offering multiple ways to engage students (Goertz, 2018). 6. Phyphox teaching community support: The app has a number of teaching communities associated with it that have produced and tested many activities, lesson plans, virtual labs, and authentic STEM experiments, and that are ready to support educators in phyphox implementation (https://phyphox.org/). However, our use of phyphox should be considered more as a proof of principle, rather than the choice of a single app or a rejection of others. Moreover, we also realize that the tool itself will not make a difference in how students learn science, unless teachers adopt the pedagogy that will purposefully utilize it to promote authentic STEM learning (Milner-­ Bolotin, 2020).

  BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF SECONDARY SCIENCE EDUCATION… 

183

A Model for Smartphone-Supported Project-Based Science Learning In this section, we outline our pedagogical model for phyphox-supported science labs, emphasizing how it differs from a traditional secondary science lab learning environment. At the core of our approach is a project-­ based and inquiry-based instruction (Milner-Bolotin, 2001). This science learning environment encourages student engagement, interest, and motivation, helping them to take control of their learning (Barron, 1998; English & Kitsantas, 2013). Project-based learning supports student creativity while reflecting the authentic challenges and processes faced by practicing scientists. For example, finding meaningful research questions is a key part of science research. Only after becoming familiar with what is already known in the field and considering their own interests and goals, the scientists in a research lab decide what research they want to pursue. Scientists frequently face serious theoretical or experimental challenges and rarely expect to obtain immediate results while avoiding all the dead ends. Finally, scientists do not work in isolation but share their research with colleagues for feedback and suggestions. Authentic scientific research is a slow, iterative, and collaborative process, built on the ‘shoulders of giants’ of a scientific community. Therefore, we strongly believe that: (a) Students have to actively engage in their science labs: Students should provide input in choosing their research questions and methods for answering them. (b) Design and implementation of empirical research takes time: From reading the literature, considering the availability of resources, formulating research questions and methods of answering them, collecting and analyzing data, and receiving feedback to refine the experiments. Since science research is an iterative process, students need time to complete the lab. Thus, unlike a traditional one- or two-hour long lab, our smartphone-supported lab activities are multi-week research-based projects. (c) Natural sciences are grounded in experiment. They utilize empirical data to judge the validity of arguments (Popper, 1996). Thus, students need to be able to collect and analyze data that will help them make this judgment. This is where phyphox becomes an indispensable tool for doing science.

184 

M. MILNER-BOLOTIN AND V. MILNER

(d) Finally, unlike a traditional lab, where in a short period of time the students have to obtain pre-determined results that they care little about and rarely share with peers, the project-based labs we propose might not have pre-determined answers known to the teacher or students. The lab becomes an authentic research process, where learning happens through ongoing problem-solving, dealing with failure, and collaborating with peers (Milner-Bolotin, 2018b). Technology can help students become more efficient in this process, leaving them time to evaluate, analyze, troubleshoot, and try again. Eventually, this is what makes science so exciting for scientists—overcoming the inevitable difficulties in order to figure things out and share the results with peers. Our model of the Smartphone-Supported Project-Based Science Learning Cycle is illustrated in Fig. 1. In this learning environment, the teacher takes a somewhat different role than in a traditional secondary science lab. Since the research questions are generated by the students, they might be unfamiliar to the teacher. Hence, the teacher might not know immediately how to design an experiment that will answer them. This means that the teacher will need to engage in science research together ith

Fig. 1 Our model of a Smartphone-Supported Project-Based Science Learning Cycle

  BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF SECONDARY SCIENCE EDUCATION… 

185

the students and might even need some help and mentorship from an experienced scientist. The students can return to any one of the stages as needed. For example, while doing the data analysis in Stage III, the students might need to revisit Stage I.  The results of Stage III might also suggest the revision of their experimental design in Stage II. Thus, each one of the stages is built on the previous ones and might be affected by the other stages. The role of mentorship and collaboration with the educational and science research communities will be important here. It will be discussed below. In the following section, we describe three different examples of how this model was implemented in a secondary science classroom and an example of how phyphox was used in a province-wide physics competition. The first two experiments show different versions of the project relevant to a traditional secondary physics curriculum. The third one illustrates how smartphones can support students in pursuing their own science interests. The last example illustrates how phyphox can be used for science outreach both face-to-face and remotely.

Phyphox-Supported Physics Labs: Beyond the Model The following sections show three examples of how a smartphone-­ supported project-based science learning cycle can be implemented in a secondary science classroom as well as in science outreach. The first three investigations took place in a secondary physics class of 40 students during the 2021–2022 academic year. Two teachers were teaching this group (the authors of this paper): a university physics professor (VM) and a university science education professor who is also a physics educator (MMB). The teachers met with the students once a week for one and a half hours. Each one of the investigations was performed by a group of 4–5 students. The three projects below were chosen as they show different degrees of sophistication and complexity in terms of the experimental design, data collection and analysis, and the topic of investigation chosen by the secondary physics students. The fourth example illustrates how phyphox can support independent student investigations conducted remotely during the province-wide physics competition and engaged hundreds of students.

186 

M. MILNER-BOLOTIN AND V. MILNER

Investigating the Law of Energy Conservation: An Example of a Project in Early Stages The goal of this project was to design an experiment that would help students investigate different aspects of the law of energy conservation. The students, who were all enrolled in Grade 11 and Grade 12 Physics course, could choose to focus on mechanical energy or to expand their investigation to include other types of energy. They were free to choose the experiment they wanted to perform but were asked to base their investigation on the empirical data they collected as opposed to doing theoretical work. A number of different experimental designs were proposed by the students. For example, one group decided to investigate the bounce of an elastic ball off the floor and how the decrease of the height of the ball’s bounce could illustrate the conversion of mechanical energy to heat and sound. Their experimental design is shown in Fig. 2. Using an Inelastic Collision Application found in phyphox, the students measured the height of the bounce for each one of the consecutive ball bounces dropped from specified heights. They conducted the experiment for different release heights and tried to estimate the amount of mechanical energy converted to heat and sound for each one of the experiments. However, after conducting these experiments and discussing them with

Fig. 2  Project examining the law of energy conservation: (a) experimental design (as shown by the students); (b) preliminary experimental results. The students received feedback on how to improve their experimental design, incorporate error bars in their data representation, and use proper significant digits

  BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF SECONDARY SCIENCE EDUCATION… 

187

the teachers and peers, the group realized that they could not measure directly the amount of mechanical energy converted to sound waves or heat, other than comparing the initial and final energies of the system. Moreover, the students were not able to estimate the experimental error to make sure the results they obtained were meaningful. While the group calculated the percentage of energy loss in each bounce comparing the initial release height with the height of the bounce, they were unsure what the numbers meant and if the results were consistent with the theoretical predictions. Thus, after conducting these first two stages of the project, the students realized that the experimental design had to be improved. In the following stages of the experiment refinement, the students estimated the amount of mechanical energy loss due to the air drag, production of sound, as well as due to the compression of the ball during the bounce and its heating. They also discussed the inaccuracies in the measurement by phyphox and how they could have been reduced. This is an example of a project, where the students had a very good initial idea but needed support in its implementation and data analysis. Moreover, traditionally, this experiment would have been concluded with the calculation of the coefficient of restitution of the ball, but little discussion of how the amount of energy transferred to heat or sound can be found experimentally (Hawkes et al., 2018). The experiment conducted by these students was an attempt, even if not entirely successful, for a deeper analysis. The teachers mentored students during the last three stages of the Smartphone-Supported Project-Based Science Learning Cycle and presented the results to the rest of the class. Investigating the Law of Energy Conservation: An Example of an Advanced Project Another group of students in the same school (Grade 12 students) decided to investigate the laws of momentum and energy conservation using collisions of two metal balls. To test these laws, the students designed two independent experiments. In the first experiment (Fig. 3a), the students used a collision of two metal balls on a ramp, while in the second one (Fig. 3b), they used a collision of two pendulums. This group was able to perform an in-depth investigation by first conducting a thorough literature review, then completing their own theoretical calculations to predict expected results, and finally, focusing on the careful interpretation of the obtained data and modifications of

188 

M. MILNER-BOLOTIN AND V. MILNER

Fig. 3  Experimental designs suggested by the students for testing the laws of momentum and mechanical energy conservation: (a) collisions of two metal balls on a ramp; (b) collisions of two pendulums

experimental design. The students also analyzed sources of errors and attempted to reduce them. In addition, they compared two methods using different sensors in their smartphones, as well as the phone’s video camera to conduct video analysis (Antimirova & Milner-Bolotin, 2009). They also suggested areas for improvement and further investigation. Finally, during the interpretation stage, the students compared their results with the results reported by other researchers in the papers they had read earlier and discussed possible causes for discrepancies. Investigating the Effect of Linear String Density on the Generated Sound Frequency: An Example of a Non-traditional Science Investigation In the third example, a different group of students, of grades 11 and 12, all of whom had musical backgrounds, decided to investigate the science behind the production of sound by string musical instruments. This focused on examining the relationship between the linear string density and sound frequency. To do so, they designed the experiment shown in Fig.  4a. By plucking five different ‘strings’ of differing densities (twine, aluminum wire, copper wire, 3D print filament, and iPad charger), sounds of different frequencies were generated, measured, and consequently analyzed. In this experiment, the students varied the tensions of different strings and used their phones to detect the generated frequency of the sound. While the group originally used phyphox, they realized its

  BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF SECONDARY SCIENCE EDUCATION… 

189

Fig. 4  (a) Experimental design with the string attached to the nail indicating the test string used to calibrate the measurement; (b) the best fit curve for the data points as compared to the expected theoretical result

limitations for the purpose of this experiment and chose to use another online application, also available freely on their smartphones. In addition, the students faced some technical challenges, such as making sure they plucked the strings consistently or accurately measured strings’ linear densities. In this experiment, the string tensions were kept constant while the students varied strings’ densities and analyzed the sound frequency produced by the vibrating strings. Their results are shown in Fig. 4b. This group was not able to conduct sufficiently accurate measurements, as the measuring devices had inconsistent detection accuracy at different frequencies. This was unexpected and caused students to reconsider their original experimental design. The phyphox detector they intended to use had variable sensitivity to different frequencies, which was initially unknown to the students and teachers. At lower frequencies, the detector was more accurate, which eventually explained the deviations of the measurements’ results from the expected value and prompted the group to switch measuring devices from phyphox to a different one—Online Pitch Detector app. Thus, this experiment encouraged students not only to learn the science behind musical instruments but also to learn more about how the limitations and properties of the measuring instruments influence how we choose to conduct scientific experiments.

190 

M. MILNER-BOLOTIN AND V. MILNER

Physics Olympics The University of British Columbia (UBC) Physics Olympics (Liao et al., 2017; UBC Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2022) is a province-­ wide day-long science outreach event that takes place on UBC campus and attracts more than 500 secondary students and their teachers annually. It is one of the largest and oldest events in North America that invites students to work in teams to do hands-on science, to be creative in an undergraduate science lab, and to meet other secondary science students. It is a long-time collaboration of the UBC Faculties of Science (Department of Physics and Astronomy) and Education (Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy). We celebrated the UBC Physics Olympics’ 40th anniversary in 2018 and hope to continue for decades to come. The event historically includes six heats: two different pre-build competitions that students prepare at home to solve a specific challenge given to them a month or two in advance; two lab activities that are conducted in undergraduate physics labs on the day of the event; and two knowledge-­ based team events that also happen during the Physics Olympics, such as a Fermi Questions Challenge, and Quizzics (a conceptual physics questions’ competition in a game-show format, in which teams work together to solve and answer physics/astronomy questions and problems) (Milner-­ Bolotin et al., 2019). As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the event was canceled in 2020. Then, in 2021 and 2022, Physics Olympics events were held remotely. The virtual nature of the competition prompted the organizers (both authors are the members of the UBC Physics Olympics Organizing Committee) to consider how they could engage students remotely and level the playing field in terms of the resources available to different schools. The knowledge-based and the lab events were held via Zoom, with the virtual lab component using PhET interactive simulations (Wieman et al., 2010). The pre-build events had to be conducted by the students mostly at their homes in the months prior to the event, as many schools closed their science labs for extracurricular events. This was the reason we decided to use phyphox as a measurement device for the Pre-­ Build heat challenges. For example, in 2021, the students were given the following two tasks (UBC Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2022):

  BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF SECONDARY SCIENCE EDUCATION… 

191

Project 1: Gravitational acceleration In this project your task is to determine experimentally the value of the gravitational acceleration, g, while adhering to the following rules: (a) Instrumentation. You may use your smartphone(s) with phyphox and any other external instrument (e.g., ruler, thermometer, scale, etc.) provided the additional instruments are not communicating with any of the smartphones. (b) Physical constants. You are not allowed to use any known physical constants, such as the density of materials, the mass of the Earth, etc., unless you determine it experimentally yourself using instrumentation outlined in a). If you determine such a constant experimentally, then you must explain how you made the measurement. Project 2: Speed of sound at 0°C In this project your task is to determine experimentally the value of the speed of sound in ambient air at a temperature of 0 degrees C. You must adhere to the following rules: (a) Instrumentation. You may use a smartphone only! Any other common measuring devices, such as a ruler or a thermometer are not allowed! For example, if you say that you carried out an experiment outdoors and the temperature was 0 degrees, you are required to explain how you determined the outside air temperature (and using a weather forecast is not allowed either). (b) Physical constants. You can use the values of any fundamental physical constants and material properties, such as the gravitational acceleration, g, thermal expansion of water, density of air, etc. However, you are not allowed to use well known facts not related to science, such as knowing that the length of a standard Letter page is 11” or that a gallon of milk weighs 8.6 pounds. (c) Physical laws. You are allowed to use the known dependence of the speed of sound on temperature, and other laws describing how a material property depends on various physical parameters.

The following year, we decided to have very different Pre-Build events. In 2022, the students were challenged “to build an apparatus that will transport a typical smartphone from the surface of a table, 1 m above the floor level, to the floor in the shortest possible time and with the smallest possible acceleration” (UBC Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2022). The ingenuity and creativity that the students have shown in figuring out these challenges have demonstrated how much can be done with a

192 

M. MILNER-BOLOTIN AND V. MILNER

standard smartphone in a physics lab. The Physics Olympics helped us test the power of the phyphox app for conducting physics labs remotely both at the secondary and potentially post-secondary levels. Leveling the playing field by using a free smartphone app allowed all students who wanted to participate in the event to have equal access to powerful science equipment for conducting their experiments; their own smartphones. This helped us engage students from all across British Columbia in creative science explorations, even when their schools might have had limited access to science equipment. Most importantly, we showed physics teachers across the province how they could use students’ smartphones during their day-to-­day science lessons. This was a catalyst for many teachers to consider this ubiquitous technology for their ‘regular’ teaching. However, to make it happen on a more sustainable basis, teachers needed a supportive community. We will discuss how we have attempted to create it in the next section. Supporting Teachers Through Mentorship and Communities of Practice As discussed above, there are many reasons why secondary STEM teachers might be open to adopting smartphone-based technologies (Jochen & Patrik, 2013). From opening new opportunities for their students and reducing the educational inequality between rural and urban, have and have-not schools, to enabling authentic hands-on science learning both in school and at home. There is ample evidence that allowing students to experience the authentic process of scientific discovery, from planning the experiment to implementing it and analyzing the results, can motivate students in pursuing science careers in the future (Bransford et al., 2002; Chachashvili-Bolotin et al., 2016). Yet, many promising technology-based pedagogies have yet to find their way into secondary STEM classrooms, even when those technologies are freely available (Jones & Leagon, 2014). The teachers’ buy-in is a key for successful adoption of technological innovations. S upporting Practicing Science Teachers To support STEM teachers in incorporating smartphones in science learning, we have to provide them with the opportunities to use these tools for doing science, as many teachers might have never experienced these learning environments as students. To do so, we organized a number of free

  BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF SECONDARY SCIENCE EDUCATION… 

193

online Professional Development workshops on the use of smartphones in science classrooms through the British Columbia Association of Physics Teachers (https://www.bcapt.ca). The workshops helped create a community of teachers interested in exploring this opportunity, as well as in sharing resources and experiences with each other. In addition, every year, during the Physics Olympics event, we organize a professional development workshop for teachers. In the last two years, the events focused on the use of smartphone technologies in science classrooms. Holding professional development workshops on the day of a large province-wide science event is very valuable. Firstly, the teachers come from all across the province and very often have a few free hours during the event when they are not with their students. Secondly, this is an opportunity for teachers to meet other inspiring and knowledgeable colleagues. Thirdly, teachers can learn from each other, from science faculty members, and from the workshop leaders, new ideas relevant to science teaching that would have been hard to learn elsewhere. We have been organizing such teacher-oriented events for more than a decade and have found them valuable for the teachers and rewarding for us on both professional and personal levels. S upporting Future Science Teachers For many STEM teachers, Teacher Education is their introduction to research-based and evidence-based STEM education (Milner-Bolotin, 2018a). Few future teachers have experienced active STEM learning as K-12 students, and even fewer have had an opportunity to use modern technology (Milner-Bolotin et  al., 2020) or their own smartphones to carry out authentic and open-ended scientific investigations. To help future teachers adopt these innovative pedagogies and start thinking about how to incorporate technology deliberately into their science lessons during their school practicum and beyond (Milner-Bolotin, 2020), they have to gain experience in using these tools with secondary students. This is the reason for not only incorporating modern technologies, such as smartphone applications, into STEM teacher education but also pairing future teachers with secondary science students who use modern technologies to conduct science investigations. For the last few years, we have been gradually increasing the use of smartphone-based science experiments in secondary science teacher education. We started by challenging future STEM teachers to contribute to the collection of videos, which would feature STEM experiments that can

194 

M. MILNER-BOLOTIN AND V. MILNER

be done on a shoe-string budget or with the devices already at students’ disposal (Tembrevilla & Milner-Bolotin, 2019). Later, we began incorporating experiments that use smartphone applications, such as phyphox, as research tools for doing science. To help teacher-candidates appreciate the opportunities provided by these tools, we paired them with the secondary physics students who were conducting phyphox-based experiments in their science classes. As such, future teachers were not only observing innovative science teaching but also became mentors to the secondary students during these project-based investigations (Fig.  1). According to their feedback, both teacher-candidates and secondary students have benefited from this collaboration.

Conclusions and Lessons Learned This chapter examined how common smartphones, already available to many students and teachers, can be used to conduct authentic open-ended physics (and STEM in general) investigations either at school or at home. We have demonstrated one example of a powerful free smartphone application relevant to the secondary science learning: the phyphox app (Staacks et  al., 2018). This application allows students to collect data with their smartphones and then transfer it to their computers for further analysis. Thus, phyphox turns students’ smartphones into data acquisition devices, allowing all students to perform authentic scientific investigations. We proposed a model for Smartphone-Supported Project-Based Science Learning Cycle (Fig.  1) and illustrated its implementation by a number of examples of authentic science investigations relevant to secondary science curriculum. We also discussed the strengths and the limitations of these applications in the context of physics (STEM) learning both in face-to-face and online learning environments. Finally, we proposed how smartphone applications, such as phyphox, can be incorporated into science methods courses for future teachers and in professional development events for practicing teachers. One of the prominent issues currently discussed among STEM educators is the need for technology-based professional development for practicing science teachers (Anderson et al., 2021). Despite the wide availability of these tools and ever-increasing technology access, relatively few teachers practice smartphone-enhanced inquiry-based science learning. In order for STEM teachers to be open to using these powerful devices with their students, the teachers have to experience smartphone-enabled

  BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF SECONDARY SCIENCE EDUCATION… 

195

science experiments as learners, as well as become members of the supportive community of practice. We illustrated how this could be done during teacher-education, as well as during teacher professional development events. We are convinced that with the eminent expansion of the science-­oriented smartphone applications, such as phyphox, the range of experiments that could be conducted to engage students in science will only expand. We call on science teacher-educators, scientists, and science education researchers to consider incorporating smartphone-enabled science activities in their teaching and professional development events. More than 60 years after the launch of Sputnik and the birth of the science education reform movement, too few students in our STEM classrooms have an opportunity to experience ‘the pleasure of finding things out’ (Feynman, 1999). There is no better way to attract students into science and to break the vicious circle of student science disengagement than to provide them with these opportunities through the creative use of smartphones. We hope that this chapter will encourage many STEM teachers and teacher-educators to incorporate smartphone applications, such as phyphox, into their curriculum in order to engage all students and future teachers in meaningful STEM learning.

References Anderson, D., Milner-Bolotin, M., Santos, R., & Petrina, S. (Eds.). (2021). Proceedings of the 6th international STEM in education conference (STEM 2021) [Conference Proceedings]. University of British Columbia. https:// stem2021.ubc.ca/ Antimirova, T., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2009). A brief introduction to video analysis. Physics in Canada, 65(April-May), 74. Arons, A. B. (1997). Teaching introductory physics. Wiley. Barron, B.  J. S. (1998). Doing With understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271–311. Ben-David Kolikant, Y., Martinovic, D., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2020a). Introduction: STEM teachers and teaching in the era of change. In Y. Ben-­David Kolikant, D. Martinovic, & M. Milner-Bolotin (Eds.), STEM teachers and teaching in the digital era: Professional expectations and advancement in 21st century schools (pp. 1–18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­29396-­3 Ben-David Kolikant, Y., Martinovic, D., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (Eds.). (2020b). STEM teachers and teaching in the digital era: Professional expectations and

196 

M. MILNER-BOLOTIN AND V. MILNER

advancement in 21st century schools. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­29396-­3 Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2002). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. The National Academies Press. https://www.nap. edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309070368 British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2021). Curriculum redesign. Canada British Columbia Ministry of Education, Retrieved from https://curriculum. gov.bc.ca/rethinking-­curriculum Center for Education Reform. (2018). A nation still at risk? Results from the latest NAEP recall the report from 35 years ago. https://www.edreform. com/2018/04/a-­nation-­still-­at-­risk/ Chachashvili-Bolotin, S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Lissitsa, S. (2016). Examination of factors predicting secondary students’ interest in tertiary STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 366–390. https://doi. org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1143137 DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. Teachers College Press. Dickson, P. (2001). Sputnik: The shock of the century. Walker Publishing Company. Donnelly-Hermosillo, A. D., Gerardb, B. L., & Linn, C. M. C. (2022). Designing virtual chemistry visualizations featuring environmental dilemmas to promote equitable knowledge integration. In Y.  J. Dori, C.  Ngai, & G.  Szteinberg (Eds.), Digital learning and teaching in chemistry: An international and inclusive approach. Royal Society of Chemistry. English, M. C., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Supporting student self-regulated learning in problem- and project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-­ Based Learning, 7(2), 128–150. Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer Instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40(April), 206–209. Feynman, R. P. (1999). The pleasure of finding things out: The best short works of Richard P. Feynman. Helix Books—Perseus Books. Frelindich, N. (1998). From Sputnik to TIMSS: Reforms in Science Education Make Headway Despite Setbacks: More time is needed for widespread classroom changes The Harvard Education Letter, 14 (September/October 1998). http://www.project2061.org/publications/articles/articles/harvard.htm Goertz, S. (2018). Entwicklung von Smartphone-Experimenten zu gleichmäßig beschleunigten Bewegungen mit der App phyphox für den Einsatz in der Sekundarstufe II RWTH Aachen]. Aachen, Germany. Goertz, S., Heinke, H., Riese, J., Stampfer, C., & Kuhlen, S. (2017). Smartphone-­ Experimente zu gleichmäßig beschleunigten Bewegungen mit der App phyphox. PhyDid B—Didaktik der Physik—Beiträge zur DPG-Frühjahrstagung.

  BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF SECONDARY SCIENCE EDUCATION… 

197

Hake, R.  R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-­ thousand-­ student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on students knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 53(64), 1316–1325. Hawkes, R., Iqbal, J., Mansour, F., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Williams, P. (2018). Physics for scientists and engineers: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Nelson Education. Jochen, K., & Patrik, V. (2013). Smartphones as experimental tools: Different methods to determine the gravitational acceleration in classroom physics by using everyday devices. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(1), 16–27. Jones, M.  G., & Leagon, M. (2014). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs: Reforming practice. In N.  G. Lederman & S.  K. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 830–847). Routledge. Liao, T., McKenna, J., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2017). Four decades of High School Physics Olympics Competitions at the University of British Columbia. Physics in Canada, 73(3), 127–129. Maciel, T. (2015). Smartphones in the classroom help students see inside the black box. APS News, 24(3), 5–6. Martinovic, D., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2021). Examination of modelling in K-12 STEM teacher education: Connecting theory with practice. STEM Education, 1(4), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2021018 Matthews, M.  R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161–174. h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 1 0 . 1 0 0 2 / ( s i c i ) 1 0 9 8 -­2 7 3 6 ( 1 9 9 8 0 2 ) 3 5 : 2 < 1 6 1 : : aid-­tea6>3.0.co;2-­q Mazur, E. (1997a). Peer instruction: Getting students to think in class. Changing role of physics departments in modern universities: Part two: Sample classes. University of Maryland. Mazur, E. (1997b). Understanding or memorization: Are we teaching the right thing? Conference on the Introductory Physics Course on the Occasion of the Retirement of Robert Resnick New York. McDemott, L., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55(6), 503–513. Milner-Bolotin, M. (2001). The effects of the topic choice in project-based instruction on undergraduate physical science students’ interest, ownership, and motivation [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of TX at Austin]. Austin, TX.

198 

M. MILNER-BOLOTIN AND V. MILNER

Milner-Bolotin, M. (2004). Tips for using a peer response system in the large introductory physics classroom. The Physics Teacher, 42(4), 253–254. https:// doi.org/10.1119/1.1696604 Milner-Bolotin, M. (2012). Increasing interactivity and authenticity of chemistry instruction through data acquisition systems and other technologies. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(4), 477–481. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ abs/10.1021/ed1008443 Milner-Bolotin, M. (2016). Promoting deliberate pedagogical thinking with technology in physics teacher education: A teacher-educator’s journey. In T. G. Ryan & K.  A. McLeod (Eds.), The physics educator: Tacit praxes and untold stories (pp. 112–141). Common Ground and The Learner. Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018a). Evidence-based research in STEM teacher education: From theory to practice. Frontiers in Education: STEM Education, 02(November), 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00092 Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018b). Nurturing creativity in future mathematics teachers through embracing technology and failure. In V. Freiman & J. Tassell (Eds.), Creativity and technology in math education (pp. 251–278). Springer. https:// www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319723792 Milner-Bolotin, M. (2020). Deliberate pedagogical thinking with technology in STEM teacher education. In Y.  Ben-David Kolikant, D.  Martinovic, & M.  Milner-Bolotin (Eds.), STEM teachers and teaching in the era of change: Professional expectations and advancement in 21st century schools (pp. 201–219). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­29396-­3 Milner-Bolotin, M., & Zazkis, R. (2021). A study of future physics teachers’ knowledge for teaching: A case of a decibel sound level scale. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 9(1), 336–365. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.9.1.1519 Milner-Bolotin, M., Liao, T., & McKenna, J. (2019). UBC Physics Olympics: Forty-one years of province-wide physics outreach. International Newsletter on Physics Education: International Commission on Physics Education— International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, 70(November), 5–6. https:// us20.campaign-­archive.com/?u=173cff9755457424d7b6da150&id=ca7a3 ba119&fbclid=IwAR3bfP9VIgSr97YXfhAi3zOxvSbH_qgjQNO84YNCSGw Ab3TNbTXP-­4COa34 Milner-Bolotin, M., Aminov, O., Wasserman, W., & Milner, V. (2020). Pushing the boundaries of science demonstrations using modern technology. Canadian Journal of Physics, 98(6), 571–578. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp-­2019-­0423 Milner-Bolotin, M., Milner, V., Tasnadi, A.  M., Weck, H.  T., Gromas, I., & Ispanovity, P. D. (2021). Contemporary experiments and new devices in physics classrooms. GIREP—Physics Education Conference 2019 Proceedings. http://fiztan.phd.elte.hu/english/student/devices.pdf

  BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF SECONDARY SCIENCE EDUCATION… 

199

Moore, E. B., Chamberlain, J. M., Parson, R., & Perkins, K. K. (2014). PhET interactive simulations: Transformative tools for teaching chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 1191–1197. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed4005084 Moritz, G. (1999). From Sputnik to NDEA: The changing role of science during the Cold War. http://codex23.com/gtexts/college/papers/j3.html Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., & LeMaster, R. (2006). PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44(January), 18–23. Popper, K. (1996). The myth of the framework: In defense of science and rationality. Routledge, Taylor & Francis. Pullen, R., Motion, A., Schmid, S., George-Williams, S., Wilkinson, S., & Leach, S. (2022). Digital tools for equitable in person and remote chemistry learning. In Y. J. Dori, C. Ngai, & G. Szteinberg (Eds.), Digital tools for equitable in person and remote chemistry learning (p. 19). Royal Society of Chemistry. Staacks, S., Hütz, S., Heinke, H., & Stampfer, C. (2018). Advanced tools for smartphone-based experiments: Phyphox. Physics Education, 53(4), 045009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-­6552/aac05e Staacks, S., Hütz, S., Heinke, H., & Stampfer, C. (2019). Simple time-of-flight measurement of the speed of sound using smartphones: Experiments using cell phones in physics classroom education: The computer-aided g determination. The Physics Teacher, 57(2), 112–113. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5088474 Stampfer, C., Heinke, H., & Staacks, S. (2020). A lab in the pocket. Nature Reviews Materials, 5(3), 169–170. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-­020-­0184-­2 Tembrevilla, G., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2019). Engaging physics teacher-­candidates in the production of science demonstration videos. Physics Education, 54(2), 025008–025018. http://stacks.iop.org/0031-­9120/54/i=2/a=025008 UBC Department of Physics and Astronomy. (2022). UBC Physics Olympics. UBC. Retrieved November 30, from http://physoly.phas.ubc.ca/ Vieyra, R., Vieyra, C., Jeanjacquot, P., Marti, A., & Monteiro, M. (2015). Turn your smartphone into a science laboratory. The Science Teacher, 82(December), 32–40. Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching physics using PhET simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48(4), 225–227.

Science and Technology Studies Informing STEM Education: Possibilities and Dilemmas Majd Zouda, Sarah El Halwany, and Larry Bencze



Introduction

Rapid developments in STEM (i.e., Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields are continuously forging new expected/intentional and unexpected/unintentional possibilities with both beneficial and detrimental consequences. For example, wearable fitness devices are argued to motivate users to pursue active lives. At the same time, concerns are raised regarding digital tracking and surveillance issues (Lupton, 2016). Similarly, while selective reproductive technologies might enhance “clinical success rates” and allow early diagnosis of some genetic disorders, these technologies are also commercially used for an embryo’s sex

M. Zouda (*) Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] S. El Halwany University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada L. Bencze University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. P. Thomas, H. J. Boon (eds.), Challenges in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_10

201

202 

M. ZOUDA ET AL.

selection, which is perceived as a “potentially discriminatory practice” (Kroløkke & Kotsi, 2019, pp. 97–98). More widely, our almost daily ‘prosumption’ (i.e., simultaneous consumption and production) (Toffler, 1980) of content and context on digital platforms (e.g., social media) suggests impressions of individuals’ control and freedom of self-expression (Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010). However, digital prosumption commercially exploits users’ personal data (ibid.). Needless to say, controlling all possible consequences of emerging STEM-based products and services is not usually possible. However, it seems that prevalence of certain “sociotechnical imaginaries” (i.e., visions of normalized sociotechnical assemblages)1 (Jasanoff, 2015) might favor particular outcomes over others. Jasanoff and Kim (2009), for example, explain how constructs of different sociotechnical imaginaries in the US and South Korea seemed to have led to different developments and regulations of nuclear power in the two countries. Such favoring of one or more outcomes over others is particularly important when considering the usually unequal contributions and representations of stakeholders and other involved entities (e.g., available technologies, prioritized values, accepted forms of knowledge) in the shaping and outcomes of these imaginaries. Additionally, although factors contributing to STEM-related social and environmental problems are usually varied and complex, there are serious and frequent incidences of manipulating technoscience developments to benefit private industries (Krimsky, 2019; Michaels, 2020). Bencze’s (2008) analysis, for example, of business-science partnerships illustrates how for-profit interferences can selectively manipulate research topics, directions, and/or (dissemination of) results. Hence, it could be argued that to direct STEM developments into more socially and environmentally ‘just’ forms, complex, dynamic, networks of power-relations that shape science (Latour, 2005) and STEM fields should be reshaped, and new imaginaries for sustainable futures should be constructed and possibly implemented. In light of these positions, one essential contributor to shaping and reshaping complex STEM networks and their related sociotechnical imaginaries is science/STEM education. Science educators have argued for a  Sociotechnical imaginary is defined as “collectively held, institutionally stabilized, and publicly performed visions of desirable futures, animated by share understandings of forms of social life and social order attainable through, and supportive of, advances in science and technology” (Jasanoff, 2015, p. 4). 1

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES INFORMING STEM EDUCATION… 

203

focus on science literacy that supports students’/citizens’ participation in knowledge production and decision-making (Levinson, 2010), and active involvement in sociopolitical civic actions (Bencze et al., 2012; Hodson, 2011; Reis, 2014; Sjöström et al., 2016). These conceptualizations of science literacy tend to implicitly perceive both science education and citizens as active contributors to sociotechnical imaginaries. Such views are much needed, and not adequately addressed (Takeuchi et al., 2020), in a contemporary STEM education (Li et al., 2020). In discussing societal demands on science education, Fensham (1988) identifies six possible demands that tend to compete for attention and space in science curricula: political, economic, subject-maintenance, cultural, social, and individual demands (p. 6). These demands are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and they do overlap. Fensham (1988) argues that there are usually tensions in balancing the first three options with the others. He adds that there are tendencies in science education to favor political, economic, and subject-maintenance demands over the other demands, which are those necessary for engaged, active citizenship. This seems the situation with current STEM education. In the following, we discuss some issues regarding dominant forms of STEM education that might undermine efforts for engaged citizenship, and possibilities for concepts and themes from fields of Science and Technology Studies (STS) to inform STEM education. Then, we empirically explore some of these possibilities and associated challenges, through lenses and experiences of a high-school science teacher implementing an STS-informed, action-­ oriented educational pedagogy in his courses.



STEM Education and Possibilities from Science and Technology Studies

STEM is a relatively new educational discourse that has gained significant momentum in the past ten years (Li et al., 2020; Takeuchi et al., 2020). While having diverse conceptualizations, meanings, components, and directions (Li et  al., 2020; Martín-Páez et  al., 2019), some core values that have largely been shaping its constructs are those of human capital and economic competition (Carter, 2017; Weinstein et  al., 2016). Accompanying these core values, narratives regarding a lack of qualified STEM graduates and the need to improve STEM workforces have been consistently used to justify related practices and regulations (Stevenson,

204 

M. ZOUDA ET AL.

2014). In the US, where STEM discourse originally developed, emphases on education in STEM fields have historically been connected to concerns regarding militarization, economic competitions, and national security (Shanahan et al., 2016). Consequently, current “visions for STEM education in the United States” appear to reflect a continuation of a “nationalistic discourse [that is] characterised by the dual focus on national security and economic competition” (Takeuchi et  al., 2020, p.  14). STEM can then be perceived as “part of a long-established governmental strategy that posits scientific and technological literacy at the center of national prosperity and power” (de Freitas et  al., 2017, p.  552). A key guiding logic of STEM education is that by facilitating the development of qualified STEM workforce, STEM education is expected to support innovation, production, and advanced positions in economic competitions. Such rationale underlying STEM and STEM education is not limited to the US, and similar inclinations regarding vocational and economic goals can be found internationally (Takeuchi et al., 2020; Williams, 2011) in the European Union (Caprile et  al., 2015), England (Wong et  al., 2016), Australia (Carter, 2017; Gough, 2015), Canada (Government of Canada, 2021), and Singapore (de Roock & Baildon, 2019), to name a few. It can be argued that these demands on/from STEM education largely match what Fensham (1988) describes as the political, economic, and subject-maintenance goals that usually drive science education. However, does this suggest that the other three goals (i.e., cultural, social, and individual)2 are compromised in STEM education? There are influential conceptualizations of STEM education as possibly context-based and issue-focused through which students are involved in individual, local, and/or global issues (e.g., Bybee, 2010; Rennie et al., 2012). Involving interdisciplinarity/integration and engineering designs in STEM education is perceived by advocates for such approaches as important means for students to address real-life problems (e.g., Martín-­ Páez et  al., 2019; Moore & Smith, 2014). Additionally, there are also emphases on improving the participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields, which is a goal in many STEM education policies (e.g., 2  While referencing these six demands, we acknowledge that each of them might subsume spectrums of possibilities, limitations, and biases. For example, cultural orientation might not necessarily imply or translate into pluralism and might be conceptualized and enacted through particular ideological preferences. However, these demands are useful to understand what is mainly prioritized in STEM education.

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES INFORMING STEM EDUCATION… 

205

National Research Council, 2011). These views and conceptualizations can perhaps be perceived as rendering STEM education culturally, socially, and individually relevant. And indeed, these conceptualizations might allow spaces for such forms of STEM education. Nevertheless, when considering positions based on the logic of human capital and economic competition that substantially underlie STEM education discourse, challenges to such possibilities inevitably arise. For example, when comparing the science, technology, and society movement to STEM, Ortiz-Revilla et al. (2020) indicate the absence of “S for society” from the latter (p. 861). Indeed, in STEM education policies (e.g., Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), 2013), there are emphases on functional skills and knowledge with a lack of attention to the sociocultural and sociopolitical perspectives necessary for moral civic engagement (Zeidler, 2016). From analyzing the NGSS, Hoeg and Bencze (2017) further argue that STEM education in the US tends to be career-oriented, prescriptive rather than flexible, open-ended, and culturally responsive, with limited potential to prepare learners for active citizenship. Similarly, Gough (2015) noted sociopolitical silences in STEM education policies and also the potential for the domination of scientific rationalist curricula. Such curricula tend to render STEM education irrelevant for the general public and fail to support ethical engagement (ibid.). These arguments point to possible limitations in STEM education policies for learning for active citizenship. Concerns have also been identified regarding discourses, such as the use of the ‘pipeline’ metaphor, in relation to underrepresented groups in STEM. This has led to questioning the availability of spaces for cultural and social responsiveness in STEM education. Metcalf (2010), for example, argues that underrepresented groups are usually perceived as “alternative populations to fill the pipeline” of the STEM workforce rather than considering how STEM (and STEM education) might be responsive to their particular needs (p. 2). Further, when considering potential benefits of constructing STEM education around interdisciplinarity and/or engineering designs, it has also been argued that based on the logics of economic competition and advocacy for human capital, these STEM constructs tend to support performativity and production over other important goals (Zouda, 2018). When taking into account the growing influence of STEM education and the related potentials and challenges, reconceptualizing STEM education seems necessary to support teaching and learning for civic

206 

M. ZOUDA ET AL.

engagement. Some proposals, such as STEAM (STEM + Arts) have been advocated for to involve perspectives from humanities and social sciences into STEM teaching and learning. However, one other possible way to reconceptualize STEM education for promoting competent involvement in active citizenship is by engaging with fields of Science and Technology Studies (STS). [STS] is an interdisciplinary field that investigates the institutions, practices, meanings, and outcomes of science and technology and their multiple entanglements with the worlds people inhabit, their lives, and their values… For STS, understanding science and technology means interrogating not only how science and technology shape social life and the world around us but also how the latter in turn shape developments in science and technology. (Felt et al., 2017, p. 1)

Engaging STS in teaching and learning can better facilitate understanding how science and technology are practiced in everyday life, which can support teaching and learning about science (Roth & McGinn, 1998, p.  213). Engaging STS also tends to expose complexities of social and environmental problems and issues related to developments in fields of science and technology. In considering possible benefits of learning from STS fields, McGinn and Roth (1999) argue that engaging with STS can inform “educational aims” and the development of relevant resources to “prepare students for competent scientific practice,” thereby helping them participate effectively in a science and technology driven world (p.  14). Exploring STS literature from activist science education perspectives, El Halwany et al. (2021) suggest that STS scholarship might have potential for “situating fields of technoscience within their social and political sphere,” while also informing collective environmental activism and fostering collective future thinking in science education (p. 1083). Such benefits can perhaps be extended to inform teaching and learning in STEM education. There have been attempts by scholars to engage in conversations about how Science and Technology Studies might inform STEM education (e.g., de Freitas et al., 2017). In this paper, we empirically explore such potential through the experiences of a high-school science teacher. In doing so, we approach STEM education through the lens of STS education while holistically conceptualizing STEM education to involve learning beyond its four disciplines.

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES INFORMING STEM EDUCATION… 

207

Research Context and Methodology Incorporating STS concepts and approaches into science classrooms was explored through action research (McNiff & Whitehead, 2010) involving a high-school science teacher ‘James’ (pseudonym) implementing an action-oriented science education framework, STEPWISE, in his science courses. 

The STEPWISE Framework

STEPWISE stands for Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies and Environments (Bencze, 2017). This pedagogical framework (Fig. 1) aims to support students to independently lead open-ended, research-informed and negotiated action (RiNA) projects to address STEM/STSE issues (i.e., issues related to relationships between STEM fields and societies and environments) that are important to them. During RiNA projects, students usually conduct secondary research, such as library/Internet searches, and primary research, such as correlational studies and experiments, about issues of interest to them. Then, based on their findings, students design and take sociopolitical actions to address these issues.

Students Reflect

Students’ RiNA Projects Student-led * Secondary Research * Primary Research * Socio-political Actions

Apprenticeship for RiNA Projects to Address STEM/STSE Issues

Students Practice

(repeated until the teacher feels students are ready to self-direct RiNA projects on STEM/STSE issues)

Teacher Teaches

Teacher-guided

Fig. 1  The STEPWISE framework and RiNA projects

208 

M. ZOUDA ET AL.

However, because students arrive in science classrooms with diverse cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986) and science capital (Archer et al., 2015), they might lack the necessary readiness or expertise to independently take effective RiNAs. Therefore, prior to their independent RiNA projects, students are usually guided through one or more cycles of RiNA apprenticeships. Through these apprenticeships, students usually express their preconceptions about STEM/STSE issues, research, and actions (Reflection Phase). The teacher then teaches students relevant, difficult-­ to-­discover knowledge, skills, and attitudes (e.g., hidden power relations, research skills, criteria of effective actions) (Teaching Phase). Finally, students conduct mini-RiNA projects, with teacher supports as required (Practice Phase). The RiNA apprenticeship is usually repeated until teachers feel that their students are ready to independently lead their RiNA projects. In the research reported in this chapter, STS scholarship informed what (i.e., Science, Technology, Society and Environment) STEM/STSE issues were to be taught and explored (e.g., digital surveillance using wearable fitness devices), their analyses (e.g., using Actor-Network Theory3 (Latour, 2005)), and actions to be taken (e.g., informed by Sociotechnical Imaginaries (Jasanoff, 2015)). Using action research to examine possible merits and challenges of STS-informed science teaching and learning that employed STEPWISE pedagogy can support the exploration of new perspectives and educational practices (e.g., informed by sociotechnical imaginaries) as applied in authentic contexts (i.e., science classrooms) (Bencze & Hodson, 1999; McNiff & Whitehead, 2010). It also allows for negotiations between teachers and researchers regarding possible meanings and approaches while they are involved in cycles of reflecting-planning-acting-observing (Lewin, 1946) that can result in actions or changes in practice for all participants. 

The Research Context

James is a high-school science teacher with a background in environmental education and an advocacy for environmental sustainability and social justice. Our collaboration with James extended over three academic years, 3  Heterogenous networks/collectives of humans and nonhumans reciprocally affecting each other (Latour, 2005).

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES INFORMING STEM EDUCATION… 

209

in two different contexts: one year in an inner-city comprehensive school in the UK that was following the GCSE curricula, and then two years in a private international school in Southern Europe that was following the IGCSE curricula. However, before collaborating with our research team, James had also employed the STEPWISE framework in his classrooms, on his own, for one academic year. Afterward, he contacted our research team to further inform and develop his practice.4 During the last two years of our collaboration, James started his Ph.D. studies using the STEPWISE framework as part of his research design. This paper reports mainly on findings from our two-year collaboration with James during his work in the international school. Yet, our findings and arguments are also informed by our overall collaborative experience with him. 

Data Collection

Over two academic years, we collaborated with James, through weekly one-hour online meetings, in reflecting, planning, exploring possible topics/approaches, designing activities, and implementing the STEPWISE framework in his classrooms. James’ students were involved in activities related to, for example, issues around fast food, digital tracking associated with wearable fitness devices, smoking and astroturfing (i.e., creating fake grassroots organizations) by tobacco companies, energy efficiency, laser surgeries, sound pollution, and gender selection through selective reproductive technologies. While examining these issues, students engaged in values clarification processes to explore their values regarding different commodities and related STEM/STSE issues, as well as considering possible prioritized values of other stakeholders involved with these issues. They also constructed mind maps that included aspects of Actor-Network Theory (ANT) (Latour, 2005), for example, reciprocating (a)biotic actants. As a part of their actions, students were asked to ‘imagine the future’ regarding the commodities they were exploring and to bring these ‘imaginaries’ into the actions they were considering taking. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, James’ school moved to online instruction, and involving students in RiNA apprenticeships/projects was interrupted for about two months, before resuming face-to-face 4  James knew about the STEPWISE project through a mutual senior academic colleague who directed James to the STEPWISE website (https://www.stepwiser.ca).

210 

M. ZOUDA ET AL.

instruction and RiNAs until the end of the academic year (~ a month). In the following year, schoolwork oscillated between face-to-face and online instruction (~ 5+ months) with involvements in RiNAs via the two venues. Data collection involved rationalistic and naturalistic approaches (Guba & Lincoln, 2011). Rationalistically, we advocated, for example, for certain perspectives and practices (e.g., Actor-Network-based issue analyses) and focused on particular research priorities (e.g., values negotiation processes). Naturalistically, we encouraged the teacher’s autonomy and self-­ determination in support of emancipatory forms of action research (Carr & Kemmis, 2003). Data collected included recordings and notes from weekly one-on-one (one-hour) online meetings with James, samples of James’ instructional and teaching materials (e.g., PowerPoint slides, activity sheets, planners), his weekly reflections (as shared in the meetings), two one-hour semi-structured interviews with James, and samples of students’ work (e.g., whole-class constructed ANT-based mind maps, summaries of prioritized values, RiNA reports/actions). 

Data Analyses

Our collaboration with James was a form of “co-production of knowledge” (Callon, 1999, p. 89) by which the lead author of this chapter (supported by the STEPWISE research team, consisting of the second and third authors) and participants (i.e., James) negotiated and constructed valuable knowledge. While James might not be considered as a ‘lay person’ in Callon’s (1999) sense of the word, when one considers that he was undertaking graduate studies, his involvement provided different expertise and perspective that enriched and informed data analyses and knowledge production. We undertook data analysis using constant comparative methods based on constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014). Data were coded for categories and then theoretical themes were developed. To increase trustworthiness, categories and themes were continuously negotiated among the authors as outlined by Wasser and Bresler (1996). Additionally, member checks (Creswell & Miller, 2000) with James were conducted supporting validity of our results and arguments.

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES INFORMING STEM EDUCATION… 

211

Results and Discussion Our study suggests that STS scholarship can support spaces for rich and critical teaching and learning experiences about STEM/STSE issues. These include in-depth analyses of current issues and possibilities to imagine and bring forward alternative futures. However, along with possibilities, tensions also became evident, and these tensions challenged what might and/or can be achieved. In the following, we discuss these possibilities and challenges using Schwab’s (1973) conception of four commonplaces in education that can shape the making and analyses of curriculum. These are the teacher, the students, what is taught/subject matter, and the milieu (i.e., the physical or virtual context within which teaching/learning is taking place) (ibid.). In doing so, we acknowledge that these four commonplaces co-affect each other and are affected by larger sociocultural and politico-economic contexts. We also acknowledge that the benefits and challenges experienced can span multiple commonplaces. Nevertheless, these four commonplaces are useful tools to conceptualize experiences of STS-informed science/ STEM teaching and learning about STEM/STSE issues.  The Teacher: Expanding Perspectives, Critical Doubts, and Issues of Access STS scholarship informed teaching and learning in James’ classrooms in at least three interrelated ways: as case studies to learn about recent and complex STEM/STSE issues, as analytical tools to explore similar issues, and as stimuli to bring forward alternative futures. For James, STS scholarship provided access to in-depth analyses of current STEM/STSE issues, often de-punctualizing (Callon, 1991) them, that is, revealing hidden problems, networked entities, and (power) relations. STS scholarship, along with discussions about them, tended to provide James with access to aspects of these issues that had not been addressed through his earlier educational pathways. In describing these new learning experiences, James asserted that: Through these experiences, I think I got [wider] perspectives of the reality… there is so much more going on than what I learned through my education. So, these [experiences] provided me with valuable insights… For example, when I connected, in a way, the climate change bias of ExxonMobil

212 

M. ZOUDA ET AL.

company with the bias of a doctor that is paid by a pharmaceutical company to [promote] their drugs, I felt that this is something new that I learnt… and I felt this is a way to move forward…

James suggested that STS scholarship helped him remain up to date with emerging technoscience products and services and some of their associated problems. For example, analyses of issues around digital tracking and surveillance (Lupton, 2016), and astroturfing by tobacco companies (Fallin et al., 2014) or related to global warming (Cho et al., 2011), offered James valuable learning opportunities, which he perceived as equally valuable for his students. He explained that: It was very interesting, because you introduced some ideas that I haven’t thought of before; like the tracking wearable and what they do with the data. And the astroturfing. I didn’t know about it, although I have heard people saying that we can hire this company, but I didn’t realize that it’s true. I thought they were joking. I think this enriches the discussions that we do with students about science, and it opens up a lot of opportunities on how science and technology are viewed in everyday life.

Such growing experiences of a teacher can be reflected in opportunities for students to learn about science, technology, and society interactions, and inform the types of discussions in which they can be involved. At the same time, the challenge of teacher access to technoscience-­ based knowledge and products, including science (education) research and STS-based publications was evident to James and the research team. For James, this challenge was usually addressed through his collaboration with the team. However, this led to he and the team discussing who has access to such scholarship. While STS literature can provide spaces for rich learning opportunities, access to such literature and/or to the academic language of such literature (e.g., Snow, 2010) might not be equally available to and/or shared among teachers. It could be argued that science education researchers have responsibilities to make such literature available for teachers, including by developing accessible STS-based resources. Another way in which STS scholarship informed and shaped activities in James’ classrooms was through his adapting and implementing Actor-­ Network Theory (ANT) (Callon, 1991; Latour, 2005) as an analytical tool to explore different STEM/STSE issues. While not explicitly called Actor-Networks, James consistently taught and instructed his students to

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES INFORMING STEM EDUCATION… 

213

construct mind maps that were to include human, non-human (both living and non-living), and symbolic actants that were involved in the STEM/STSE issues they were examining, and to illustrate possible reciprocal relationships between them. They did so by using the sustainable development framework to examine and work for sustainable relationships among society, economy, and environment. An example of such a mind  map is shown in Fig.  2. This mind  map was developed by James based on his students’ in-classroom collective reflections on possible issues related to skin cosmetics. It illustrates some involved actants, their possible positions regarding skin cosmetics (in favor vs. against), and how they might (co-)affect each other (as illustrated by the arrows). Such analyses helped James and his students develop critical understandings about relationships between different stakeholders involved in an issue, as well as their surroundings. For example, when reflecting on his growing experience (~ 4 years) of implementing ANT in his classrooms, James expressed happiness regarding what could be accomplished by involving students in such analytical activities: I have [now] much better understanding of ANT as a theory and as a practice. And I see ANT as something that has more touchable and concrete outcomes. Actually, I was [talking] to a student today, and he said that

Aim They are against some skin cosmetics because they cause health problems and sea pollution.

Actors Health Problems

Economy

Society Singers

Sellers

Buyers

Media Skin Cosmetics

women Cancer Husbands

Cosmetic Companies

Toxins

Workers

Aim They are in favor of skin cosmetics because they make profit.

Animals Sea Environment

Fig. 2  An Actor-Network-based mind map, about skin cosmetics, developed by James based on his students’ reflections

214 

M. ZOUDA ET AL.

­ rawing a network map allowed him to see connections between stakeholdd ers, and how [the network map] made him realize that. I thought. “Wow! He’s starting to make connections about high level thinking.” I felt happy about it.

ANT-based issue analyses have been used previously as a part of STEPWISE (e.g., Zouda et al., 2017), and possible benefits to students’ learning have also been documented (Bencze & Krstovic, 2017). However, ANT-based analytical approaches seem to also have potential for teachers as offering a different way to conceptualize and view the dynamics of the world and, consequently, support students in visualizing world connectivities and engaging them in high-order analytical and critical thinking skills. Accompanying James’ positive experiences of engagement as a teacher in STS scholarship and analytical concepts also came noticeable challenges. One challenge can be described as a state of ‘critical doubt’ that James, as well as the lead author, experienced. For example, learning about the concealed manipulative tactics that influential stakeholders use to engage with the public (Aho, 2017) led to James questioning documents and information, including those published by reputable agencies and engaging in discussions regarding the possible ‘sanitization’ of images of activist public figures such as Greta Thunberg. Losing trust in organizations and/or practices is not limited to only ‘suspect’ ones and can extend over similar legitimate ones (Cho et al., 2011). In response, James engaged in critical reflections and negotiations with the lead author regarding what to include in his instructional material. These reflections and negotiations involved him, for example, re-examining the validity of arguments and claims from new angles before presenting them to students. These quests for learning from STS scholarship in general, and navigating through critical doubts, required time, effort, and dedication. Discussions and collaborations between James and the lead author (supported by the STEPWISE team) and with his academic and professional colleagues created supportive and encouraging spaces for him. However, such collegial support and commitment might not always be available for all teachers in all contexts.

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES INFORMING STEM EDUCATION… 



215

The Students: New Micro-sociotechnical Imaginaries and Challenges to Bring Forward Alternative Futures

Besides involving students in ANT-based analyses and supporting them in exploring how certain views and interests in STEM/STSE issues can get prioritized, normalized, and dominant, the concept of ‘Sociotechnical Imaginary’ (Jasanoff, 2015; Jasanoff & Kim, 2009) was abridged, simplified, and integrated by James into his practice. James involved his students in values clarification processes to explore their own values, as well as those of other stakeholders involved in STEM/STSE issues using resources like those shown in Fig. 3. This resource shows a values clarification activity by which students used ‘value pyramids’ to list, order, and discuss theirs and other stakeholders’ possible prioritized values regarding tobacco consumption and smoking. Students also explicitly examined possible power influence/s of different stakeholders. The concept of sociotechnical imaginary was also used to encourage students to imagine and bring forward possible alternatives. Students were asked to ‘imagine the future’ regarding the commodities they were exploring and to bring these imaginaries to bear on the actions they were considering, such as writing a letter to the mayor or producing an educational leaflet about smoking. James reported that students got involved in values negotiation processes resulting in shifts in their prioritized values. For example, while examining issues related to wearable fitness devices (WFDs), students initially prized (physical) aesthetics (e.g., fitness) and healthy lifestyles (e.g., Cardio) and seemed to consider them as their personal responsibilities to be met through, for example, exercising, measuring heart rate, timing, and meeting goals. They also valued devices’ functionality (e.g., fragility, precision, ease/difficulty to set up). These seemed to be their key initial values regarding WFDs. However, after learning about possible surveillance issues associated with these types of devices, privacy became unanimously mentioned as a main feature that students would require in these devices. Privacy was not a new appreciated value for those students. James indicated that it was highly prioritized in their school’s community. Learning about hidden problems associated with this commodity led students to rearrange their priorities and construct new imaginaries. James appreciated how the ‘imagining’ task worked as a stimulus allowing his students to put together their learning and solidify their experiences in tangible ways. He noted that when students were asked to answer

216 

M. ZOUDA ET AL.

Fig. 3  An activity for values clarification regarding tobacco consumption involving powerful stakeholders

questions like “What would you like to see in the future of fitness wearables?” that “it was solidifying everything they felt, learned, and believed in concrete ways.” However, despite these benefits, areas for improvement were also identified. For example, many students seemed to envision the future as

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES INFORMING STEM EDUCATION… 

217

consequential results of current realities (i.e., probable rather than preferable futures (e.g., Lloyd & Wallace, 2004)), as a logical conclusion rather than an advancing of alternative possibilities. It might be that the broad nature of tasks, such as imagining the future might have resulted in some students focusing on the ‘is’ rather than the ‘ought to be,’ although these are not mutually exclusive (e.g., Levinson, 2018). Nevertheless, dropping possibilities for change might implicitly indicate relatively passive stances toward futures. James also noticed that students tended to rely on authority figures, such as scientists, technologists, politicians, and the educational system to inform their desired future/s rather than positioning themselves as active agents of change. Such challenges suggest, similar to recommendations from the future studies literature (e.g., Lloyd & Wallace, 2004), that students usually need to be scaffolded explicitly through activities to assist them to become cognizant of spaces for alternative visions and perhaps to start thinking about how to enact their visions. 

The Subject Matter: Balancing Students’ Interests and Independence with Curriculum Mandates

While ANT and sociotechnical imaginary-based analytical and action-­ oriented activities were used over the different units in the science courses, the choices of what issues to explore were largely shaped by the unit taught by James. Astroturfing, for example, seemed to lend itself easily to topics related to the health of the respiratory system and smoking. However, issues around digital prosumption, though core to people’s daily practice, tended to be more challenging to incorporate for in depth explorations. These curricular topics largely determined what students chose to explore in their RiNA projects, limiting their choices to curricular foci. For example, when discussing what topics might be included in the end-of-the-year RiNA projects, James explained: I’m including topics that are mentioned in the curriculum. So, I have to tie it to what has been discussed in the class… My main idea is to introduce topics tied to the curriculum and try to make sure that it has been discussed partially in the class. I’m also trying to ensure that there is balance between topics from different units.

218 

M. ZOUDA ET AL.

Supporting students’ choices on what issues to investigate, and having control over the investigations, is expected to increase their engagement in STEM/STSE issues and motivation to take actions (Bencze et  al., 2012). Limiting students’ choices might impede students’ levels of independence for civic actions. With these considerations in mind, James tried to balance students’ freedom of choice with curricular mandates. He gave his students lists of curricular related topics and asked them to prioritize three topics that were most interesting to them and to reflect on their reasons for such interest. He also emphasized that they could add other relevant topics of their choice to the list. James indicated that when they were given (relative) freedom of choice, many students tended to explore issues related to their personal experience (e.g., cosmetic products). Many also chose to investigate ‘hot’ topics, such as COVID-19 vaccines. The tensions between connections to curriculum mandates and students’ independence were further intensified by James’ eagerness to have his ‘unconventional’ work be recognized and ‘normalized’ in his new (second) school’s context. Rather than this type of STS-informed critical pedagogy being perceived as somehow temporary and experiential, James wanted it to be accepted as a regular approach in his classroom. He considered that the quality of students’ RiNA projects and their relevance to curriculum mandates were highly important for this purpose. James worried that too much freedom of choice can lead to shallow treatment of issues and modest quality of RiNA projects, which might jeopardize spaces for such work. Curricular mandates intersected with the school context, James’ goals and students’ experiences to prioritize certain STEM/STSE issues over others. 

The Milieu: Challenges for Teaching Actions and Online Possibilities

The contexts in which James adapted and implemented STS-informed STEPWISE pedagogy tended to shape his teaching/learning experiences in two noticeable ways: through the network of his professional colleagues, and by the interruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic that necessitated transferring these experiences to online platforms. In James’ second school, different teachers might teach the same subject at the same grade level. At times, James felt under pressure to ‘keep up’ with his colleagues in terms of curricular units that they were teaching,

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES INFORMING STEM EDUCATION… 

219

resulting in postponing certain STEPWISE related agenda items, such us teaching students about effective actions. For example, when asked about his plans after teaching aspects of correlational studies and engaging his students in issues about laser surgeries, James indicated that: Now the plan is to catch up a bit [on content], because I feel that the other teachers are moving faster than me. And I have to get into [the] sound [unit]… So, I have to catch up a bit. And the next thing I have to do is to teach them about actions.

Focusing on teaching/learning about civic actions was also deemphasized through other means. For example, after joining his second school, James received feedback from a senior colleague who favored more ‘traditional’ forms of student projects, such as science fairs. After considering James’ students’ first RiNA projects, his colleague recommended improvements and emphases on research skills that shifted the focus away from teaching for action. Teaching both research skills and civic actions are main parts of the STEPWISE framework, and after their first RiNA projects, it was apparent that most students needed more support to improve both their research skills and civic actions. However, such recommendations prioritized traditional emphases on research skills with limited considerations for actions that are core to civic engagement. In response to both situations, James, after a brief hiatus (that ranged from a couple of weeks to more than a month), returned to addressing students’ actions, driven to an extent by his commitments. Nevertheless, these examples underscore how direct and/or indirect influences or pressure from professional networks can reduce priorities to focus on core curricular mandates at the expense of what might be perceived as ‘unconventional,’ peripheral, or add on. Another contextual factor for James that challenged him to employ this pedagogy was the shift of teaching and learning to online platforms due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the challenges that James encountered while implementing STS-informed STEPWISE pedagogy, the shift to online teaching was among the most, if not the most challenging. By itself, online teaching was a new learning experience to James, and engaging students in (collaborative) guided RiNA projects while searching and adapting resources and tools for digital teaching added extra layers of burden and complexity. While explaining how he tried to adapt to that challenge, James indicated that:

220 

M. ZOUDA ET AL.

I didn’t have to cancel activities but looked for different ways to do so. And this is very time consuming especially with no training…. And that’s on top of normal work that I had to do.

Other than the extra work to be done to move online, James encountered challenges in students’ involvement including low engagement, students being easily distracted, minimal student interactions, and difficulties facilitating collaborative work. When reflecting on such experiences, James explained that: It has been really challenging and required more work. The way the lesson works with closed cameras…The attitude of students to the lesson is an attitude of a child that is bored. This is the general rule, but there are exceptions. And also, some students become more lost and more demotivated.

Nevertheless, some of these challenges with online instruction resulted in new possibilities for expanding students’ expertise to mobilize their research and actions. As James reported, students seemed to enjoy using online surveys to design their primary research and continued to use them even after returning to face-to-face classroom environments. They also benefited from learning to make online petitions as a form of action. From James’ experiences, we ascertain that the contexts (physical or virtual) within which such critical pedagogies take place can affect what educational goals are prioritized and what learning experiences might be created. In unusual circumstances, when under pressure to meet deadlines or when there is a need to prove the effectiveness of practice, there might be tendencies to emphasize traditional educational priorities at the expense of untraditional ones, which can be equally important. Nevertheless, it appears that with such challenges, new opportunities can emerge, and seizing those opportunities requires continued dedication, effort, and support for a teacher to remain committed to such pedagogies.

Conclusions, Limitations, and Futures Our research experiences in employing concepts and themes from STS scholarship to inform action-oriented STEM/science teaching and learning indicate valuable spaces to support teachers’ understanding of the nature and complexities of current STEM/STSE issues. These can facilitate similar, valuable learning experiences for students, by engaging them

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES INFORMING STEM EDUCATION… 

221

in critical analyses, and explorations and evaluations of these issues. Abridged and simplified conceptualizations of Actor-Network Theory and Sociotechnical Imaginaries can provide useful tools for teachers’ and students’ in-depth analyses of current STEM/STSE issues, including exploring different types of actants, their values, interests and relationships, and possible normalized power constructs. They can also open up new spaces to imagine, negotiate, and bring forward alternative presents and futures. In a world that faces serious problems/threats, such as climate change, losing biodiversity, issues of food security, and destructions associated with wars and military actions, we see a need to stimulate thoughts in students about such problems/threats and to advance alternatives of them. Nevertheless, the curricular mandates and contexts within which these teaching/learning experiences take place can substantially influence, and sometimes limit, what might be accomplished, particularly when considering teaching/learning for stimulating sociopolitical actions. Similarly, STS scholarship, concepts, and themes might not be equally accessible for teachers to inform their practice. These challenges underscore importance of developing relevant, age-appropriate, and ready-to-use STS-informed educational resources to support STEM teaching and learning. Scaffolding activities and resources that explicitly involve students in exploring alternative futures and placing themselves as active agents of change seem also necessary to go beyond consequential imaginaries. Additionally, to support teachers’ access to such resources, making them available in digital forms and as open access seems necessary. The STEPWISE website, for example, hosts several STS-informed and action-oriented educational resources.5 Creating similar digital spaces for repositories of such material can be one way to move forward in supporting teachers (and students). Additionally, in these learning experiences, a significant challenge to be considered is that of ‘critical doubt.’ Learning about complexities of STEM/STSE issues, available tensions, and manipulative approaches that are sometimes used by influential stakeholders can create confusion and doubt, and such doubt can pause or inhibit action/s. Ironically, creating ‘paralyzing’ doubts is one common technique that is used by powerful stakeholders to manipulate the public, increase uncertainties, and possibly halt their actions (e.g., Cho et al., 2011). While in our research this doubt was mainly expressed by the teacher, students might also undergo similar 5  These resources can be accessed through the following link: https://wordpress.oise.utoronto.ca/jlbencze/teacher-teaches/#STS_Teaching

222 

M. ZOUDA ET AL.

experiences. Having supportive academic and/or professional networks for discussions and advocacy might be necessary and helpful for teachers to assist them navigate these doubts. This might be facilitated by establishing collaborative learning communities where academics and teachers can work together to address shared educational concerns (e.g., Mitchell & Mitchell, 2008), get in ‘dialogue’ to create “sites of hope” (Torres-Olave & Bravo González, 2021, p.  1047), and ‘co-produce’ of knowledge, resources, and new possibilities through, for example, action research (e.g., the STEPWISE project). As we discuss potentials and challenges for STS-informed action-­ oriented STEM education, we also acknowledge possible limitations. Our research findings and arguments are mainly constructed through the lived experiences of James and our interactions with and interpretations of these experiences. Interactions with students can provide a significantly different angle to learn about those experiences. Additionally, mining STS scholarship was influenced by our research/educational goals and priorities (El Halwany et al., 2021). To an extent, this tended to shape what resources, ideas, and concepts were available for classroom use. Mining STS scholarship using different lenses might lead to equally useful spaces and potentials. Therefore, further research into such possibilities is needed. We argued earlier that rapid developments in STEM fields continuously create new experiences, solutions, opportunities, and problems, and that STEM education has responsibilities for fostering learning experiences capable of supporting informed active citizenship to address potential problems. Adapting concepts, themes, and findings from STS scholarship can support a ‘STEM-WISE’6 approach to achieve these goals.

References Aho, B. (2017). Disrupting regulation: Understanding industry engagement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Science and Public Policy, 44(5), 698–706. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx004 Archer, D. E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21227 6  Inspired by the STEPWISE educational goals for social justice and environmental sustainability, we advocate for STEM and STEM education that support the wellbeing of individuals, societies, and environments (WISE).

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES INFORMING STEM EDUCATION… 

223

Bencze, J. L. (2008). Private profit, science, and science education: Critical problems and possibilities for action. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 8, 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14926150802506290 Bencze, L. (2017). Science & technology education promoting wellbeing of individuals, societies & environments: STEPWISE. Springer. Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(5), 521–539. Bencze, L., & Krstovic, M. (2017). Students’ uses of Actor-Network Theory to contextualize socioscientific actions. In J. L. Bencze (Ed.), Science & technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies & environments (pp. 167–199). Springer. Bencze, L., Sperling, E., & Carter, L. (2012). Students’ research-informed socio-­ scientific activism: Re/visions for a sustainable future. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-­011-­9260-­3 Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), The handbook of theory: Research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132–161). Routledge. Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology & Society (New Delhi, India), 4(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172189900400106 Caprile, M., Palmen, R., Sanz, P., & Dente, G. (2015). Encouraging STEM studies for the labour market (Directorate-General for Internal Policies: European Parliament). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/ 2015/542199/IPOL_STU(2015)542199_EN.pdf Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2003). Becoming critical: Education knowledge and action research. Routledge. Carter, L. (2017). Neoliberalism and STEM education: Some Australian policy discourse. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(4), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2017.1380868 Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage. Cho, C., Martens, M., Kim, H., & Rodrigue, M. (2011). Astroturfing global warming: It isn’t always greener on the other side of the fence. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 571–587. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.

224 

M. ZOUDA ET AL.

de Freitas, E., Lupinacci, J., & Pais, A. (2017). Science and technology studies × educational studies: Critical and creative perspectives on the future of STEM education. Educational Studies (Ames), 53(6), 551–559. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/00131946.2017.1384730 de Roock, R. S., & Baildon, M. (2019). MySkillsFuture for students, STEM learning, and the design of neoliberal citizenship in Singapore. Cognition and Instruction, 37(3), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624545 El Halwany, S., Zouda, M., & Bencze, J. L. (2021). Stepping into STS literature: Some implications for promoting socioecological justice through science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16(4), 1083–1096. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11422-­021-­10026-­y Fallin, A., Grana, R., & Glantz, S. A. (2014). ‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party efforts’: The tobacco industry and the tea party. Tobacco Control, 23, 322–331. Felt, U., Fouche, R., Miller, C.  A., Beck, S., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2017). Introduction to the fourth edition of the handbook of science and technology studies. In U.  Felt, R.  Fouche, C.  A. Miller, & L.  Smith-Doerr (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (4th ed.). The MIT Press. Fensham, P. J. (1988). Familiar but different: Some dilemmas and new directions in science education. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 1–26). Falmer Press. Gough, A. (2015). STEM policy and science education: Scientific curriculum and sociopolitical silences. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10, 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-­014-­9590-­3 Government of Canada. (2021). Choose science—The Government of Canada and STEM. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/013.nsf/eng/00014.html Guba, E.  G., & Lincoln, Y.  S. (2011). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Sage. Hodson, D. (2011). Looking to the future: Building a curriculum for social activism. Sense. Hoeg, D. G., & Bencze, J. L. (2017). Values underpinning STEM education in the USA: An analysis of the next generation science standards. Science Education, 101, 278–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21260 Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology and the imaginations of modernity. In S.  Jasanoff & S.-H.  Kim (Eds.), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power (pp.  1–33). The University of Chicago Press. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119–146.

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES INFORMING STEM EDUCATION… 

225

Krimsky, S. (2019). Conflicts of interest in science: How corporate-funded academic research can threaten public health. Simon & Schuster. Kroløkke, C., & Kotsi, F. (2019). Pink and blue: Assemblages of family balancing and the making of Dubai as a fertility destination. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(1), 97–117. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press. Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–119. Levinson, R. (2018). Realizing the school science curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 29(4), 522–537. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46. Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-­020-­00207-­6 Lloyd, D., & Wallace, J. (2004). Imagining the future of science education: The case for making futures studies explicit in student learning. Studies in Science Education, 40(1), 139–177. Lupton, D. (2016). The diverse domains of quantified selves: Self-tracking modes and dataveillance. Economy and Society, 45(1), 101–122. Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F.  J., & Vílchez-González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education (Salem, Mass.), 103(4), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522 McGinn, M. K., & Roth, W. M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 14–24. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2010). You and your action research project. Routledge. Metcalf, H. (2010). Stuck in the pipeline: A critical review of STEM workforce literature. Interactions (Los Angeles, Calif.), 6(2). https://doi.org/10.5070/ D462000681 Michaels, D. (2020). The triumph of doubt: Dark money and the science of deception. Oxford University Press. Mitchell, I., & Mitchell, J. (2008). The project for enhancing effective learning (PEEL): 22 years of praxis. In A. P. Samaras, A. R. Freese, C. Kosnik, & C. Beck (Eds.), Learning communities in practice: Explorations of educational purpose (Vol. 4). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4020-­8788-­2_1 Moore, T.  J., & Smith, K.  A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education, 15(1), 5–10.

226 

M. ZOUDA ET AL.

National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The National Academies Press. NGSS. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/download/18290 Ortiz-Revilla, J., Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Greca, I. M. (2020). A framework for epistemological discussion on integrated STEM education. Science & Education, 29(4), 857–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-­020-­00131-­9 Reis, P. (2014). Promoting students’ collective socio-scientific activism: Teachers’ perspectives. In Activist science and technology education (pp. 547–574). Springer. Rennie, L., Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (2012). Knowledge that counts in a global community: Exploring the contribution of integrated curriculum. Routledge. Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540509354673 Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Knowing, researching, and reporting science education: Lessons from science and technology studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SIC I)1098-­2736(199802)35:23.0.CO;2-­V Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 81(4), 501–522. https://doi.org/10.1086/443100 Shanahan, M.  C., Burke, C.  A., & Francis, K. (2016). Using a boundry object perspective to reconsider the meaning of STEM in a Canadian context. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16, 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1166296 Sjöström, J., Eilks, I., & Zuin, V. G. (2016). Towards eco-reflexive science education. Science & Education, 25(3–4), 321–341. Snow, C. H. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of Reading for learning about science. Science, 328(5977), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1182597 Stevenson, H. J. (2014). Myths and motives behind STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education and the STEM-worker shortage narrative. Issues in Teacher Education, 23, 133–146. Takeuchi, M.  A., Sengupta, P., Shanahan, M.-C., Adams, J.  D., & Hachem, M. (2020). Transdisciplinarity in STEM education: A critical review. Studies in Science Education, 56(2), 213–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305726 7.2020.1755802 Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. William Morrow. Torres-Olave, B., & Bravo González, P. (2021). Facing neoliberalism through dialogic spaces as sites of hope in science education: Experiences of two self-­ organised communities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16, 1047–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-­021-­10042-­y

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES INFORMING STEM EDUCATION… 

227

Wasser, J.  D., & Bresler, L. (1996). Working in the interpretive zone: Conceptualizing collaboration in qualitative research teams. Educational Researcher, 25(5), 5–15. Weinstein, M., Blades, D., & Gleason, S.  C. (2016). Questioning power: Deframing the STEM discourse. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14926156.2016.1166294 Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16, 26–35. Wong, V., Dillon, J., & King, H. (2016). STEM in England: Meanings and motivations in the policy arena. International Journal of Science Education, 38(15), 2346–2366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1242818 Zeidler, D. L. (2016). STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century?: Sociocultural socioscientific response. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-­014-­9578-­z Zouda, M. (2018). Issues of power and control in STEM education: A reading through the postmodern condition. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(4), 1109–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-­017-­9820-­6 Zouda, M., Nishizawa, T., & Bencze, L. (2017). ‘In the eye of the hurricane’: Using STEPWISE to address urgent socio-political issues in Venezuela. In J. L. Bencze (Ed.), Science & technology education promoting wellbeing of individuals, societies & environments (pp. 339–357). Springer.

Using Animals in Education as a Means of Discovering Meaningful Contexts to Enhance Learning and Motivate Learners: Challenges and Opportunities to Integrate and Broaden STEM Education John Cavalieri

Introduction The need to promote education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) has been emphasized in order to meet future expected employment needs (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). To facilitate this goal, it has been recognized that there is a need to broaden the scope of students’ learning and to utilize real-world situations and problems to help integrate STEM within existing curricula so as to make STEM subjects more relevant to both students and educators (National Research Council, 2014). Critical to this goal is the development of pedagogical practices that increase student interest and motivation (McDonald, 2016).

J. Cavalieri (*) James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. P. Thomas, H. J. Boon (eds.), Challenges in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_11

229

230 

J. CAVALIERI

Through such curriculum design educators can aim to capture both the hearts and minds of students for this purpose, motivate them to persist in learning, and generate interest and deeper learning within and across STEM education fields. Accordingly, curriculum design, when seeking to promote STEM education, must be entrenched in building meaning as well as skills and in contextualizing knowledge within authentic learning scenarios. Rather than aiming merely for students’ knowledge acquisition, the veterinary degree program at James Cook University uses animals to contextualize knowledge in a way that integrates wider considerations and implications and helps create authentic learning scenarios that foster motivation for students. Knowing is linked to doing and the wider ethical, environmental, and economic contexts through which knowledge application must navigate. Learning is fostered in an environment immersed in visual and tactile associations that can reinforce learning. While examples and challenges associated with using animals to achieve educational goals are discussed in this review, this same curricular/pedagogical model could be applied to other contexts that do not utilize animals to foster the integration of STEM, to broaden its application, and to promote interdisciplinary learning. The author proposes that a key aim of curriculum design to promote interest and knowledge acquisition within the fields of STEM education is to identify and introduce a meaningful context. A meaningful context, within educational design, is defined as learning activities that contextualize the application of knowledge in a way that students can identify with, use their mistakes as learning opportunities, and come to appreciate wider contexts within which their knowledge is relevant.

Challenges in Veterinary Science Education Curricula The challenge for most professional education programs is to provide training that is relevant for tomorrow’s needs, that meets requirements set by professional accreditation bodies, and that attends to the needs of society. Unlike medical graduates who participate in internship, residency, and fellowship training on graduation, most veterinary graduates (approximately 70%) enter directly into clinical practice (Scalese & Issenberg, 2005). Veterinary graduates also often have to address problems across a range of domestic animal species. This requires a degree of

  USING ANIMALS IN EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF DISCOVERING… 

231

omnicompetence on graduation and necessitates the need for competency-based education with a strong emphasis on the acquisition of skills to help ensure that graduates meet what are known as, day one competencies (Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), 2020). Changes in demographics worldwide, with less students being exposed to agricultural practices, have meant that many newly enrolled students have not had broad exposure to domestic animals and animal associated industries. The majority of students entering veterinary training programs are from urban backgrounds and, as such, have had limited animal handling experience, particularly with large animals and small ruminants (Cawdell-Smith et al., 2007; Jelinski et al., 2008). Therefore, many hours within veterinary curricula need to be devoted to animal handling and behavior to scaffold the development of skills that are needed following graduation. Students must be trained to achieve competence in handling and restraining a variety of animal species safely, to carry out diagnostic and surgical procedures, and to administer medications. Specific examples of the wide range of training provided within veterinary programs are beyond the scope of this chapter but can be found in several publications (e.g., Austin et  al., 2007; Cawdell-Smith et  al., 2007; Chapman et  al., 2007; Cockram, et al., 2007; Smeak, 2007). Of relevance to animals and topics covered within a modern veterinary education curriculum is the changing attitudes to animals within society that include greater concerns among consumers about animal welfare (George et al., 2016) and increased awareness of the benefits and importance of the human-animal bond (Timmins, 2008). Recent expansion of the availability of diagnostic tests at the point of care, increases in pet ownership and in the availability of payment and pet insurance schemes have increased the demands for services and the range of services provided by veterinarians. Specialist services are now more readily available to the public and have increased in sophistication. These changes have required that veterinary education adapts to ensure that graduates’ skills keep pace with the changing workplace so they can provide in-depth care and manage referrals. The interconnectedness of humans, animals, and the environment has, in recent years, led to the concept of ‘One-Health’ being introduced into veterinary curricula. This introduction has resulted in additional opportunities for interdisciplinary learning as a consequence of the better appreciation of the wider impacts that animals can have on human health and the environment. A wide range of interconnected topics are also

232 

J. CAVALIERI

integrated into curricula to build more holistic training programs and work-­ready, resilient graduates. These, for example, include teaching of handling and diagnostic skills, business skills, emotional resilience, and the ability to communicate with colleagues and a range of stakeholders (Favier et al., 2021; Pun, 2020; Schull et al., 2012). This diversification highlights the importance of situating curricula and education in STEM very much in the world that students will work in, and where employability and sustainability depend on students acquiring a wide skill set and range of competencies. It also emphasizes the need for assessments that are relevant to and verify job readiness. Veterinary curricula are, therefore, strongly focused on competency-based education, which aims to ensure that students meet pre-set standards of competence by the time they graduate. This has resulted in increasing emphasis on developing communication and business skills, personal resilience, and training in the management of animal behavioral issues while still emphasizing training in core skills which are known as day one competencies (RCVS, 2020).

Ethical Issues Related to Animal Usage Ethical perspectives influence educational design and cooperation and participation of both educators and students in both STEM studies and in veterinary science. Use of animals for both education and research has been subject to controversy and differences of opinions (King, 2004; Phillips & McCulloch, 2005; Van Zutphen, 2002). Use of alternative, non-sentient objects and simulators is preferred by animal ethics committees, allowing expertise to be developed and errors to occur without imposing harm or stress on an animal (Noyes et al., 2022). In a recent systematic review of humane alternatives to the use of animals for education within life and health sciences, humane teaching methods were found to produce learning outcomes superior (30%), equivalent (60%), or inferior (10%) to those produced by traditional harmful animal use methods, suggesting that humane alternatives represent valuable teaching alternatives in many contexts (Zemanova & Knight, 2021). The so called Three R’s (Reduction, Refinement and Replacement) were originally developed by Russell and Burch (1959) to guide the use of animals in research. However, these principles are also applicable to the use of animals for other purposes, including education. Attitudes differ on the use of animals for research and education. Prevalent views within the community range from the complete exclusion of the use of animals to only using animals

  USING ANIMALS IN EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF DISCOVERING… 

233

that have died of natural causes or those humanely euthanized when suffering from a terminal illness. Others support the use of animals that are surplus to requirements, the use of materials from abattoirs, or the selection and use of safe, tolerant, and compliant animals that are maintained for teaching or research purposes (McGreevy, 2007). Opinions on how humans can use animals are influenced by their ethical orientations. Lund et al. (2019) summarized a range of ethical views into four categories: animal rights, anthropocentrism, animal protection, and lay utilitarianism. Anthropocentrism, at one end of the spectrum, regards humans as being at the center of the moral universe, and animals are seen as a means to a human-centered end. At the opposite end of the spectrum, an animal rights perspective advocates non-human, sentient animals as having equal rights as humans; animals cannot be sacrificed for the sake of human interests. The animal protection orientation regards the use of animals for human purposes to be acceptable provided animals are treated humanely and do not suffer unnecessarily. Within this ethical orientation, some form of suffering may be acceptable if considered necessary. Lay utilitarianism regards all forms of animal use as being acceptable as long as benefits to humans outweigh the disadvantages to the animals involved. This view posits that it is acceptable to cause animals intense pain and/or suffering for enabling outcomes that are sufficiently important to humans. In the study conducted by Lund et al. (2019) within the Danish population, the animal protection orientation was the most prevalent. However, the results also emphasized the diversity of animal ethics orientations that existed and which would likely exist in any educational setting. Similar findings were reported in a study of the New Zealand population where 72% of survey respondents supported the use of animals for teaching purposes provided that there was no unnecessary suffering by animals (Williams et al., 2007). When using animals for educational purposes it is important to recognize that stakeholders may hold a range of views based on differing ethical principles. This might lead to differences in opinions and practices which may create tensions within educational teams and amongst students. It also means that, at times, both staff and students may conscientiously object to animal use for educational purposes (Knight, 2014). If such situations are not managed carefully, individuals might suffer academic sanctions while institutions might experience reputational damage. It is recommended that tertiary institutions should implement policies that make reasonable accommodations for students, staff, and faculty who

234 

J. CAVALIERI

conscientiously object to participating in activities that involve harmful animal use (Knight, 2014). As outlined by Knight (2014, p. 30), this will help promote: …a culture which is tolerant of diversity, and respects a range of viewpoints, beliefs and backgrounds. They can increase compliance with applicable legislation outlawing certain forms of discrimination in education or the workplace. They greatly decrease the likelihood of conflicts relating to curricular animal use, which can be extremely damaging to the careers of the students or others involved, and to the reputation of the university at large. And they maximise the likelihood of honest disclosure of student concerns, and of prior warning of incidents, and minimise crisis management or ad hoc responses. (p. 30)

Wider Considerations When Using Animals for Education The One Welfare concept extends the ethic of animal use to not only considering how animal usage should maintain animal welfare but also the welfare of owners/guardians and the environment (Pinillos et al., 2016). This concept situates animal welfare in a wider context that recognizes the interconnectedness between animals, humans, and the environment in which they live. For example, when using grazing animals for educational purposes, maintaining animals on small areas of land can increase soil erosion and increase the risk of transmission of internal parasites and infectious diseases. Strategies, therefore, need to be in place to decrease the risk of both situations occurring while educational objectives are being achieved. Animal usage can bring positive health benefits in addition to specific educational benefits. However, it can also result in unintended negative consequences for both animals and students. For example, positive benefits of enabling students to socialize with, care for, exercise, and groom animals can include enhancement of the human-animal bond. This can strengthen student empathy and values related to animal welfare and improve welfare outcomes for animals (Daly & Suggs, 2010). Alternatively, a reduction in empathy for animals and students’ beliefs that some species of animals had lower levels of sentience was observed in some senior veterinary students in one study (Paul & Podberscek, 2000). In contexts where animals are used within rehabilitation programs, such as therapy

  USING ANIMALS IN EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF DISCOVERING… 

235

programs for the disabled, those in prisons, those with people undergoing psychiatric or medical therapy, or with those confined in aged-care facilities, introducing contact with animals can help develop skills and be beneficial to the well-being of both humans and animals (Beck et al., 1986; Lust et  al., 2007; Marr et  al., 2000; Nimer & Lundahl, 2007; Pinillos et al., 2016). Potential disadvantages of bonding between people and animals can include students offering food items that are unsuitable or that do not meet an animal’s requirements. This can lead to ill-health, obesity, malnutrition, or gastrointestinal accidents. There may also be a reluctance to permit euthanasia on humane grounds, and the expression of problem behaviors can also develop among animals (Wensley, 2008). Enabling animals to be able to voluntarily withdraw or have time out from contact to help avoid negative effects on animal welfare is also important to consider when using animals. Thus, there are broad considerations that can impact the physical and emotional health of animals that should be contemplated when using them for educational purposes. Use of animals for educational and research purposes is strictly regulated through legislation (e.g., European Union, 1998; Qld Government, 2001; United States Department of Agriculture, 2019), codes of practice (e.g., National Health and Medical Research Council, 2013), and policies (e.g., Australian Veterinary Association, 2008; Animal Research Review Panel, 2019). Thus, any intended use of animals must comply with regulatory frameworks and ensure that animal welfare is maintained. Another factor to consider is the health safety of other animals and humans that might be impacted by the introduction of animals which could introduce infectious and zoonotic diseases. Facilities for housing and handling animals should be adequate and handlers must be suitably experienced to maintain adequate safety standards for students, instructors, and the animals. The financial cost of using and maintaining animals compared to non-animal alternatives (Knight, 2007) and the increased time needed to manage animals for educational purposes compared to alternatives should also be considered before using animals for educational purposes (Zemanova & Knight, 2021). The use of animals for educational purposes, therefore, requires detailed consideration of the resources available and whether animals can be ethically sourced, maintained, and retired at the end of a learning exercise, and that all aspects of management comply with existing regulations.

236 

J. CAVALIERI

Educational Advantages of Using ANIMALS in Education Several advantages have been identified around the use of animals for educational purposes (Edwards et al., 2014). Some advantages documented in the literature related to veterinary and non-veterinary education include: • Introducing students to STEM research techniques by students designing and undertaking research to facilitate environmental enrichment for captive animals (Foerder et al., 2019). • Increasing student empathy and socio-emotional development, developing compassionate values, and fostering moral awareness in elementary education (Daly & Suggs, 2010). • Assisting students that are more oriented to kinesthetic learning (Vemulapalli et al., 2017). • Stimulating interest in animal research and science and providing catalysts for children’s creative writing pieces (Daly & Suggs, 2010). • Helping to develop competencies in reading (le Roux et al., 2014) and social functioning (O’Haire et  al., 2013) in primary aged school children. • Helping to develop knowledge and skills in the safe and humane handling of animals, knowledge of normal and abnormal behaviors, and improving diagnostic acumen (Cavalieri, 2009b; Chapman et al., 2007; Cockram et al., 2007; Sherman & Serpell, 2008). • Providing opportunities to undertake diagnostic techniques, such as real-time ultrasonography, which can better encourage the learning of anatomy compared to dissection (Bowman et al., 2016) and reinforce learning in anatomy (Ivanusic et al., 2010). • Helping students overcome fear and phobias and build confidence in animal handling (Chapman et al., 2007; Cockram et al., 2007). • When compared to learning with the aid of simulators, the use of animals may be more appropriate for teaching complex, multifaceted skills and improving understanding and knowledge retention (Vemulapalli et al., 2017). • Using as an aid to promote curriculum integration, creating links between foundational knowledge and its application, and scaffolding the development of skill (Cavalieri, 2009a, 2009b). • Fostering successful transition from high school to university and later years at university by including team work, participation in

  USING ANIMALS IN EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF DISCOVERING… 

237

authentic learning scenarios and scaffolding learning (De Cat et al., 2014). • Providing Assistance with rehabilitation, intellectual, and psychological disorders (Geist, 2011; Marr et  al., 2000; Nimer & Lundahl, 2007). Thus, while the use of animals in education is contentious on one level and is subject to strict regulation, where animal usage can be managed within regulatory and ethical guidelines, important educational benefits can be achieved, including opportunities to broaden and integrate STEM education.

Using Animals in Education to Uncover Meaningful Contexts to Enhance Learning and Motivate Learners Use of animals for educational purposes can introduce meaningful contexts which can enhance student enthusiasm and learning. This use is commensurate with the notion of threshold concepts in education which are described as concepts that open up new and illuminating ways of thinking about something and that provide frameworks for constructing knowledge and interpreting the world in ways that previously were not possible or were hidden from our understanding (Meyer & Land, 2003, 2005). Students who remain in a suspended state, without understanding a threshold concept can be described as ‘stuck’ (Meyer & Land, 2005) and being stuck may pose a barrier to the achievement of learning objectives (Cavalieri, 2009c). Consistent with a constructivist perspective, Doolittle (1999) stated that for learning to occur, “it must be relevant to the individual’s current situation, understanding and goal” and when this occurs it “is likely to lead to an increase in motivation” (p. 5). Similarly, when learning activities are immersed in meaningful contexts, they provide opportunities for students to find purpose and meaning in their learning and, through this, generate intrinsic motivation for learning. Adopting this orientation advantages students, allowing them to build connections with their previous knowledge, experiences, and interests, which helps create long-term, meaningful learning (Caballero et al., 2021). Novak (1993) argued that meaningful learning is “fundamental to both the psychological process of cognitive development of individuals and the

238 

J. CAVALIERI

epistemological process of new knowledge construction” (p. 1). It could, therefore, be argued that unless students find motivation in their learning experiences, deep learning will not occur and the opportunity to contextualize and create knowledge from related concepts might be diminished or lost. Bretz (2001) described three conditions that must be satisfied for meaningful learning to occur. Firstly, a student must have some relevant prior knowledge to which the new information can be related in a non-­ arbitrary manner. Then, the material to be learned must be meaningful in and of itself; it must contain important concepts and propositions relatable to existing knowledge. Thirdly, a student must consciously choose to non-­ arbitrarily incorporate this meaningful material into their existing knowledge. The first two prerequisites can be frequently met with learning exercises involving the use of animals. For example, before contact is made with an animal, students can receive pre-instruction on relevant aspects of behavior, welfare, husbandry, and any required background information which might be relevant, including instruction in any procedures that are to be carried out with animals. Critical in veterinary education and, arguably, other educational spheres is that the learning activity should involve exploration of real-world problems and development of skills that are applicable to professional practice and necessitate the use of animals. In this way the student is able to apply their existing knowledge and develop skills applicable to real-world scenarios. The third requirement falls within the responsibilities of the student but it is critical to the achievement of a deep level of learning. Provision of an authentic context by designing activities that are rewarding and purposeful from a student’s perspective should assist in them developing deeper learning. At James Cook University, we have utilized learning opportunities that mimic real-world scenarios to improve student motivation. Students have reported that this has improved their learning and development of skills (Cavalieri, 2009b, 2009c). Several authors have reported on the importance of cultivating intrinsic motivation for enabling successful learning (Deci et  al., 1991; Glynn et  al., 2005; Race, 2019). Designing learning activities that help motivate students can foster creativity, critical thinking, resilience and self-­ assurance, a greater sense of purpose, and autonomy (Chuter, 2019). Novak’s Theory of Human Constructivism states that “meaningful learning underlies the constructive integration of thinking, feeling, and acting, leading to human empowerment for commitment and responsibility” (Novak, 1998, p. 15). The use of educational tools, such as concept

  USING ANIMALS IN EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF DISCOVERING… 

239

maps, encourages meaningful learning through the application of this principle (Novak, 2002). Similarly, the use of animals may facilitate learning by engaging similar epistemological principles and promoting knowledge construction. By utilizing animals, for example, the educator has the possibility of integrating a wider spectrum of information and of promoting deeper knowledge construction while potentially motivating students to enhance their learning. For example, in veterinary education at James Cook University, in an animal handling class that involves pigs and that aims to teach first-year students aspects of porcine behavior and safe handling techniques, a wider array of knowledge and skills have been integrated. In addition to handling skills, students are given the task of restraining, anesthetizing, and recovering juvenile pigs under the supervision of a veterinarian. Through this learning exercise students learn important skills including how to: work together to achieve tasks, calculate dose rates in contexts where accuracy is vital, undertake venipuncture, administer injectable medications, monitor vital signs, and directly witness variations in responses to prescribed doses of medications and principles associated with induction of anesthesia and recovery from anesthesia (Cavalieri, 2009c). This example illustrates how instruction in animal handling can easily be modified to incorporate opportunities for deeper learning. Other activities in which we use similar principles include the use of animals to highlight functional anatomy and physiology (Cavalieri, 2009a, 2009b) and promote a deeper understanding of research, animal nutrition, welfare, and statistical analyses through examining the effects of consumption of different diets on piglet growth performance (A. Malau-Aduli personal communication, August 17, 2021). The use of simulators has also provided opportunities to contextualize learning associated with animals and to improve knowledge and skills without direct involvement with animals (Noyes et al., 2022). These learning opportunities involving animals or simulations can be used to cater to the epistemological process of new knowledge construction by immersing students in a context of tactile and purposeful knowledge construction. The use of animals in education can provide a means for students to identify a range of interrelated concepts within a meaningful context as well as a way to develop a variety of skills that may be essential for required competencies. Figure 1 summarizes the concept of designing curricula to introduce meaningful contexts and, thereby, foster motivation and improved learning outcomes. While animals can be used as a means to improve learning other concepts and tasks can be substituted and introduced to create

240 

J. CAVALIERI

Fig. 1  Integration of meaningful contexts to enhance learning through inspiring motivation and, as a consequence, deeper and improved learning outcomes. (Animal image credit: Eric Isselee/Shutterstock.com)

meaningful contexts. For example, skills in engineering and mathematics, along with working effectively in teams, can be acquired when students are given tasks such as the design and construction of solar powered vehicles (Wellington, 1996).

Broader Use of Meaningful Contexts to Stimulate Interest in STEM and Success with Tertiary Education Nakata et al. (2019) proposed and tested the use of pre-entry activities to increase the preparedness of Indigenous students for tertiary studies and for improving transition to tertiary education and the likelihood of successful completions. One of these activities included the conduct of short-­ term schools (five days) for Indigenous secondary school students that is in operation at James Cook University within which they gain experience

  USING ANIMALS IN EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF DISCOVERING… 

241

with a simulated tertiary experience. This school experience includes housing students within a residential college and providing them with a range of social and extracurricular activities. The students are also helped to learn to manage their time and develop their study skills as they complete an assessment task. The experience culminates with students participating in a simulated graduation ceremony. As part of this program animals are used with some students to integrate study skills and wider knowledge acquisition. Students are led through a case study involving an injured dog to introduce aspects of comparative anatomy which is reinforced through exposing students to both human and veterinary anatomy specimens. We introduce a SOAP (subjective, objective, assessment, plan) approach to aid in problem solving. We expose students to laboratory evaluation of blood and tissue samples, some principles of bandaging and surgery, and underlying theory associated with imaging modalities such as CT, radiography and ultrasound (Fig. 2). Students are given hands-on experiences to reinforce principles taught didactically and through their research. Using a case-based approach to learning involving animals, we are able to embed a meaningful context to introduce a broad range of interdisciplinary topics while avoiding any potential welfare costs or risks of students acquiring zoonotic infections by using animals directly. In teaching other groups of students in the past, we exposed secondary school students to viewing parasites with microscopes to introduce potential zoonoses and parasite life cycles. Skulls from a range of different species have been used to highlight functional and comparative aspects of anatomy. An equine model for transrectal pregnancy diagnosis aroused considerable interest in students as they were introduced to a simulated experience of pregnancy diagnosis in horses and, at the same time, they are able to improve their knowledge of reproductive anatomy. This also provided them with an opportunity to experience a routine diagnostic task undertaken by veterinarians as they explored veterinary science as a potential career. Other activities included providing skeletal collections of dog bones for students to assemble without assistance, and the application of ultraviolet illuminated cream to illustrate deficiencies in hand washing techniques. With early primary students we have used models of animal farms for students to construct housing conditions that provide what animals may need and we have used this to educate students about the five Provisions and aligned Animal Welfare Aims (Table 1) which provide a guide to optimizing animal welfare (Mellor, 2016). The task of designing welfare audits

242 

J. CAVALIERI

Fig. 2  Within a residential school at James Cook University, Indigenous secondary school students are introduced to simulated case studies involving animals to promote interdisciplinary learning, study skills, and a variety of career paths within veterinary and biomedical science

for various animal environments can also be used as an opportunity for older students to understand and apply these important principles. Similarly, it is of interest that others have utilized digital gaming technology to improve knowledge of some aspects of animal welfare with primary school children (Hawkins et al., 2019). These examples of activities that we and others have undertaken seek to introduce new knowledge within a meaningful context that stimulates student interest and motivation with the aim of improving learning outcomes. They highlight the breadth of opportunities animals provide to promote learning and interest in veterinary science and STEM in general.

  USING ANIMALS IN EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF DISCOVERING… 

243

Table 1  Five provisions and aligned Animal Welfare Aims (Mellor, 2016) Provisions

Animal welfare aims

1. G  ood nutrition: Provide ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor 2. G  ood environment: Provide shade/ shelter or suitable housing, good air quality, and comfortable resting areas 3. G  ood health: Prevent or rapidly diagnose and treat disease and injury, foster good muscle tone, posture, and cardiorespiratory function 4. A  ppropriate behavior: Provide sufficient space, proper facilities, congenial company, and appropriately varied conditions 5. P  ositive mental experiences: Provide safe, congenial, and species-appropriate opportunities to have pleasurable experiences

Minimize thirst and hunger and enable eating to be a pleasurable experience Minimize discomfort and exposure and promote thermal, physical, and other comforts Minimize breathlessness, nausea, pain, and other aversive experiences and promote the pleasures of robustness, vigor, strength, and well-co-ordinated physical activity Minimize threats and unpleasant restrictions on behavior and promote engagement in rewarding activities Promote various forms of comfort, pleasure, interest, confidence, and a sense of control

Conclusion Education now and in the future should aim to incorporate a broad set of strategies that impart vocational, emotional, and communication skills, resilience in the workplace, and the ability for self-care and management. Incorporating meaningful contexts into educational strategies can help to motivate students to learn and discover a range of interrelated concepts that lead students on a path of deeper learning and improve learning and interest in STEM. Animals provide a valuable aid to student learning and the opportunity to integrate a wide variety of concepts that are useful within broader educational contexts, including STEM. Using animals for educational purposes must, however, be managed within acceptable ethical frameworks and comply with relevant legislation and regulations but, when possible, provide valuable opportunities to enhance student learning, promote interdisciplinary education, and provide a platform to integrate many aspects of STEM. Educators should strive to embed meaningful contexts into curricula designs to enhance student motivation and achieve learning outcomes so that the future STEM needs of societies are better and more easily met.

244 

J. CAVALIERI

Acknowledgment  The editorial assistance and guidance of Gregory Thomas and Helen Boon in the writing and conceptualization of this chapter are greatly appreciated.

References Animal Research Review Panel. (2019). Policies and guidelines – Use of animals for teaching. NSW Department of Primary Industries. https://www.animalethics. org.au/policies-­and-­guidelines/animals-­in-­teaching Austin, H. E., Hyams, J. H., & Abbott, K. A. (2007). Training in animal handling for veterinary students at Charles Sturt University, Australia. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 34(5), 566–575. Australian Veterinary Association. (2008). Use of female cattle for pregnancy testing and artificial insemination schools. Australian Veterinary Association. https:// www.ava.com.au/policy-­a dvocacy/policies/cattle-­h ealth-­a nd-­w elfare/ use-­of-­female-­cattle-­for-­pregnancy-­testing-­and-­artificial-­insemination-­schools/ Beck, A. M., Seraydarian, L., & Hunter, G. F. (1986). Use of animals in the rehabilitation of psychiatric inpatients. Psychological Reports, 58(1), 63–66. https:// doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1986.58.1.63 Bowman, A., Lawson, C., & Mckillup, S. (2016). The use of real time ultrasound scanning as a teaching method of anatomy in an undergraduate sonography and medical imaging degree in an Australian university. Radiography, 22(1), e75–e79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2015.10.007 Bretz, S. (2001). Novak’s theory of education: Human constructivism and meaningful learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1107. https://pubs.acs. org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed078p1107.6 Caballero, P. T., Meneses, E. L., Cano, E. V., Videla, C. B., & Bravo, C. B. (2021). “Paving the way” virtual simulation of a job-hunting experience in EFL during the pandemic. In Educational innovations in pandemic learning contexts: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp.  61–78). Dykinson. https://doi. org/10.2307/j.ctv20hcskz.8 Cavalieri, J. (2009a). Curriculum integration within the context of veterinary education. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 36(4), 388–396. https://doi. org/10.3138/jvme.36.4.388 Cavalieri, J. (2009b). Veterinary student attitudes toward curriculum integration at James Cook University. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 36(3), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.36.3.305 Cavalieri, J. (2009c). Veterinary student responses to learning activities that enhance confidence and ability in pig handling. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 36(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.36.1.39 Cawdell-Smith, A. J., Pym, R. A., Verrall, R. G., Hohenhaus, M. A., Tribe, A., Coleman, G. T., & Bryden, W. L. (2007). Animal handling as an integrated

  USING ANIMALS IN EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF DISCOVERING… 

245

component of animal and veterinary science programs at the University of Queensland. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 34(5), 542–549. Chapman, H. M., Taylor, E. G., Buddle, J. R., & Murphy, D. J. (2007). Student training in large-animal handling at the School of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, Murdoch University, Australia. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 34(5), 576–582. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.34.5.576 Chuter, C. (2019). The role of motivation in learning. https://theeducationhub. org.nz/motivation/ Cockram, M. S., Aitchison, K., Collie, D. D. S., Goodman, G., & Murray, J. A. (2007). Animal-handling teaching at the royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 34(5), 554–560. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.34.5.554 Daly, B., & Suggs, S. (2010). Teachers’ experiences with humane education and animals in the elementary classroom: Implications for empathy development. Journal of Moral Education, 39(1), 101–112. https://doi. org/10.1080/03057240903528733 De Cat, S., Cavalieri, J., & Webster, B. (2014). Using’transition pedagogy’to evaluate the revised Year 1 curriculum for first year veterinary science students. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th International First Year in Higher Education Conference. In: FYHE 2014: 17th International First Year in Higher Education Conference, 6–9 July 2014, Darwin, NT, Australia. https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/34670/ Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 325–346. Doolittle, P. E. (1999). Constructivism and online education. https://jgregorymcverry.com/readings/Doolittle%20-­%201999%20-­%20Constructivism%20 and%20online%20education.pdf Edwards, A., Jones, S. M., Bird, F. L., & Parry, L. J. (2014). Enhancing learning through the use of animals in undergraduate biology teaching: The student voice. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 22(2), 35–54. European Union. (1998). Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. https://eur-­lex.europa.eu/ legal-­content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31998L0058 Favier, R. P., ten Cate, O., Duijn, C., & Bok, H. G. J. (2021). Bridging the gap between undergraduate veterinary training and veterinary practice with entrustable professional activities. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 48(2), 136–138. https://doi:10.3138/jvme.2019-­0051 Foerder, P., Farnsley, S., Hayes, L., & Klug, H. (2019). Enrichment for students and animals: Using environmental enrichment programs for undergraduate

246 

J. CAVALIERI

STEM learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 48(6), 14–19. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/26901327 Geist, T. S. (2011). Conceptual framework for animal assisted therapy. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 28, 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10560-­011-­0231-­3 George, K. A., Slagle, K. M., Wilson, R. S., Moeller, S. J., & Bruskotter, J. T. (2016). Changes in attitudes toward animals in the United States from 1978 to 2014. Biological Conservation, 201, 237–242. https://doi:10.1016/j. biocon.2016.07.013 Glynn, S.  M., Aultman, L.  P., & Owens, A.  M. (2005). Motivation to learn in general education programs. The Journal of General Education, 54(2), 150–170. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27798014 Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012, August). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. http://steamwise.io/docs/congressional-­research-­ service-­R42642.pdf Hawkins, R. D., Ferreira, G. A. R. M., & Williams, J. M. (2019). The development and evaluation of ‘farm animal welfare’: An educational computer game for children. Animals, 9(3), 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9030091 Ivanusic, J., Cowie, B., & Barrington, M. (2010). Undergraduate student perceptions of the use of ultrasonography in the study of “living anatomy”. Anatomical Sciences Education, 3(6), 318–322. Jelinski, M.  D., Campbell, J.  R., Lissemore, K., & Miller, L.  M. (2008). Demographics and career path choices of graduates from three Canadian veterinary colleges. Canadian Veterinary Journal, 49(10), 995–1001. https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19119368 King, L. A. (2004). Ethics and welfare of animals used in education: An overview. Animal Welfare, 13(1), 221–227. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2004/00000013/a00101s1/art00034 Knight, A. (2007). The effectiveness of humane teaching methods in veterinary education. ALTEX, 24(2), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.14573/ altex.2007.2.91 Knight, A. (2014). Conscientious objection to harmful animal use within veterinary and other biomedical education. Animals, 4(1), 16–34. le Roux, M. C., Swartz, L., & Swart, E. (2014). The effect of an animal-assisted reading program on the reading rate, accuracy and comprehension of grade 3 students: A randomized control study. Child & Youth Care Forum, 43(6), 655–673. https://doi:10.1007/s10566-­014-­9262-­1 Lund, T. B., Kondrup, S. V., & Sandoe, P. (2019). A multidimensional measure of animal ethics orientation—Developed and applied to a representative sample of the Danish public. PLoS One, 14(2), e0211656. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0211656

  USING ANIMALS IN EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF DISCOVERING… 

247

Lust, E., Ryan-Haddad, A., Coover, K., & Snell, J. (2007). Measuring clinical outcomes of animal-assisted therapy: Impact on resident medication usage. Consultant Pharmacist, 22(7), 580–585. https://doi.org/10.4140/ tcp.n.2007.580 Marr, C.  A., French, L., Thompson, D., Drum, L., Greening, G., Mormon, J., .Hederson, I., & Hughes, C.  W. (2000). Animal-assisted therapy in psychiatric rehabilitation. Anthrozoös 13(1), 43–47. https://doi. org/10.2752/089279300786999950. McDonald, C. V. (2016). STEM education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530–569. McGreevy, P. (2007). Firm but gentle: Learning to handle with care. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 34(5), 539–541. https://doi.org/10.3138/ jvme.34.5.539 Mellor, D. J. (2016). Moving beyond the “five freedoms” by updating the “five provisions” and introducing aligned “animal welfare aims”. Animals, 6(10), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6100059 Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and and practising within the disciplines. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving student learning theory and practice—TenYears on. Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10734-­004-­6779-­5 Nakata, M., Nakata, V., Day, A., & Peachey, M. (2019). Closing gaps in indigenous undergraduate higher education outcomes: Repositioning the role of student support services to improve retention and completion rates. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 48(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/ jie.2017.36 National Health and Medical Research Council. (2013). Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes (8th ed.). Australian Government. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-­us/publications/ australian-­code-­care-­and-­use-­animals-­scientific-­purposes National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. The National Academies Press. https:// doi.org/10.17226/18612 Nimer, J., & Lundahl, B. (2007). Animal-assisted therapy: A meta-analysis. Anthrozoös, 20(3), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279307x224773 Novak, J. D. (1993). Human constructivism: A unification of psychological and epistemological phenomena in meaning making. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 6(2), 167–193.

248 

J. CAVALIERI

Novak, J.  D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and organisations. Erlbaum. Novak, J.  D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571. https://doi. org/10.1002/sce.10032 Noyes, J. A., Carbonneau, K. J., & Matthew, S. M. (2022). Comparative effectiveness of training with simulators versus traditional instruction in veterinary education: Meta-analysis and systematic review. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 49(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme-­2020-­0026 O’Haire, M. E., McKenzie, S. J., McCune, S., & Slaughter, V. (2013). Effects of animalassisted activities with Guinea pigs in the primary school classroom. Anthrozoös, 26(3), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303713X13697429463835 Paul, E. S., & Podberscek, A. L. (2000). Veterinary education and students’ attitudes towards animal welfare. Veterinary Record, 146(10), 269–272. https:// doi.org/10.1136/vr.146.10.269 Phillips, C. J. C., & McCulloch, S. (2005). Student attitudes on animal sentience and use of animals in society. Journal of Biological Education, 40(1), 17–24. Pinillos, R. G., Appleby, M., Manteca, X., Scott-Park, F., Smith, C., & Velarde, A. (2016). One welfare—A platform for improving human and animal welfare. Veterinary Record, 179(16), 412–413. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.i5470 Pun, J. K. H. (2020). An integrated review of the role of communication in veterinary clinical practice. BMC Veterinary Research, 16(1), 394. https://doi. org/10.1186/s12917-­020-­02558-­2 Queensland Government. (2001). Animal care and protection act 2001. Queensland Government. https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/ pdf/2016-­07-­01/act-­2001-­064 Race, P. (2019). The lecturer’s toolkit: A practical guide to assessment, learning and teaching. Routledge. Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. (2020). Day one competencies. https://animalowners.rcvs.org.uk/document-­library/day-­one-­competences/ Russell, W. M. S., & Burch, R. L. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique. Methuen. Scalese, R. J., & Issenberg, S. B. (2005). Effective use of simulations for the teaching and acquisition of veterinary professional and clinical skills. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 32(4), 461–467. https://doi.org/10.3138/ jvme.32.4.461 Schull, D., Morton, J., Coleman, G., & Mills, P. (2012). Final-year student and employer views of essential personal, interpersonal and professional attributes for new veterinary science graduates. Australian Veterinary Journal, 90(3), 100–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-­0813.2011.00874.x

  USING ANIMALS IN EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF DISCOVERING… 

249

Sherman, B. L., & Serpell, J. A. (2008). Training veterinary students in animal behavior to preserve the human-animal bond. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 35(4), 496–502. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.35.4.496 Smeak, D. D. (2007). Teaching surgery to the veterinary novice: The Ohio State University experience. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 34(5), 620–627. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.34.5.620 Timmins, R. P. (2008). The contribution of animals to human well-being: A veterinary family practice perspective. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 35(4), 540–544. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.35.4.540 United States Department of Agriculture. (2019). Animal welfare act and animal welfare regulations. Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, States Department of Agriculture. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/ bluebook-­ac-­awa.pdf Van Zutphen, L. (2002). Use of animals in research: A science-society controversy? The European perspective. ALTEX, 19(3), 140–144. Vemulapalli, T.  H., Donkin, S.  S., Lescun, T.  B., O’Neil, P.  A., & Zollner, P. A. (2017). Considerations when writing and reviewing a higher education teaching protocol involving animals. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 56(5), 500–508. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC5605173/pdf/jaalas2017000500.pdf Wellington, R. (1996). Model solar vehicles provide motivation for school students. Solar Energy, 58(1–3), 137–146. Wensley, S. P. (2008). Animal welfare and the human-animal bond: Considerations for veterinary faculty, students, and practitioners. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 35(4), 532–539. https://doi:10.3138/jvme.35.4.532 Williams, V.  M., Dacre, I.  T., & Elliott, M. (2007). Public attitudes in New Zealand towards the use of animals for research, testing and teaching purposes. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 55(2), 61–68. https:// doi:10.1080/00480169.2007.36743 Zemanova, M.  A., & Knight, A. (2021). The educational efficacy of humane teaching methods: A systematic review of the evidence. Animals, 11(1), 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010114

Instruction for Metacognition in Science Classrooms: Harsh Realities and a Way Forward? Gregory P. Thomas

Introduction The field of science education is diverse. This diversity is evident when one engages with the content of science education conferences and science education journals. Readers of this book will also note the diversity of topics and approaches contained within. This diversity of scholarship is, of course, to be expected. Science educators and science teacher educators have varying backgrounds, interests, subject specialisms, beliefs, contexts we work in, skill sets, and so forth. One characteristic we share in common, I contend, is that we would all like to improve science education and people’s learning of science. This generally tends to mean that we would like to improve people’s conceptual understanding of science topics and their understanding of the nature of science and of scientific inquiry. It also means assisting students to understand the relevance of science to

G. P. Thomas (*) The University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. P. Thomas, H. J. Boon (eds.), Challenges in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_12

251

252 

G. P. THOMAS

their daily lives and how science might be used to solve or ameliorate some of the socio-scientific problems the world faces in the Anthropocene. These problems are again in sharp focus as societies variously resolve to move beyond the dilemma(s) brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. These problems include food insecurity, climate change, threats to biodiversity, and pollution (UNESCO, 2018). Indeed, it is proposed by some (e.g., Thomas, 2011; Wallace et al., 2022; Zouda et al., this volume) that successful science learning by students is a key to developing informed citizens who might be capable of addressing such Anthropocene-driven problems. Further, Zouda et al. and Bencze et al. (2011) see successful science learning as an integral element of enabling students to become citizen activists. Bencze et al. draw on Hodson’s (2003) schema that identifies (at least some of) the qualities and attributes that science education should assist students to develop if they are to engage in informed activism related to socio-scientific issues. The students should learn to: 1. Appreciate “the societal impact of scientific and technological change” and recognize that “science and technology are, to some extent, culturally determined.” 2. Recognize “that decisions about scientific and technological developments are taken in pursuit of particular interests, and that benefits accruing to some may be at the expense of others.” Recognize “that scientific and technological development are inextricably linked with the distribution of wealth and power.” 3. Develop “One’s own views” and establish “one’s own underlying value positions.” 4. Prepare for and take action. (Hodson, 2003, p. 655)

These qualities and attributes exceed to varying extents and, often substantially, those targeted for attention in core science education documents, such as the national curriculum in England (Department of Education, 2014), the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2013), and the Australian national science curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2021). Consequently, it might be argued on the basis of such varying levels of inclusion, as reflected in these curricula and standards, that science curriculum development has not kept pace with the challenges facing the world or the type of science graduate that is now required and increasingly necessary to ‘make a difference.’ The development of these qualities and attributes requires a

  INSTRUCTION FOR METACOGNITION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS… 

253

different form of science education, taught by a different type of science teacher (OECD, 2019; Thomas, 2011), and a different form of student learning that is assessed and evaluated in ways that differ markedly from standardized tests, examinations, and curriculum reviews. Recognizing the importance of these qualities and attributes means also acknowledging that the type of thinking that science students would need to engage in to develop them, and the type of teacher that would be necessary to stimulate that cognition. What underpins the development of each of 1–4 above is the fundamental requirement for a conceptual understanding of science concepts across physics, chemistry, biology, and earth science that is consistent with canonical science; a strong knowledge base. The development of conceptual understanding is a long-standing goal of science education. Also necessary is knowledge and understanding of the nature of science; how science operates, the thinking processes and strategies involved, and the strengths and weaknesses of science as one form of human thought and endeavor. Again, this is a goal that is familiar to the science education community. Additionally, students would need to be motivated to develop dispositions for life-long learning and activism, and these might typically start with them being taught and exploring the personal relevance of the science they are engaged with and seeking to understand that science in community-situated and global contexts. For each of these underpinnings, ways of knowing science and ways of thinking about and with science are fundamental. Such ‘knowing’ of a subject area and the ability to think and engage skills in a domain are long-established traits of subject domain experts (Glaser & Chi, 1988; Shanteau, 1992). However, more recent considerations of the nature of expertise have drawn attention to the need for conceptions of expertise that go beyond the cognitive realm. Guile and Unwin (2022) contend that expertise can be conceptualized as a ‘capacity for action’ whereby “individuals can contribute by being encouraged to exert agency through opportunities in which they bring their skills, knowledge and experiences to bear” (p. 34). Quast (2018) suggests we might consider understanding “an expert’s capabilities as her [their] dispositions to serve.” Both Guile and Unwin’s and Quast’s perspectives support the views of Zouda et al. (in press), Hodson (2003), and Bencze et al. (2011) that science education should offer more than it has in the past to prepare students to be potential ‘experts for action,’ which includes activism.

254 

G. P. THOMAS

Notwithstanding the emerging views that expertise can be considered more than only a domain-knowledge-, cognitive-, or skills-ascribed phenomenon, there is no doubt that there is an organized knowledge base of a domain or domains that experts have that differentiates them from non-­ experts (Glaser & Chi, 1988; Guile & Unwin, 2022; Shanteau, 1992). It is also generally agreed upon that experts in a domain think differently than non-experts. For example, Glaser and Chi (1988) suggest that experts have strong self-monitoring skills; they “seem to be more aware than novices of when they make errors, why they fail to comprehend, and when they need to check their solutions” (p. xx). Collier et al. (1997) note that experts possess more strategies than novices, including memorization and monitoring strategies, that facilitate their decision making and controlling the implementation of their decisions. Feldon (2016) notes that expert scientists employ strategies such as analogical reasoning, mental simulations, and using external representations such as symbols; strategies that science education and other fields have conducted extensive research on. I propose that if the science education community is to sincerely answer the call to action and activism as proposed by Zouda et  al. (in press), Hodson (2003), and Bencze et al. (2011), it is appropriate to understand and engage students as ‘experts under development’ and to construct curriculum and pedagogy to develop the knowledge, cognitive processes and strategies, and dispositions that the literature reports as attributes of experts. In doing so, we can play a role in preparing students for the possibility of scientifically informed action/activism. Of course, this might be a big ‘ask,’ but there are sufficient commonalities between the qualities and attributes of experts and the qualities and attributes that science educators already seek to develop in science students to make this a reasonable proposition. Also, it might be argued that this proposal for science education is not new or novel. However, as I will explain below, science education as a field and science educators have, in general, neglected and/or downplayed metacognition and its importance for science learning and the ongoing and systematic development of students as experts. In doing so I am not apportioning blame for any neglect; it is often for valid, justifiable reasons. I regard this as an unsatisfactory state of affairs. In what follows, I provide a brief overview of my perspective on metacognition and outline the importance of metacognition for science learning and, therefore, teaching. I then explain some reasons for my contention that prioritizing instruction for metacognition in science education has faltered, stagnated, and nowadays lacks momentum. Finally, I propose

  INSTRUCTION FOR METACOGNITION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS… 

255

several considerations to prioritize instruction for metacognition in science education circles.

Metacognition and Science Education: A Brief Overview One might ask this author in a straightforward way, “What, exactly, is metacognition?” My answer to that question would be, “That depends on who you ask.” As I explain later in this chapter, one of the challenges to effectively incorporating instruction for metacognition into science education practices and curricula is choosing a definition and framework for metacognition. However, that being so, as one who has worked in this field within and beyond science education as a high school science teacher, a research assistant, and an academic for 35 years, I feel confident in the definition and framework I have used for that period of time, while at the same time acknowledging that not all readers of this chapter will agree with my position. I consider metacognition to be an individual’s knowledge, control, and awareness of their thinking and learning processes, including their learning strategies (Thomas, 2012, 2017; Thomas & McRobbie, 2001). Based on the still-relevant work of those such as Anderson (1983, 1990), Ertmer and Newby (1996), and Schraw (1998), I maintain that metacognitive knowledge can be categorized as declarative, procedural, and conditional. Declarative metacognitive knowledge includes facts, beliefs, opinions, generalizations, theories, hypotheses, and attitudes that an individual has about thinking and learning. For example, a student’s propositions in response to the questions, “What is thinking?” “What is learning?” “What does it mean to understand” and/or “Do you think it’s important to continue to learn science after you leave school?” would constitute examples of declarative metacognitive knowledge. Procedural metacognitive knowledge pertains to the information individuals possess about the processes and strategies they employ when thinking and/or learning; what they know about how to perform cognitive activities. For example, if a person describes to you the process they use to memorize a string of the first 20 elements of the periodic table, they would be sharing their metacognitive procedural knowledge with you. Similarly, if a person explained to you the thinking that they used to construct a concept map they would again be sharing their metacognitive procedural knowledge. Conditional

256 

G. P. THOMAS

metacognitive knowledge relates to the knowledge an individual possesses regarding when and why to employ declarative and procedural metacognitive knowledge and why it is appropriate and important to do so. Using concept mapping as a commonly promoted activity in science education, it is possible to generate a hypothetical dialogue between a researcher and a student that exemplifies declarative (D), procedural (P), and conditional (C) knowledge. Researcher: Student: Researcher: Student: Researcher: Student:

Do you know what concept mapping is? Yes, I know what it is. (D) Do you like concept mapping? I think [believe] concept mapping is good for me. (D) Why do you think this? It enables me to make a visual picture of what I know in my head about a topic. (D) Researcher: How do you go about doing a concept map? What happens in your head when you do this? Student: I start by making a list of all of the terms I know related to the topic. Then I ask myself, “Which of these are key ideas; big ideas?” and I write these ideas onto paper inside circles, and I connect them with arrows and then write above those arrows to show how I think these ideas are connected. An then I see if the smaller ideas can connect to the big ideas, and I draw more arrows and write more connections where I think they might be…etc. (P) Researcher: Are there times when it’s best to use a concept map or when you might not use one? Student: I think they’re good for making summaries of a topic or for thinking about how all of the terminology of a topic is linked. I wouldn’t use them all the time. Sometimes you just have to memorize material. (C) In this hypothetical exchange it is evident that the student possesses declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge about concept mapping. In relation to each question, it would be possible to probe the student with additional questions to further learn what they know, but the example is sufficiently illustrative. Using this framework, I have worked with practicing teachers at all levels of pre-university schooling to help them develop and enhance their

  INSTRUCTION FOR METACOGNITION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS… 

257

students’ metacognition related to science learning (see, for example, Thomas, 2013, 2017; Thomas & Au, 2005). Others too, (e.g., Georghiades, 2006; Yuruk et al., 2009) have employed this framework to improve students’ science learning and cognition. However, as alluded to above, there are multiple ways of conceptualizing and operationalizing metacognition (see Zohar & Barzilai, 2013, for a more comprehensive perspective). Most common amongst these in science education is the conceptualization of metacognition as metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring and self-regulation, and metacognitive experiences (Zohar & Barzilai, 2015). Zohar and Barzilai note that metacognitive monitoring and self-regulation is “also referred to by many researchers as metacognitive skills” (pp.  229–230). Veenman (2006, 2012) acknowledges the interchangeable use of metacognitive skills with metacognitive monitoring and self-regulation. Reports of research using this framework that have led to improvements in students’ science learning include Jin and Kim (2021) and Sandi-Urena et al. (2011). Notably, it is not uncommon for researchers to exclude metacognitive experiences from their definition and framework for metacognition. Irrespective of which definition and/or operationalization of metacognition one recognizes, it is universally acknowledged that metacognition is a form of superordinate, higher-­ order thinking, and that its development and enhancement in students has the potential to enable them to engage in more adaptive, self-regulatory learning processes that can lead to improved science learning (Georghiades, 2004; Gunstone & Mitchell, 1998; Thomas, 2012; Zohar & Barzilai, 2013).

Considering the Impact of Research into Metacognition on Science Education Curricula and Pedagogy There is considerable interest in metacognition in educational research and scholarship. As Zohar and Barzilai (2013) point out, “Metacognition and its implications for learning and instruction have become a central issue in educational research” (p. 121). Braund and Soleas (2019) suggest that “metacognition has recently re-emerged as a central focus of educational initiatives” (p. 105). Dori et al. (2018) also propose that “The fields of research on cognition, metacognition, and culture in learning and teaching Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics—STEM— have been growing rapidly in recent years, attracting considerable interest

258 

G. P. THOMAS

among scholars and educators” (p. 1). Further, in the ‘online only’ abstract to their chapter in Cognition, Metacognition, and Culture in STEM Education (Dori et al., 2018), Avargil et al. (2018) suggest that: Over the last 15 years, educators and policy makers have argued metacognition is an important, even crucial, component in teaching, learning, and assessing meaningful understanding in science. Therefore, they have recommended that learning and applying metacognitive strategies become part of science curriculum starting as early as kindergarten, through middle and high school, and continuing at the college and university levels.

While I acknowledge the enthusiasm that is explicit in such perspectives, I consider that such statements require close scrutiny, especially in relation to the impact of scholarship and research related to metacognition on science education policy, as reflected in science education curriculum, and on science education pedagogy. I now return to the aforementioned national curriculum in England (Department of Education, 2014), the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2013), and the Australian national science curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2021) as examples for exploring the extent of the penetration of scholarship on metacognition into science education policy. I am able to locate no reference to metacognition in either the NGSS or the English curriculum. The F-10 Australian national science curriculum does make reference to metacognition. A search of the site using ‘metacognition’ as the keyword reveals 18 references to metacognition: 6 of these are designated as ‘curriculum,’ 1 for each level of the curriculum, and 12 are designated as ‘resources.’ In the references to metacognition designated as curriculum, metacognition is defined as “Think about Thinking.” This, as will be discussed below, is a very basic and not particularly useful conceptualization of metacognition, but at least it’s something. The general template for the metacognition objective for each level reflects takes the following: Reflecting on thinking processes This element involves students reflecting on, adjusting, and explaining their thinking and identifying the thinking behind choices, strategies, and actions taken. Students think about thinking (metacognition), reflect on actions and processes, and transfer knowledge into new contexts to create alternatives or open up possibilities. They apply knowledge gained in one context to clarify

  INSTRUCTION FOR METACOGNITION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS… 

259

another. In developing and acting with critical and creative thinking, students: • think about thinking (metacognition) • reflect on processes • transfer knowledge into new contexts (ACARA, 2021)

For each level, the type of reflection students should engage in is specified: Level 1—“Describe what they are thinking and give reasons why”; Level 2—“Describe the thinking strategies used in given situations and tasks”; Level 3—“Reflect on, explain and check the processes used to come to conclusions”; Level 4—“Reflect on assumptions made, consider reasonable criticism and adjust their thinking if necessary”; Level 5—“Assess assumptions in their thinking and invite alternative opinions”; Level 6—“Give reasons to support their thinking, and address opposing viewpoints and possible weaknesses in their own positions.” Therefore, while the general definition of metacognition as ‘thinking about thinking’ is used, more detail specifying the type of reflective thinking related to the development of students’ metacognition is provided. Further, one can see some connection between these curriculum elements and the type of thinking implied in the aforementioned schema of Hodson (2003). In the 12 resource sections, further suggestions are provided for guiding the types of metacognitively oriented experiences teachers might plan for students. For example, at Level 6 (years 9 and 10), students might be asked to “analyse reasoning used in finding and applying solutions, and in choice of resources,” while at Level 5 (years 7 and 8) they might be asked to “evaluate and justify the reasons behind choosing a particular problem-­ solving strategy.” Taken as a whole, the F-10 Australian national science curriculum shows that it is possible to give explicit attention to metacognition in science curricula frameworks with implicit expectations that it will addressed in teachers’ practices. A brief reference to metacognition can be also found in a science curriculum document in Singapore where students are “to use metacognition to make good decisions” (Ministry of Education, p.  11). However, my search of other national science curriculum documents from a sample of countries that included Sweden, South Africa, and Canada (Alberta and Ontario) did not return any results. While this search for references to metacognition is not extensive, it is informative. It suggests that, apart from Australia, the science curriculum developers from many if not most

260 

G. P. THOMAS

countries do not acknowledge metacognition and its importance in science education. This lack of explicit recognition suggests that, while there might be an increasing understanding of the importance of metacognition, interest in its study, and even recommendations for its inclusion in school science curricula, current science education policy makers and curriculum developers do not, apart from rare examples, share the same enthusiasm for making its development and enhancement an integral or even subsidiary goal for science education. Another indicator of the extent to which the development and enhancement of metacognition has or has not percolated into the world of science education beyond academia can be found in the emerging research on science teachers and their knowledge of and attitudes toward metacognition. Zohar and Barzilai (2013), citing Veenman et al. (2006), Wilson and Bai (2010), and Zohar (1999, 2006), suggest that teachers, including science teachers (who were the research participants in Wilson and Bai’s and Zohar’s studies), “lack sufficient knowledge about metacognition” (p. 153) and how to develop and enhance it in students. Zohar (1999) summarized her findings with in-service science teachers by stating that the science teachers’ pre-instructional knowledge of metacognition related to thinking skills was “unsatisfactory for the purpose of teaching higher-­ order thinking in science classrooms” (p.  413). In summarizing their research with 43 pre-service and 45 in-service science teachers, Braund and Soleas (2019) stated that both groups of teachers “reported struggling to implement metacognition” (p. 105), but that in-service teachers were able to demonstrate more “practical, concrete knowledge, as well as creative classroom integration” of instruction for metacognition than pre-­ service teachers. In work specifically with elementary science teachers, Braund (2019) reported that “participants’ beliefs and actions [regarding metacognition] were significantly related to years of teaching experience” (p. 18). Also, in research with pre- and in-service science teachers, Thomas (2018, 2020a) reported a wide range of pre-service and practicing teachers’ knowledge of metacognition, their knowledge and pedagogical practices related to developing and enhancing students’ metacognition, and their attitudes toward their responsibilities related to such teaching of science students. Some practicing teachers expressed apprehension to engage in such teaching while others reported never having considered such a possibility. These findings suggest, at best, a highly variable, unsatisfactory situation regarding science teachers’ knowledge of metacognition and how they might develop and enhance it with their science students.

  INSTRUCTION FOR METACOGNITION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS… 

261

Overall, the lack of evidence of attention to metacognition in science curriculum documents coupled with the varying nature of pre- and in-­ service teachers’ knowledge of how to develop and enhance students’ metacognition suggests a lack of uptake of concepts and practices about metacognition in these science education contexts, notwithstanding the positive suggestions of some. This is despite the substantial research that reports how developing and enhancing students’ metacognition can benefit students’ science learning. In the next section I speculate briefly as to why this situation might be as it is. In speculating, I aim to provide an as-informed a series of conjectures as I am able to. It will be up to the reader to determine if and the extent to which these conjectures resonate with them. I also aim to suggest and stimulate possible future research questions and agendas for those who might be interested. For each of my conjectures I propose suggestions to address the issues therein.

Why Are We Where We Are with Infusing Instruction for Metacognition in Science Education: And What Might We Do About It? I propose that the field of metacognition research itself, pre- and in-service science teacher education, a lack of understanding of the lives and tensions of practicing science teachers, and a lack of access to information on metacognition are overlapping factors that should be considered in understanding the current situation and in considering how we might suggest and/or negotiate spaces for increased attention to metacognition in science education. It is not sufficient to believe that positive research findings alone will be enough. The space that metacognition finds itself in within science education is multi-factored and complex. The Metacognition Field, Itself, Is Still in Flux and Its Relevance for Teachers Is Not Readily Apparent to All Like all fields of educational research and scholarship, the field of metacognition research and scholarship is not static. Research is conducted, new findings and recommendations for interventions and research methodologies are reported, and ideas are imported from other fields to inform scholarship on metacognition. However, as Azevedo (2020) points out, “while there have been major advances in the field of metacognition”

262 

G. P. THOMAS

(p.  91) there still remain important issues that require attention. These include issues of definition, assessment, and the nature of interaction/s between cognition and metacognition. Azevedo notes the “abundance of definitions” in the fields of “educational psychology, cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, cognitive science, learning science, STEM education, and computational sciences” and suggests that more “theoretical work needs to be done for attaining a unified theory” (p. 91). I have suggested previously (Thomas, 2009, 2012) that this lack of consensus reflects different individual, regional, and international emphases regarding metacognition theory and research agendas; an historical consequence of a previously less-connected academic community. Given that (a) new scholars enter the metacognition field regularly, from different academic and cultural traditions, and (b) new journals and publication methods are also emerging, I do not see an easy resolution to the definition issue. I certainly do not subscribe to the position of Zohar and Dori (2012) who suggest that the “formulation of a definition” would need to be “accepted by at least a group of prominent researchers in the field” (p. 19). This limits who controls the ‘definition’ agenda and confers too much authority on those who might be furthest away from the ‘chalk face’ in terms of classroom teaching experience, knowledge of science curricula, and the challenging contexts and conditions teachers work in daily to help students learn science. In relation to the methods for assessing or evaluating metacognition, Azevedo (2020) notes the continued use of self-report surveys, interviews, and observations. He also notes a “surge in research using process-­oriented approaches such as combining think-alouds, log files, eye-tracking, and screen recordings of learner-systems interactions” (p. 95). Much of these more recent developments are predominantly of interest for those who conduct research into metacognition in contexts that are usually far-­ removed from many everyday science education contexts such as, for example, “It’s Monday morning, grade 8 science, 35 students, 45-minute class, Today I’m teaching about cells. The microscope lenses need cleaning before class starts.” In reflecting on the relevance of these ‘advances’ in metacognition assessment for science teaching, I am reminded of Ann Brown’s (1994) commentary on her exposure to behaviorist learning theory as a psychology student. Brown wrote, “Rather than learning about animals adapting to their natural habitats. I learned about rats and pigeons learning things rats and pigeons were never intended to learn” (p.  4). Researchers in metacognition should be careful to explain, in detail, the

  INSTRUCTION FOR METACOGNITION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS… 

263

contexts within which they conduct their research and how they collect their data. Such contextual information will enable others, including practicing teachers, to assess the claims made and what findings might mean for subject teaching and learning. Providing such information enables those, including teachers, who might (be interested to) read such research to ascertain the extent to which the ecology of the research site matches the ecologies they work or conduct research within. In Thomas (accepted) I argue that a commitment to this principle of representative design is missing from most metacognition research, and this is a problem for explaining to teachers the relevance of findings from metacognition research for their pedagogy. Azevedo (2020) notes that the nature of interaction/s between cognition and metacognition is a problem when each of them is closely intertwined and rely on and influence each other. Azevedo suggests “it is hard to distinguish between them since each of the constructs rely on and influence each other and share processes” and that “this represents a dilemma of having a higher-order agent overlooking and governing the cognitive system while also simultaneously being part of it” (p. 92). I suggest that this issue derives, at least in part, from the previously described notion of metacognitive skills. These skills as planning, monitoring, and evaluating learning are, in essence, strategies involving sometimes multiple cognitive processes and behaviors. If metacognition is, as I prefer to conceptualize it, one’s knowledge, control, and awareness of their thinking and learning processes, then one can be ‘metacognitive,’ that is, have metacognition about any cognition. For example, one could develop and be conscious of their knowledge, control, and awareness of any of the cognitive processes listed in Bloom’s Taxonomy (e.g., Krathwohl, 2002). Science curricula and science teachers’ and students’ everyday discourse abounds with ‘thinking’ words. Rather than being overly concerned with the nature of interaction/s between cognition and metacognition, it would be more pragmatic and worthwhile for those working in metacognition and seeking to increase its relevance for science education (and other subjects’) pedagogy to consider how to develop and operationalize a language of thinking (Thomas, 2021; Tishman & Perkins, 1997) so that science teachers can model and discuss with students the cognitive processes around words such as ‘analyze,’ ‘predict,’ ‘evaluate,’ ‘infer,’ and ‘hypothesize’ that are used to designate common cognitive processes that science students are asked to engage. This would increase the relevance of metacognition research for science teachers and curriculum developers.

264 

G. P. THOMAS

In summary, the issues that Azevedo (2020) reports within the scholarly field of metacognition are predominantly issues for scholars working that field, not for educators and teachers in general. There is a need for scholars in metacognition research, including those in science education, to consider the extent to which their research practices, findings, and means of dissemination are relevant to those, such as curriculum developers and teachers, beyond academia. The extent to which such introspection is possible and eventuates will be interesting to observe. Lack of Attention to Metacognition in Pre- and In-service Teacher Education Zohar and Barzilai (2013, p. 153) suggest that recognition of the importance of metacognition “is not reflected in the curricula of both pre-­service and in-service education.” This is likely because, as Goodnough and Azam (this volume) remind us, science teacher educators come from varied cultural and educational backgrounds. Assuming that they will be a homogeneous group is folly. My own experiences on faculty in Australia, Hong Kong, and now Canada, coupled with my visits to and work in other countries, has led me to understand that, as with science teachers (McRobbie  & Tobin, 1995), the beliefs, contexts, and goals of science teacher educators will vary; often considerably. Therefore, it might not be feasible for all science teacher education programs or courses to attend to the concept of metacognition and the pedagogical content knowledge teachers require to develop and enhance it in their students, at least not to the same extent. Other priorities for content in science teacher education programs abound such as, for example: teaching lesson planning; helping students understand the importance and conduct of laboratory work and scientific inquiry; providing strategies to facilitate conceptual change; Indigenous perspectives in science education; and the why and how of promoting and developing students’ scientific literacy. Each is these is important and should be attended to. At the same time, in our science education courses we are asking students to ‘learn’ and to ‘think’ about such topics and how to apply them in their teaching routines. Therefore, it is possible to introduce the topic of metacognition as a means to inform students about their own learning and thinking processes and to challenge them to make those processes explicit. I have previously suggested (Thomas, 2012) that we consider developing science teacher metacognition as an important goal of science teacher

  INSTRUCTION FOR METACOGNITION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS… 

265

education. I proposed three categories of science teachers’ metacognitive knowledge that science teacher educators might consider focusing on in their courses: • Scientific/Conceptual-oriented metacognitive knowledge—science teachers’ knowledge of their own thinking and science learning processes and strategies, • Pedagogically oriented metacognitive knowledge—science teachers’ knowledge of how they think and the strategies they use when making decisions regarding which pedagogical processes to employ, and • Curricular-oriented metacognitive knowledge—science teachers’ knowledge of how they think and what strategies they employ when making decisions on which curricular emphases to focus on in their teaching. (p. 41) In making this suggestion, and constructing these categories of science teacher metacognitive knowledge, I am suggesting a shift in focus away from conceptualizing teacher education away from teaching pre- and in-­ service teachers about ‘what to do.’ I’m suggesting we teach them about how to reason regarding what they might choose to do with the information they have and are being taught about science teaching and learning. This does not diminish the importance of the aforementioned, long-­ standing priorities in science teacher preparation. Rather, it adjusts pre-­ service teachers’ orientations to considering the thinking behind the choices and actions they might take as teachers and seeks to make their thinking about such matters ‘visible’ and explicit objects for consideration and possible modification. The attention to what I have called ‘Scientific/ Conceptual-oriented metacognitive knowledge’ is in response to findings from my own research Thomas (2018, 2020a) and that of others (e.g., Kozulin, 2021; Zohar, 1999). If we expect teachers to be able to develop and enhance the thinking of students, it is prudent to begin with teachers ‘where they are’ in terms of what they know about how they think about and learn science. As I have reported (Thomas, 2020b) this shift in my science teacher education pedagogy began around 2015; it was (and still is) a process not an event. Pre-service teachers have responded positively to this orientation of the science education courses I teach, and further refinements are planned. Also, because of the large numbers of pre-service science teachers in the Bachelor of Education program at the University of Alberta (~300 each year) instructors are able to co-teach in each other’s

266 

G. P. THOMAS

classes or set times for all students to attend classes taught by those with specific interests and knowledge. This means that it is possible to place the concept of metacognition, its importance for science education, and ways of developing and enhancing students’ metacognition before large numbers of pre-service science teachers; likely larger numbers than in most other science teacher education programs. Finally, due to the nature of Masters and PhD programs at the University of Alberta, I am able to offer a graduate-level course ‘Metacognition Across (the) Curriculum and this course is taken mostly by practicing teachers. There is also the option of teachers taking the course as ‘open-studies’ students which does not require them to be enrolled in any graduate program. The nature of in-service teacher education is complex. As Rose (2021) reminds us in a recent review, the nature and practices of teacher professional development and in-service education are highly varied and context dependent. Practicing teachers have varying interests and needs that their professional development might or might not be able to meet. They also have varying degrees of agency and choice in determining what in-service education they subscribe to or attend. For example, in Alberta teachers are mandated to attend a yearly teacher education conference for their region, and the choice of sessions they can attend is determined by a program committee. School boards mandate professional development days and senior board officials have the final say regarding what the content and form of professional development will be. This is not the case in all jurisdictions and certainly not the case in all international contexts. While my aforementioned fully online graduate class is one option teachers from anywhere in Canada can take if they are interested in metacognition, it might not be possible for all to take (even if they know it exists). The issue of how to provide practicing science teachers with access to information about metacognition outside of formal graduate study or professional development so they might learn about it, if they want to or they feel it is necessary on a ‘need to know’ basis, is considered below in relation to the lack of access to information on metacognition. Lack of Understanding of the ‘Every Day’ of Science Teachers This matter was alluded to in considerations above regarding the nature of the metacognition field and its relevance for practicing teachers. I recall beginning work at the University of Hong Kong in 1999 and quickly realizing that what I thought should be possible for my pre-service and

  INSTRUCTION FOR METACOGNITION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS… 

267

in-service science teachers to contemplate in terms of pedagogy (and instruction for metacognition) was just not realistic. The educational context was very different to that in Australia where I’d arrived from, and my students (both pre- and in-service) gently (thankfully) let me know this was the situation. I adjusted my content and approach to better suit the context. Moving from Hong Kong to Canada, I adjusted again (Thomas, accepted). The literature on the complex and dynamic nature of teachers’ work is extensive (see, for example, Chen & Xiao, 2021; Connell et  al., 1985; Martin & Mulvihill, 2017; Dow et al., 2000; Robertson, 2017). Teachers are busy, needing to attend to an increasingly number of agendas and ‘initiatives,’ and teacher attrition is a rising source of concern (Craig, 2017; Räsänen et al., 2020; Sorensen & Ladd, 2020). Encouraging teachers to consider metacognition and how they might seek to develop and enhance their students’ metacognition is inextricably linked to issues of teacher work and teacher change. In Couteret et al. (2018) two of my pre-service teacher graduates explained the difficulties they had to overcome as beginning teachers before they could begin to incorporate instruction for metacognition into their pedagogies. The immediate, everyday requirements and demands of teaching meant that, despite knowing about instruction for metacognition and being willing to incorporate it into their teaching, they had to wait until they considered they were ‘on top of’ more essential and foundational matters before moving forward with their ‘metacognition’ agendas. In working with classroom science teachers in my research (e.g., Thomas, 2013, 2017: Thomas & McRobbie, 2002), there has always been a strong commitment to acknowledge teachers as professionals, respect their agency, and seek to make our interactions mutually educative. There is a need to negotiate with teachers about changes to their pedagogy rather than seek to determine their classroom practices for them. The reporting of much, if not most, metacognition research involving teachers, including science teachers, denies or ignores their realities: the teachers as people are invisible. I have been guilty of such reporting. If instruction for metacognition is to become embedded as a core element of science education pedagogy, I contend we need to make our reporting of our research more ‘human.’ By ‘human’ I mean that in our reports we recognize with respect the complex lives of teachers, their concerns related to science curriculum change (Watson, 2021), and the complexity of change processes they are asked to engage in within fast-shifting educational contexts. What is largely missing from metacognition research are

268 

G. P. THOMAS

the stories of teacher change and how they undertake and manage their pedagogical change/s. One example of where we do find such stories is in the reports on the Project to Enhance Effective Learning (PEEL) (Baird & Mitchell, 1986; Mitchell & Mitchell, 2008). The teacher-authored stories that are part of the reporting for PEEL show that there is a need to not expect or demand that teachers will be instantly able to incorporate or be successful with instruction for metacognition. Incorporating instruction for metacognition into their pedagogical repertoires is not a simple or quick process. The process is also complicated when we understand that students may not willingly accept the ideas regarding learning strategies presented to them by teachers (Thomas, 2012). We should also acknowledge that the primary reason for developing and enhancing metacognition in science education is to improve science learning; it is not for the sake of metacognition or metacognition research or researchers. Teachers and students are inevitably evaluated on what students learn. In my view, the Australian national science curriculum reflects a measured approach to beginning to ‘awaken’ teachers to the concept of metacognition on a national scale. The notion of metacognition as ‘Thinking about Thinking’ is simplistic. It lacks structure and by itself is not a particularly useful guide to action. However, it is also non-threatening and there is sufficient scaffolding to guide teachers in terms of the experiences they might plan for students to ‘get started’ with thinking about instruction for metacognition. Only time will tell whether this approach is successful or not. Lack of Access to Information on Metacognition Zouda et al. (this volume) note that teachers’ access to information they might use to inform their pedagogy and/or knowledge of science education in general is crucial for their professional learning and development. They identify the need to make digital, open-access forms of information available to teachers. ‘Knowledge mobilization’ is an increasingly important element of research (Cooper et  al., 2018; Younie et  al., 2018). Educational research agencies are increasingly asking how research will be disseminated beyond traditional means. In Canada, for example, this means submitting a Knowledge Mobilization Plan with one’s research application. In Hong Kong, an Education Plan is required. Not surprisingly, digital technologies have opened up possibilities for knowledge dissemination that were previously not possible. Spurred on by

  INSTRUCTION FOR METACOGNITION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS… 

269

(a) my own recollections of difficulties accessing up-to-date information as a teacher and graduate student, (b) the work done by people such as Larry Bencze (n.d.) who has sought to promote activist science education and STEPWISE framework, and (c) the increasing requirement to mobilize knowledge as a research activity, I have developed two digital platforms, Open Educational Resources (OERs), for dissemination of information and research findings about metacognition; The Metacognition Channel (Thomas, n.d.-a) which is a podcast, and Metacognition Online (Thomas, n.d.-b) which is a website. These digital outlets are my response to my view that information about metacognition should be more widely available than through traditional channels such as refereed journals, books, and conference proceedings. These traditional forms of dissemination are now often inaccessible beyond university firewalls, subscriptions, and costly purchases. Further, they are often inaccessible to those in developing countries. Any person with a digital device and an Internet connection can access these OERs to connect with ideas about metacognition. Since its launch in 2020, the Metacognition Channel has recorded over 3600 downloads from over 65 countries. This suggests that it is meeting the goals it was developed for. In this digital age, when technology is accessible and not nearly as expensive or challenging to use as it was, it is more possible than ever share information on metacognition or any other facet of science education one chooses to. Doing so, at least partly, addresses the issue of lack of access to information.

Concluding Remarks: Moving Metacognition Forward in Science Education The development and enhancement of students’ metacognition is a worthwhile goal for science education. Existing research provides evidence that students’ learning of science can improve if their metacognition is improved. This is an important tenet for educating science students to take on activist roles if they are to make a difference in attending to the ‘wicked problems’ (Carter, 2011) that humanity currently faces in the Anthropocene. In recent times, and notably in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, we have witnessed activism informed by misinformation as well as scientifically accurate information and data. Learning science well is important. At the same time, it is important to recognize that whether an individual has accurate knowledge is not, itself, a predictor of the nature

270 

G. P. THOMAS

or extent of their activism. As is the case with teachers (McRobbie & Tobin, 1995), individuals, in general, choose to act as they do with reference to their identities, beliefs, and values (Furlong & Vignoles, 2020; Wallis & Loy, 2021). Therefore, developing students’ metacognition to enhance their science learning is important but not sufficient to address all the factors that inform activism. Still, metacognition is important. However, there is a disconnect between what is known about metacognition in the research literature and the implementation of instruction for metacognition in science curricula and teacher pedagogy. Mentions of metacognition are rarely found in science curricula, and pre-service and practicing teachers’ knowledge of metacognition is highly variable and generally unsatisfactory. There is a certain impotence to inform systemic change in educational policy, school systems, and classrooms in general. This state of affairs requires attention. There is a need for those who engage in research and scholarship regarding metacognition in science education to become more attuned to how their research might be communicated to policy makers, curriculum developers, text book writers (see, Johnson & Boon, this volume), and science teacher educators. If this does not happen, it is unlikely that there will be changes in teacher pedagogy. The Australian K-10 national science curriculum is an example of where a start has been made to integrate principles of instruction for metacognition into a national curriculum. Research on the impact of such integrate will lead to valuable insights as to the effect of this integration. However, it may be that bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) might provide the stimulus for what is considered important for countries to consider. Their recent document ‘Future of education and skills 2030: Skills for 2030 – Conceptual learning framework’ (OECD, 2019) highlights the importance of metacognition for adapting to a changing environment. Just as the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has had an influence on education debate, it may be that the OECD’s conceptual learning framework might generate debate regarding future attention to metacognition at policy and curricular levels. In the end, however, it will be teachers who ‘do’ instruction for metacognition in their classrooms. It is my hope that this might occur sooner than later. For this to be so, pre- and in-service teacher education would need to find space for providing information on metacognition and instruction for metacognition to their audiences. This is likely to be a challenge given the diversity of backgrounds, knowledge, and priorities of

  INSTRUCTION FOR METACOGNITION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS… 

271

science teacher educators and professional developers. One thing for sure is that teachers and professional developers will need access to research-­ informed information about metacognition and its relevance to science teaching and learning. This information will need to be sourced from research that details the contexts within which such research took place so that teachers can assess the transferability of the findings from the research context/s to their own. OERs that utilize modern digital technologies can help provide solutions to the issues of accessibility and bolster other forms of professional learning.

References Anderson, J.  R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 22, 261–295. https://psycnet.apa.org/ doi/10.1016/S0022-­5371(83)90201-­3 Anderson, J.  R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (ACARA). (2021). Science (version 8.4). https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/senior-­ secondary-­curriculum/science/ Avargil, S., Lavi, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2018). Students’ metacognition and metacognitive strategies in science education. In Y.  J. Dori, Z.  R. Mevarech, & D. R. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education. Innovations in science education and technology (Vol. 24). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­66659-­4_3 Azevedo, R. (2020). Reflections on the field of metacognition: Issues, challenges, and opportunities. Metacognition and Learning, 15, 91–98. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11409-­020-­09231-­x Baird, J. R., & Mitchell, I. J. (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study – The PEEL Project. PEEL Publishing. Bencze, L. (n.d.). https://wordpress.oise.utoronto.ca/jlbencze/ Bencze, L., Sperling, E., & Carter, L. (2011). Students’ research-informed socio-­ scientific activism: Re/visions for a sustainable future. Research in Science Education, 42, 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-­011-­9260-­3 Braund, H. (2019). Supporting metacognitive development in science education: Exploring Ontario elementary teacher’s beliefs and practices in metacognition. Alberta Science Education Journal, 46(1), 10–21. Braund, H., & Soleas, E. (2019). The struggle is real: Metacognitive conceptualizations, actions, and beliefs of pre-service and in-service teachers. In J. Mena, A. García-Valcárel, & F. García Peñalvo (Eds.), Teachers’ professional development in global contexts (pp. 105–124). Brill Sense.

272 

G. P. THOMAS

Brown, A.  L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4–12. Carter, L. (2011). Gathering the thread in the insensible global world: The wicked problems of globalization and science education. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 6(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-­010-­9307-­1 Chen, L., & Xiao, S. (2021). Perceptions, challenges and coping strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377 Collier, J., Ryrolle, H., & Marine, C. (1997). Expertise in dynamic environments. Ergonomics, 40(1), 28–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401397188350 Connell, R. W., Ashenden, D. J., Kessler, S., & Dowsett, G. W. (1985). Teachers’ work (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117667 Cooper, A., Rodway, J., & Read, R. (2018). Knowledge mobilization practices of educational researchers across Canada. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 48(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.7202/1050839ar Couteret, L., King, C., & Thomas, G. P. (2018). Bridging the gap between theory and practice in science education: Really? When? How? Why? In D. C. Young, W.  L. Kraglund-Gauthier, & T.  G. Ryan (Eds.), Readiness for the field: Perspectives from within the triangle of teacher education (pp.  35–55). Common Ground. Craig, C.  J. (2017). International teacher attrition: Multi-perspective views. Teachers and Teaching, 23(8), 859–862. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354060 2.2017.1360860 Department of Education. (2014). The national curriculum in England: Key stages 3 and 4 framework document. Department of Education. www.gov.uk/dfe/ nationalcurriculum Dori, Y. J., Mevarech, Z. R., & Baker, D. R. (2018). Introduction. In Y. J. Dori, Z. R. Mevarech, & D. R. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM Education, Innovations in science education and technology (Vol. 24, pp. 1–8). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­66659-­4_1 Dori, Y. J., Mevarech, Z. R., & Baker, D. R. (Eds.) (2018). Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM Education. Innovations in science education and technology (Vol. 24). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­66659-­4 Dow, A., Hattam, R., Reid, A., Shacklock, G., & Smyth, J. (2000). Teachers’ work in a globalizing economy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203979693 Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00156001 Feldon, D. F. (2016). The development of expertise in scientific research. Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. (14 pages). https://doi. org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0411

  INSTRUCTION FOR METACOGNITION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS… 

273

Furlong, V., & Vignoles, V. L. (2020). Social identification in collective climate action: Predicting participation in the environmental movement, extinction rebellion. Identity; An international Journal of Theory and Research, 21(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2020.1856664 Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119401 Georghiades, P. (2006). The role of metacognitive activities in the contextual use of primary pupils’ conceptions of science. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-­004-­3954-­8 Glaser, R., & Chi, M.  T. H. (1988). Overview. In M.  T. H.  Chi, R.  Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xv–xxviii). Lawrence Erlbaum. Guile, D., & Unwin, L. (2022). Expertise as a ‘capacity for action’: Reframing vocational knowledge from the perspective of work. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 74(1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363682 0.2020.1858939 Gunstone, R. F., & Mitchell, I. J. (1998). Metacognition and conceptual change. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 133–163). Academic Press. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670. https://doi. org/10.1080/09500690305021 Jin, Q., & Kim, M. (2021). Supporting elementary students’ scientific argumentation with argument-focused metacognitive scaffolds (AMS). International Journal of Science Education, 43(12), 1984–2006. https://doi.org/10.108 0/09500693.2021.1947542 Kozulin, A. (2021). Why teachers need metacognition training. Cultural-­ Historical Psychology, 17(2), 59–64. https://psyjournals.ru/en/kip/2021/ n2/Kozulin.shtml Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 Martin, L. E., & Mulvihill, T. M. (2017). Current issues in teacher education: An interview with Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond. The Teacher Educator, 52(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2017.1294921 McRobbie, C. J., & Tobin, K. (1995). Restraints to reform: The congruence of teacher and student actions in a chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320406 Ministry of Education. (2020). Science syllabuses: Lower secondary express course; Normal academic course. Curriculum Planning and Development Division. Mitchell, I., & Mitchell, J. (2008). The project for enhancing effective learning (PEEL): 22 years of praxis. In A. P. Samaras, A. R. Freese, C. Kosnik, & C. Beck

274 

G. P. THOMAS

(Eds.), Learning communities in practice. Explorations of educational purpose (Vol. 4). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4020-­8788-­2_1 NGSS. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://www.nextgenscience.org/ Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2019). Future of education and skills 2030: Skills for 2030 – Conceptual learning framework. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-­project/teaching-­ and-­learning/learning/skills/ Quast, C. (2018). Towards a balanced account of expertise. Social Epistemology, 32(6), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2018.1546349 Räsänen, K., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Soini, T., & Väisänen, P. (2020). Why leave the teaching profession? A longitudinal approach to the prevalence and persistence of teacher turnover intentions. Social Psychology of Education, 23, 837–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-­020-­09567-­x Robertson, S. (2017). Changing teachers’ work, globalization and the state. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315053912 Rose, K. (2021). How do teachers’ perceptions of their agency and engagement change after participating in self-directed professional development? (Unpublished PhD thesis). The University of Alberta. https://doi.org/10.7939/ r3-­ftn8-­fq86 Sandi-Urena, S., Cooper, M. M., & Stevens, R. H. (2011). Enhancement of metacognition use and awareness by means of a collaborative intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 323–340. https://doi. org/10.1080/09500690903452922 Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003044231033 Shanteau, J. (1992). The psychology of experts: An alternative view. In G. Wright & F. Bolger (Eds.), Expertise and decision support (pp. 11–23). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­0-­585-­34290-­0_2 Sorensen, L. C., & Ladd, H. F. (2020, January). The hidden costs of teacher turnover. AERA open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420905812 Thomas, G. P. (1999). Student restraints to reform: Conceptual change issues in enhancing students’ learning processes. Research in Science Education, 29(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461182 Thomas, G.  P. (2009). Metacognition or not: Confronting hegemonies. In I. M. Saleh & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Fostering scientific habits of mind: Pedagogical knowledge and best practices in science education (pp. 83–106). Sense Publishers. Thomas, G. P. (2011). A new science future, a new science teacher: Teacher metacognition as a priority in science teacher education. The International Journal of Educational Administration and Development, 2, 350–363. Thomas, G.  P. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Past, present and future considerations. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.),

  INSTRUCTION FOR METACOGNITION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS… 

275

Second international handbook of science education (pp.  131–144). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4020-­9041-­7_11 Thomas, G.  P. (2013). Changing the metacognitive orientation of a classroom learning environment to stimulate metacognitive reflection regarding the nature of physics learning. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1183–1207. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.778438 Thomas, G. P. (2017). “Triangulation:” An expression for stimulating metacognitive reflection regarding the use of ‘triplet’ representations for chemistry learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 533–548. https://doi. org/10.1039/C6RP00227G Thomas, G. P. (2018, May 27). Science teachers’ procedural metacognitive knowledge: Initial investigations. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Regina, Canada. Thomas, G. P. (2020a). Exploring practicing and pre-service teachers’ procedural metacognitive knowledge: Initial findings and potential implications. In O.  Levrini & G.  Tasquier (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2019 Conference. The beauty and pleasure of understanding: Engaging with contemporary challenges through science education, Strand 3 (co-ed. S.  Fechner & R. Verhoeff) (pp. 367–373). ALMA MATER STUDIORUM – University of Bologna. 978–88–945874-0-1978-88-945874-0-1. Thomas, G. P. (2020b). Adopting a reflexive disposition as a teacherresearcher to reconceptualize a science teacher education course. In E. Tsang, K. C. Li, & P. Wang (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on open and innovative education (ICOIE 2020) (pp. 1–14). Open University of Hong Kong. Thomas, G.  P. (2021). The language of thinking: Reflecting on Tishman and Perkins. https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/ a80dd2e8-­5a34-­4d2f-­b871-­a3cb79e6890b Thomas, G. P. (accepted). Who are the students in metacognition research in high school science education? Reflections on ecological validity, representative design, and generalizability. In S. Larkin (Ed.), Metacognition and education: Future trends. Taylor and Francis. Thomas, G.  P. (n.d.-a). The metacognition channel. https://metacognition. podbean.com/ Thomas, G. P. (n.d.-b). Metacognition online. https://www.metacognition.ca/ Thomas, G. P., & Au, D. K.-M. (2005). Changing the learning environment to enhance students’ metacognition in Hong Kong primary school classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 8(3), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10984-­005-­1565-­6 Thomas, G.  P., & McRobbie, C.  J. (2001). Using a metaphor for learning to improve students’ metacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 222–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-­ 2736(200102)38:2%3C222::AID-­TEA1004%3E3.0.CO;2-­S

276 

G. P. THOMAS

Thomas, G.  P., & McRobbie, C.  J. (2002). Collaborating to enhance student reasoning: Frances’ account of her reflections while teaching chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 405–423. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09500690110074035 Tishman, S., & Perkins, D.  N. (1997). The language of thinking. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 368–374. UNESCO. (2018). Welcome to the Anthropocene! The UNESCO Courier, (2018, No. 2). https://en.unesco.org/courier/2018-­2 Veenman, M. V. J. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Definitions, constituents, and their intricate relation with cognition. In A. Zohar, A. & Y. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education. Contemporary trends and issues in science education (Vol. 40) (pp. 21–36). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-94-007-2132-6_2 Veenman, M.  V. J., Van Hout Wolters, B.  H. A.  M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11409-­006-­6893-­0 Wallace, M., Bazzul, J., Higgins, M., & Tolbert, S. (2022). Reimagining science education in the Anthropocene. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­79622-­8_1 Wallis, H., & Loy, L. S. (2021). What drives pro-environmental activism of young people? A study survey on the Fridays for future movement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, 101581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvp.2021.101581 Watson, E. R. (2021). Connecting epistemic beliefs about physics knowledge and curriculum concerns in Saskatchewan: A mixed analysis study (Unpublished PhD thesis). The University of Alberta. https://doi.org/10.7939/r3-­0yef-­pg89 Wilson, N. S., & Bai, H. (2010). The relationships and impact of teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and pedagogical understandings of metacognition. Metacogition and Learning, 5, 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11409-­010-­9062-­4 Younie, S., Audain, J., Eloff, I., Leask, M., Procter, R., & Shelton, C. (2018). Mobilising knowledge through global partnerships to support research-­ informed teaching: Five models for translational research. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(5), 574–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260747 6.2018.1516348 Yuruk, N., Beeth, M. E., & Andersen, C. (2009). Analyzing the effect of metaconceptual teaching practices on students’ understanding of force and motion concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 39, 449–475. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11165-­008-­9089-­6

  INSTRUCTION FOR METACOGNITION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS… 

277

Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 413–429. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0742-­051X(98)00063-­8 Zohar, A. (2006). The nature and development of teachers’ metastrategic knowledge in the context of higher-order thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 331–377. Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.847261 Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2015). Metacognition and teaching higher-order thinking (HOT) in science education. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook on research on teaching thinking (pp. 229–242). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315797021 Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). Introduction. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp.  1–19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­2132-­6 Zouda, M., El Halwany, S., & Bencze, L. (in press). Science and technology studies informing STEM education: Possibilities and dilemmas. In G. P. Thomas & H.  Boon (Eds.), Challenges in science education: Global perspectives for the future. Palgrave Macmillan.

Identifying and Challenging the Narrow Cognitive Demands of Science Textbooks Claudia E. Johnson and Helen J. Boon

The Significance of Textbook In schools, textbooks often act as intermediaries between prescribed and the enacted curricula by translating policy intentions into sequenced content knowledge and learning activities. This is why the content and tasks in textbooks have been described as the ‘de facto’ prescribed curriculum (National Research Council, 1996) or the ‘potentially implemented curriculum’ (Törnroos, 2005; Valverde et al., 2002). Textbook content and structure have been shown to be strongly correlated with the types of questions science teachers ask during lessons and summative assessment (Nakiboglu & Yildirir, 2011). Textbooks also influence pedagogical choices of teachers and their prioritization of subject matter (Reys et al., 2004; Valverde et al., 2002). Usiskin (2013) argues that in the USA, pedagogical practice is more aligned with textbook content than with official curriculum documents. Therefore, textbooks might directly impact

C. E. Johnson (*) • H. J. Boon James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 G. P. Thomas, H. J. Boon (eds.), Challenges in Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_13

279

280 

C. E. JOHNSON AND H. J. BOON

students’ learning opportunities and understanding of subject matter (Reys et al., 2004). The frequency with which textbooks are used during science lessons further increases the significance of their influence on the enacted curriculum. Chiappetta et al. (2006) reviewed research on science textbooks in the USA over the past 100 years and reported that textbooks were used to inform and direct lesson activities and homework by 90% of teachers. In Australia, textbooks seem to be used in every or most lessons by the majority of science teachers (McDonald, 2016). Textbooks are likely the most consistently used resource for lesson planning and teaching, despite the increased availability of electronic resources. Like any teaching resource, textbooks are shaped by culture and are likely designed to reproduce societal values and beliefs (BouJaoude & Noureddine, 2020). In the context of science education, textbooks may guide students’ views about the nature of science, including the knowledge and skills that are valued by each scientific discipline (Andersson-­ Bakken et al., 2020). In this manner, textbooks can define the content and aims of each science subject to students (Valverde et al., 2002), and thus the nature of knowledge and how it is best studied. For instance, Sapountzi and Skoumios (2014) found that Greek physics textbooks present physics content knowledge as unproblematic and true, implying that it needs to be recalled uncritically to progress in the subject. This exemplifies how science textbooks can have an influence on the way students process knowledge and which cognitive skills they have an opportunity to learn and exercise. The type of cognitive skills a textbook promotes might ultimately influence student achievement and, critically, affective engagement with issues such as IVF, vaccination, carbon sequestration, nuclear power generation, and other issues that engender wide debate in society. Studies examining mathematics textbooks have shown that students using textbooks with more questions at higher-order cognitive levels score higher on national summative assessment (Hadar, 2017) and international tests such as PISA or TIMMS (Yang & Sianturi, 2017). The more emphasis that questions in a textbook place on a particular cognitive skill, the better students using the textbook performed on TIMMS items assessing the same skill (Törnroos, 2005). A possible conclusion is that students’ opportunity to learn and practice various cognitive skills is limited by textbook content, in particular the questions or tasks of the textbook. Despite the link between textbook content and student achievement, budget and time

  IDENTIFYING AND CHALLENGING THE NARROW COGNITIVE DEMANDS… 

281

considerations prevent many publishers from gathering data regarding the alignment or effectiveness of their textbooks in the classroom (Reys et al., 2004).

Past Research on Textbooks Prior research on science textbooks can be divided into studies analyzing the knowledge presented in textbooks and studies analyzing textbook learning activities, that is, questions or tasks. Vojír ̌ and Rusek’s (2019) literature review on science textbook research shows that the majority of studies focus on knowledge presented in science textbooks, particularly breadth of content matter, the integration of concepts, and the non-­ textual explanations of content. Further popular focus areas for science textbook research include the scale and scope of knowledge (e.g., Boersema et al., 2001), the nature of science (e.g., Chiappetta & Fillman, 2007), or the preparation of students for the twenty-first century (e.g., BouJaoude & Noureddine, 2020). Only 8% of studies reviewed by Vojíř and Rusek (2019) focus on textbook elements that guide students’ learning, that is, questions, and only 4% of reviewed studies analyze the relationship or alignment between the textbook and the prescribed curriculum. Research studies analyzing science textbook learning activities report a noticeable overemphasis on questions addressing lower-order cognitive skills as compared to higher-order cognitive skills in middle school science (e.g., Pizzini et al., 1992), in high school science (e.g., Andersson-Bakken et al., 2020; Kahveci, 2010; Nakiboglu & Yildirir, 2011), and at college level (e.g., Dávila & Talanquer, 2010; Pappa & Tsaparlis, 2011). Lower-­ order cognitive skills are defined as thinking skills that require students to access existing knowledge, for example, recalling and reproducing information. Higher-order cognitive skills, on the other hand, challenge students to apply or create new knowledge, for example, by evaluating the validity of information (Marzano & Kendall, 2007). Pizzini et al. (1992) also noticed that the cognitive demands of questions do not vary as students progress through their textbooks. Several studies remarked on a distinct lack of learning activities that would scaffold scientific inquiry, such as experimental design or critical decision-making, application of learned knowledge in new contexts, or metacognitive thinking (Andersson-­ Bakken et al., 2020; Dávila & Talanquer, 2010). To date, the limited number of studies on learning activities in science textbooks indicates a tendency to focus on lower-level cognitive skills.

282 

C. E. JOHNSON AND H. J. BOON

Analyses of textbooks for other subjects reflect this trend. In mathematics, for instance, dominant textbook tasks tend to be closed questions requiring routine computations as opposed to questions requiring students to problem-solve, problem-pose, or reflect on their work (Cai & Jiang, 2017; Gracin, 2018). Similarly, tasks requiring lower cognitive demand constitute more than half of all questions in analyzed social science textbooks (Tarman & Kuran, 2015), accounting textbooks (Davidson & Baldwin, 2005), and geography textbooks (Yang et al., 2015). Only studies analyzing textbooks for English classes seem to report a more balanced occurrence of questions with lower- and higher-order cognitive demands (e.g., Assaly & Smadi, 2015; Shuyi & Renandya, 2019). Finally, even though research of curriculum alignment has gained popularity in countries with standards-based accountability systems to increase the agreement of prescribed learning goals, classroom teaching, and assessment (Ziebell & Clarke, 2018), studies examining the alignment of textbooks or other teaching resources with the prescribed, enacted, or assessed curriculum are rare. Polikoff’s (2015) alignment study of fourth-­ grade mathematics textbooks in the USA and Qhibi et al.’s (2020) study of seventh- to ninth-grade mathematics textbooks in South Africa represent two instances in which textbooks were relatively well aligned with the prescribed curriculum. However, these textbooks tended to focus on lower-order cognitive skills such as memorization and the execution of routine procedures. More empirical evidence is needed to examine the alignment of science textbooks with prescribed and enacted curricula to evaluate which knowledge or skills are commonly overlooked.

Study Aims Past research on science textbooks predominantly focuses on content knowledge rather than the nature of learning activities, with the majority of studies based on European or North-American textbooks (Vojír ̌ & Rusek, 2019). There is scant research on the cognitive demands of science textbook learning activities in Australia or elsewhere. McDonald (2016) surveyed 486 Australian schools on their reasons for choosing a textbook and found that inclusion of high-quality questions and exercises are important for many teachers. Many survey respondents expressed concerns about the quality and complexity of questions in science textbooks. An analysis of learning tasks and questions in Australian science textbooks could inform future decision-making of textbook authors, policy makers

  IDENTIFYING AND CHALLENGING THE NARROW COGNITIVE DEMANDS… 

283

who set standards for textbooks, and teachers choosing textbooks. Findings have the potential to inform changes in future textbook editions, which could improve students’ opportunities to learn and their achievement. Moreover, a textbook analysis of cognitive demands can evaluate whether science textbooks are aligned with reform efforts in Australia, such as inquiry-oriented science teaching or the goal to teach a range of cognitive skills to prepare students for the twenty-first century. To achieve these aims we sought answers to the following questions: 1. What are the cognitive demands of questions in the most commonly used Year 12 physics, chemistry, and biology textbooks in Queensland, Australia? 2. Do the cognitive demands of textbook questions align with the cognitive demands of syllabus learning objectives?

Methods We analyzed all questions in nine Year 12 physics, chemistry, and biology textbooks published for the reformed Queensland senior syllabi in order to determine the textbooks’ cognitive demands. For each subject, the three publishers Cengage Learning Australia, Oxford University Press, and Pearson Education Australia were selected, resulting in the following textbook sample: Physics: Adamson, S., Alini, O., Champion, N., & Kuhn, T. (2018). Nelson QScience physics units 3 & 4 (1st ed.). Cengage Learning Australia. Walding, R. (2019). New century physics for Queensland units 3 & 4 (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. Baker, M., Allinson, A. Devlin, J., Eddy, S. & Hore, B. (2019). Pearson physics Queensland 12  units 3 & 4 student book (1st ed.). Pearson Education Australia. Chemistry: Stansbie, N., Steeples, B., & Windsor, S. (2019). Nelson QScience chemistry units 3 & 4 (1st ed.). Cengage Learning Australia. Kuipers, K., Devlin, P., Brabec, M., Sharpe, P., & Bloomfield, C. (2019). Chemistry for Queensland units 3 & 4 (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.

284 

C. E. JOHNSON AND H. J. BOON

Holmes, N., Bruns, E., Commons, C., Commons, P., &Hogendoorn, B. (2019). Pearson chemistry Queensland 12  units 3 & 4 student book (1st ed.). Pearson Education Australia. Biology: Borger, P., Grant, K., Wright, J., & Munro, L. (2018). Nelson QScience biology units 3 & 4 (1st ed.). Cengage Learning Australia. Huxley, L., Walter, M., & Flexman, R. (2019). Biology for Queensland an Australian perspective units 3 & 4 (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. Hall, M., Bliss, C., Fesuk, S. Jacobs, J., & Maher, F. (2019). Pearson biology Queensland 12 units 3 & 4 student book (1st ed.). Pearson Education Australia. The three publishers have a long tradition in science textbook production. Moreover, they were the only available hard-copy textbooks specifically developed for the new senior syllabi in the year the curriculum reform was implemented. Questions were located between subheadings of textbook chapters, at the end of each chapter, at the end of each unit, on pages outlining practical activities, and occasionally at the end of real-world case studies. Questions with several subcomponents (a, b, c, etc.) were coded once only, based on the subcomponent with the most complex cognitive demand because subcomponents with lower cognitive demands usually had the purpose of scaffolding the higher-order thinking subcomponent. Supplementary online materials or accompanying workbooks released by each publisher were not analyzed. The coding of questions involved a deductive approach, meaning that the analysis was structured on the basis of previously published knowledge and theories (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Each question was classified based on Marzano and Kendall’s (2007) New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives because the reformed Queensland senior science syllabi adopt the New Taxonomy’s terminology of cognitive verbs for learning objectives and explicitly detail its structure and application in the Teaching and Learning section (e.g., Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2018). In the New Taxonomy, cognitive skills are organized into six categories: –– Retrieval: “the recognition, recall, and execution of basic information and procedures” –– Comprehension: “identifying and symbolizing the critical features of knowledge”

  IDENTIFYING AND CHALLENGING THE NARROW COGNITIVE DEMANDS… 

285

–– Analysis: “reasoned extensions of knowledge (…) [by] matching, classifying, analyzing errors, generating, and specifying” –– Knowledge utilization: “knowledge is used to accomplish a specific task (…) [by] decision making, problem-solving, experimenting, and investigating” –– Metacognitive thinking: “setting and monitoring goals (…) [by] specifying goals, process monitoring, monitoring clarity, and monitoring accuracy” –– Self-system thinking: “addressing attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that control motivation (…) [by] examining importance, examining efficacy, examining emotional response, and examining overall motivation” (Marzano & Kendall, 2008, pp. 6–7) In the New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the category ‘retrieval’ includes either recalling or recognizing information correctly, without necessarily understanding the structure or components of the retrieved knowledge (Marzano & Kendall, 2007). For example, to recall information, students may be asked to define a term; to recognize information, students may be required to select the correct term from a given list of words. Retrieval also includes correctly executing a mental or psychomotor procedure, without necessarily knowing why or how it works (Marzano & Kendall, 2007). For example, students may be asked to follow steps in order to balance a simple chemical equation. Comprehension of knowledge can be demonstrated by either integrating or symbolizing knowledge. Questions requiring students to integrate knowledge ask for an identification of the critical or essential features and the structure of knowledge (Marzano & Kendall, 2007). For example, students may have to explain a concept, summarize or paraphrase a process, select relevant examples, or logically link different concepts. Symbolizing knowledge requires students to identify critical or essential features and the structure of knowledge by constructing an accurate symbolic representation (Marzano & Kendall, 2007), for example, in form of a graphic organizer or a labeled diagram. Both integrating and symbolizing knowledge frequently requires students to make links between newly learned concepts and their previous knowledge. Analysis questions may ask students to specify, generalize, classify and match knowledge, or analyze an error. Some analysis skills, such as specifying an application of a theory, require deductive thinking, while other analysis skills, such as generalizing a rule from given data, require

286 

C. E. JOHNSON AND H. J. BOON

inductive thinking (Marzano & Kendall, 2007). The New Taxonomy divides knowledge utilization, the cognitive skill of using knowledge to accomplish a specific task, into four processes: investigating, experimenting, problem-solving, and decision-making (Marzano & Kendall, 2007). We emphasize that knowledge utilization does not include using knowledge to answer simple recall questions. Rather, this category requires knowledge to be manipulated and creatively applied in a new context to accomplish a specific task. The metacognitive and self-system influence students’ intentions to learn and to regulate the learning process. The metacognitive system describes students’ learning goals and students’ strategies to accomplish those goals by monitoring their progress, accuracy, and clarity of understanding. The self-system describes students’ beliefs and emotions about the importance of knowledge and their own efficacy, thus influencing students’ motivations to learn (Marzano & Kendall, 2007). This study is confined by the application of the taxonomy’s terminology and definitions. Table 1 gives examples of questions in every category for each subject. We coded the frequency of questions at each cognitive level as a percentage to allow for comparisons between the three subjects. Similar percentages across different publishers and across different subjects might indicate norms or conventions for textbook questions in senior science. In the discussion of results, categories were often grouped as lower-order cognitive skills (retrieval and comprehension) or higher-order cognitive skills (analysis, knowledge utilization, metacognitive, and self-system thinking) to compare findings with results of studies using classification systems other than the New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. To ensure reliability of the analysis, questions in the first five chapters of the Cengage Learning Australia biology textbook were coded again three months after the initial coding. The degree of consistency was calculated using Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient and was found to be 98.19%. All nine textbooks are publicly available; therefore, interested readers can test the reliability of the analysis.

Results In total, 2222 questions were analyzed in the three biology textbooks, 3067  in the physics textbooks, and 2781  in the chemistry textbooks. Question types in all textbooks included multiple-choice, short response,

Table 1  Examples of textbook questions at each cognitive level of the New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Cognitive level Retrieval

Sample question

Define the term vector. (physics) Identify the reagents and conditions required for an: (a) elimination reaction of a haloalkane (b) addition of water (c) addition polymerization. (chemistry) Describe what random sampling means. (biology) Comprehension Explain what the problem is for nuclear fission reactors when too few neutrons are released per fission event. (physics) How do the ionization energies of atoms and their electronegativities relate to the ability of an atom to gain or lose electrons and therefore their strength as an oxidant or reductant? Use francium and fluorine as examples to support your answer. (chemistry) Explain why the classification system for organisms needed to be modified following the ability to sequence DNA. (biology) Analysis A boy kicks a football off the ground and it lands on the roof of his home 57.3 m away at a height of 3.8 m. The time of flight was 3.0 seconds. Determine the maximum height reached and the time of flight if he kicked the ball at the complementary angle. (physics) Sort the following substances in order of increasing oxidation states of nitrogen: NO, K3N, N2O4, N2O, Ca(NO3)2, N2O3, N2. (chemistry) Distinguish between convergent and divergent evolution. (biology) Knowledge A propulsion method suggested for interstellar travel is a large plastic utilization sail that is bombarded by photons from the sun. The argument is that if photons really do have momentum, they will push the sail along. Decide whether this would work and propose a suitable surface coating for the sail. (physics) Investigate why pH + pOH = 14 for an aqueous solution at 25 °C. Consider how this equation may differ with a change in temperature. (chemistry) In the future, corporations may be tempted to base their recruitment only on genetic profiles. Evaluate the validity of such a policy. (biology) Metacognitive Create a study timetable for yourself, including any other commitments thinking such as sport, work, volunteering, and social activities. (physics) Come up with a flow chart that communicates in a concise way your preferred examination strategy for the chemistry external examination papers. (chemistry) Comment on how sure you are of your classification of each ecosystem. (biology) Self-system Identify the topics that appeal most to you, and those that you think thinking you might find challenging. (physics) Predict which aspects of each assessment [in unit 3 and 4] will be most personally challenging and propose strategies to help meet these challenges. (chemistry) Consider which topics you find interesting as these will be the best areas to research for your research investigation. (biology)

288 

C. E. JOHNSON AND H. J. BOON

and extended response questions. The purpose of questions varied between a review of content presented on preceding pages, challenge or case study questions linking to real world applications, and inquiry or discussion questions about practical activities. All questions started with either a cognitive verb from Marzano and Kendall’s (2007) New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives such as ‘describe’ or ‘compare,’ or a question word such as ‘how’ or ‘why.’ Table 2 shows the percentage and absolute frequency of questions at each cognitive level for each subject and publisher. Overall, retrieval questions are most common (33%), followed by analysis questions (28%), and comprehension questions (27%). Knowledge utilization questions are less common (12%) and, critically, questions stimulating metacognitive or selfsystem thinking are rare (1% and 0% respectively). Thus, 60% of all analyzed questions require students to use lower-order cognitive skills and questions with the highest cognitive demand are the rarest (see Fig. 1). Questions within each cognitive level were categorized further based on the mental processes they require students to perform (see Fig.  2). Close to half of the retrieval questions in the analyzed senior science textbooks require students to recall information that can be found on preceding textbook pages. One-third of retrieval questions ask students to recognize information, mainly through the use of multiple-choice questions. Executing procedures is the least common type of retrieval questions in the textbooks. Thus, retrieval questions focus more on information than on processes. Over three-quarters of comprehension questions in the analyzed textbooks ask students to integrate knowledge. In this manner, the textbook questions prioritize linguistic answers over non-linguistic (symbolic imagery) responses. Almost two-thirds of analysis questions in the examined textbooks ask students to specify knowledge. This means students have to identify a specific application or a consequence of knowledge presented to them in the question, for example, by applying a scientific law to a given situation or by extrapolating data in a graph. This requires deductive thinking based on the learner’s understanding of a concept or principle. Analysis questions asking students to reverse the process and generalize from a specific situation or given information by making inferences, to classify knowledge by creating meaningful categories, or to match concepts based on similarities and differences are much less common in the analyzed textbooks. Senior science textbook questions seem to emphasize deductive over inductive analysis skills. Similarly, analysis questions requiring students to

33% (735) 37% (281) 33% (244) 29% (210) 35% (1075) 35% (350) 27% (281) 44% (444) 29% (816) 27% (250) 33% (236) 29% (330) 33% (2626)

28% (623) 31% (239) 27% (205) 25% (179) 22% (687) 30% (303) 18% (189) 19% (195) 30% (831) 35% (325) 26% (190) 28% (316) 27% (2141)

Comprehension 23% (521) 18% (134) 23% (175) 30% (212) 31% (936) 29% (288) 35% (366) 28% (282) 28% (781) 28% (260) 20% (145) 33% (376) 28% (2238)

Analysis 14% (311) 12% (92) 16% (117) 14% (102) 12% (353) 7% (69) 20% (210) 7% (74) 12% (333) 10% (92) 20% (147) 8% (94) 12% (997)

Knowledge utilisation

Note: Percentages are rounded to the nearest full percentage and absolute frequencies are stated in brackets

Biology Centage learning Australia Oxford university press Pearson education Australia Physics Centage learning Australia Oxford university press Pearson education Australia Chemistry Centage learning Australia Oxford university press Pearson education Australia Total

Retrieval

Table 2  Cognitive demands of textbook questions

1% (30) 2% (14) 0% (3) 2% (13) 0% (15) 0% (0) 0% (3) 1% (12) 1% (17) 0% (3) 0% (2) 1% (12) 1% (62)

Metacognitive thinking

0% (2) 0% (0) 0% (2) 0% (0) 0% (1) 0% (0) 0% (1) 0% (0) 0% (3) 0% (0) 0% (3) 0% (0) 0% (6)

Self-­system thinking

  IDENTIFYING AND CHALLENGING THE NARROW COGNITIVE DEMANDS… 

289

290 

C. E. JOHNSON AND H. J. BOON

Fig. 1  Cognitive demands of textbook questions across all subjects. Note: Percentages are rounded to the nearest full percentage

Fig. 2  Frequency of questions at each cognitive level

  IDENTIFYING AND CHALLENGING THE NARROW COGNITIVE DEMANDS… 

291

analyze errors in given information by checking its logic, accuracy, or validity are comparatively rare in the analyzed textbooks. Knowledge utilization questions in the analyzed textbooks are dominated by decision-making (>50%), which requires students to identify and choose between several alternatives, for example, by suggesting a suitable environmental policy or evaluating an engineering solution. Questions directing students to investigate knowledge or to experiment by generating and testing hypotheses are much less common, even though they are central to scientific inquiry (Marzano & Kendall, 2007). Problem-solving questions asking students to overcome obstacles are least common within the knowledge utilization category. Most rare in all texts examined are questions addressing the metacognitive and self-system, which are thought to regulate students’ use of cognitive skills, their decisions to engage with learning and their motivation (Marzano & Kendall, 2007). The majority of metacognitive tasks require students to monitor the accuracy of their responses to preceding questions or to monitor their learning process by reflecting on the effectiveness of their learning strategies. Students are hardly ever asked to monitor the clarity of their thinking or to specify their own learning goals. Only six questions across all analyzed textbooks ask students to examine their self-­ efficacy by reflecting on their perceived abilities and agency in regard to learning specific knowledge or to examine how important students consider the presented knowledge to be, that is, in how far the knowledge can satisfy a need or personal goal of the student. No questions require students to examine their motivation or emotions. Thus, there are no questions addressing students’ affective domain in any of the analyzed senior science textbooks. Figure 2 summarizes the frequency of different question types at each cognitive level. The distribution of questions across different cognitive levels does not vary greatly between physics, chemistry, and biology (see Fig.  3). The range of question percentages for each cognitive level is never greater than 8%. In each subject, the majority of questions are classified as retrieval or comprehension, resulting in 59% of chemistry textbook questions, 57% of physics textbook questions, and 61% of biology textbook questions addressing lower-order thinking skills. Physics textbooks have the most analysis questions (31%), when compared to chemistry (28%) and biology textbooks (23%). Many of these analysis questions require students to apply mathematical formulas to scenarios. Biology textbooks have slightly more knowledge utilization questions (14%) when compared to physics

292 

C. E. JOHNSON AND H. J. BOON

Chemistry

29%

Physics

30%

35%

Biology

32%

0%

10%

Retrieval

20%

30%

Comprehension

28%

12%

22%

31%

12%

29%

23%

40% Analysis

50%

60%

70%

Knowledge Utilisation

14%

80%

90%

1%

1%

100%

Metacognition

Fig. 3  Cognitive demands of textbook questions per subject

and chemistry textbooks (12% each). As mentioned before, questions addressing the metacognitive and self-system are rare or not present at all in textbooks for all three subjects. To examine the alignment between the cognitive demands of textbook questions and syllabus learning objectives, the percentage of syllabus learning objectives at each cognitive level was subtracted from the percentage of textbook questions at the same cognitive level for each subject. Data on the cognitive demands of syllabus learning objectives was sourced from Johnson et al.’s (2021) syllabus analysis. Since there are no explicit syllabus learning objectives addressing the metacognitive or self-system, textbook questions at these levels were excluded from the calculations. Figure 4 shows that biology textbook questions are well aligned with the cognitive demands of learning objectives in the biology syllabus. The discrepancies in percentage do not exceed 5% for any cognitive level. In chemistry, the amount of retrieval questions matches the amount of syllabus learning objectives requiring students to demonstrate retrieval skills. However, there are 6% fewer comprehension questions, 10% more analysis questions, and 5% fewer knowledge utilization questions than the chemistry syllabus objectives prescribe. Physics textbooks are least well aligned with their respective syllabus learning objectives. Retrieval and comprehension questions are both underrepresented in physics textbooks (6% and 4% respectively) when compared to physics syllabus learning objectives. Analysis questions are greatly overrepresented by 27% and knowledge utilization questions are underrepresented by 17%. In short, while the physics syllabus learning objectives emphasize task-driven

Discrepancies

  IDENTIFYING AND CHALLENGING THE NARROW COGNITIVE DEMANDS… 

30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% -20%

293

27%

10% 1% -2%

Biology

5%

1%

Physics Chemistry

-6%

Retrieval

-4%

-6%

Comprehension

-4%

Analysis

-5% -17%

Knowledge Utilisation

Fig. 4  Alignment between the cognitive demands of textbook questions and syllabus learning objectives. Note: Discrepancies = Textbook Question % – Syllabus Learning Objective %

problem-­solving, textbook questions focus more heavily on theoretical analysis. For example, the syllabus asks students to solve problems using Newton’s Laws of Motion, which should involve an investigation of realworld situations and decision-making based on the application of Newton’s Laws, for example, improving the design of sports equipment. Instead, textbook questions about the topic predominantly require students to determine a theoretical value given a highly controlled scenario, for example, the mass of an unknown object given the applied force, acceleration, and friction.

Discussion Dominance of Lower-Order Thinking Questions In all three subject areas, well over half of all textbook questions ask students to use lower-order thinking skills by demonstrating retrieval or simple comprehension of knowledge. Textbook questions requiring higher-order thinking strongly focus on analysis, particularly in physics. Valverde et  al. (2002) analyzed 400 science and mathematics textbooks from 43 countries and found similar results; overall, students were rarely (