See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225692050

Science Teaching Methods Preferred by Grade 9 Students in Finland

Article  in  International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education · August 2010

DOI: 10.1007/s10763-009-9177-8

CITATIONS READS

23 8,143

5 authors, including:

Kalle Juuti Jari Lavonen

University of Helsinki University of Helsinki
67 PUBLICATIONS   540 CITATIONS    125 PUBLICATIONS   874 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Anna Uitto Veijo Meisalo

University of Helsinki University of Helsinki
31 PUBLICATIONS   723 CITATIONS    80 PUBLICATIONS   773 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Crafting engagement in science enviroments View project

Innovative School - School Partnerships and Networks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jari Lavonen on 10 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 KALLE JUUTI, JARI LAVONEN, ANNA UITTO, REIJO BYMAN
and VEIJO MEISALO

SCIENCE TEACHING METHODS PREFERRED BY GRADE 9

STUDENTS IN FINLAND
Received: 6 August 2008; Accepted: 28 July 2009

ABSTRACT. Students find science relevant to society, but they do not find school science
interesting. This survey study analyzes Finnish grade 9 students’ actual experiences with
science teaching methods and their preferences for how they would like to study science.
The survey data were collected from 3,626 grade 9 students (1,772 girls and 1,832 boys)
across randomly sampled secondary schools. Students were asked to evaluate how often a
particular teaching method is used in science (chemistry and physics) teaching and how
often they would like to see the teaching method used. Data were analyzed using
nonparametric tests. Boys seemed to be more satisfied with current and traditional science
teaching methods like direct teaching, solving basic problems, reading textbooks, and
conducting practical work, while girls desired more discussion. Students who are
interested in school science or think that school science is relevant in everyday life
would like more creative activities such as brainstorming and project work. Results
indicated that understanding the connection between student interest and teaching method
preferences, especially interpreting interested students’ desire for creative activities, are
important aspects for future research.

KEY WORDS: creativity, interest, nonparametric, secondary school, survey, teaching

methods

INTRODUCTION

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD, 2007), a large majority of secondary school
students participating in the PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Assessment
survey considered science to be important for understanding the natural
world and that it usually improves people’s living conditions.
However, only half of them considered science to be especially
relevant to them personally, and even fewer would like a career
involving science. Consequently, students do not choose science in
school and they do not gravitate towards science and technology-type
occupations. This lack of interest can be considered one of the main
problems to be solved in science education. The problem is not new.
For example, in the early part of the twentieth century, Mead (1909)
speculated on solutions for the unpopularity of science in colleges.

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2009

# National Science Council, Taiwan (2009)
 KALLE JUUTI ET AL.

Therefore, research on how to trigger and maintain youngsters’ interest

toward scientific phenomena and topics in school science is crucial for
solving the problem. In order to develop science education, student
interest has been analyzed from several viewpoints: science in general,
school science and specific topics within it, the context in which a
certain subject area is met, the teaching method used, personal factors
(i.e., gender, personal relevance, future studies or occupations,
academic achievement in the subject, sense of difficulty, and
competence), and appreciation of science in general (Häussler &
Hoffman, 2000; Koballa & Glynn, 2007; Schreiner & Sjøberg, 2004).
Hidi & Renninger (2006) proposed, in their four-phase model of interest
development, that situations in teaching that are incongruous, surprising, and
intensive or that have personal relevance for a student may arouse triggered
situational interest. When students experience a task to be meaningful and
one that allows for personal involvement, they may focus their attention for
an extended period of time and, thus, maintained situational interest appears.
If students have positive feelings toward a topic to be learned and value the
opportunity to re-engage in the topic, their interest is called emerging
individual interest. A well-developed individual interest drives students to
ask and answer questions they have set themselves. Hidi and Renninger
suggested that (a) situational interest can be triggered by group work,
puzzles, or computers and maintained by project-based learning, cooperative
group work, or tutoring and (b) teaching that provide opportunities for
interaction and challenges that lead to knowledge building are best for
building well-developed individual interest.
According to previous studies (Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007; Reeve,
2002), teaching methods that allow the teacher to be responsive (e.g.,
spending time listening), supportive (e.g., praising the quality of
performance), and flexible (e.g., giving students time to work in their
own way) are optimal for interest development. Teaching methods that
allow this kind of teacher–student interaction promote internalization of
the aims and goals of the curriculum, which is essential for the
development of individual interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Krapp,
2003). Thus, the selection of appropriate teaching methods makes it
possible to arouse and develop students’ interest. Hidi and Renninger
emphasized that shifts between phases of interest must include both
positive feelings and opportunities for knowledge development. We
assume that the use of teaching methods in the science classroom, that
students prefer, will support positive socioemotional effects. Thus, it is
plausible that the instructional situation will trigger, maintain, and
develop students’ interest in science. In order to help teachers with
 PREFERRED TEACHING METHODS

choosing teaching methods that support positive feelings in the science

classroom, students’ preferences in teaching methods are studied.
However, the teaching method that is preferred by the students is not
assumed to be the best for learning.
The teaching–learning process is complex and, therefore, cannot be
reduced to well-designed algorithms or a string of sequences of specific
teaching methods—although, during a single lesson, several different
teaching methods or phases of functional components can typically be
recognized (Leach & Scott, 2000). The term teaching method is used here
as a synonym for an instructional method/model/strategy, student activity,
or classroom practices that is designed to help students achieve learning
goals. Teaching methods are goal-oriented and emphasize social
interaction among students and between students and their teacher. Oser
& Baeriswyl (2001) differentiated visible structures in the classroom and
basis-models. Visible structures are what the teacher and students see and
do in the classroom, while basis-models refer to the goals of the learning
processes. By one visible structure (e.g., questioning), it is possible to
achieve several goals.
Based on previous research, it can be predicted that students prefer
more practical work, extended investigations, opportunities for discus-
sion, and the stressing of the relevance of science through issue-based
experiences (Koballa & Glynn, 2007). Of course, all students are not the
same; thus, it is important to discover groups of students who prefer
certain teaching methods.
Applying large-scale, survey-based data collection to students’ pre-
ferred teaching methods makes it is possible to better understand
classroom-level processes and avoid making biased conclusions based
on small samples. In addition, for practising teachers, it would be useful
to better know students’ preferences concerning certain teaching methods
and strategies. Lavonen, Angell, Byman, Henriksen & Koponen (2007)
found that Finnish and Norwegian upper secondary school students who
chose physics as their major subject did not wish to make significant
changes to the teaching methods. (However, students specializing in
social studies preferred more small-group activities in physics classroom
than those who specialize in physics.) This finding is from students who
are highly interested in science, are likely to pursue a science career, and
have elected to take the physics course; therefore, it cannot be assumed
that every 15-year-old student required to take a science course prefers the
same teaching methods.
In order to provide suggestions for teaching to develop students’
interest toward school science, it is important to clarify students’ views on
 KALLE JUUTI ET AL.

preferred teaching methods currently used in the science classroom. Thus,

the research questions for this study are:
1. How often are particular teaching methods used in grade 9 physics and
chemistry?
2. What kinds of changes would students prefer to the teaching methods
of school physics and chemistry?
3. What demographical variables and perceptions of school science are
connected with students’ teaching method preferences?

The research questions will be addressed by collecting and analyzing

students’ responses to the national survey questionnaire about their
science instruction, preferred instructional methods, demographic infor-
mation, and their perceptions of school science.

METHODS

This study explored grade 9 students’ actual science teaching experiences

and their preferences for specific science teaching approaches. The survey
data were collected from students in randomly sampled secondary schools
using a questionnaire. Core curriculum for Finnish basic education
(Finnish National Board of Education, 2004) does not require that
teachers employ any specific teaching method. There is freedom for
teachers to design classroom activities according to the goals of science
education. Science instruction in Finland involves a variety of approaches
or strategies introduced in preservice teacher education programs and
utilized by practising teachers (Lavonen & Meisalo, n.d.): teacher-led,
large-group lecture or dialog, small-group work, laboratory practical
work, creative problem solving, reading and writing to learn, and out-of-
school informal learning. Table 1 provides an overview of the teaching
methods suggested and how they were justified at the University of
Helsinki.

Questionnaire
The questionnaire utilized in this study was extracted from a larger study
concerning students’ interests and attitudes (Lavonen, Juuti, Uitto,
Meisalo & Byman, 2005). The items in this questionnaire were based
on or selected from earlier research on students’ views of teaching
methods used in science teaching but modified to reflect the variety of
instructional strategies in Finland (Donnelly & Jenkins, 2001; Lavonen et
 TABLE 1
Approaches or strategies introduced in preservice teacher education program at University of Helsinki, Finland

Approach or Example of the

strategy type of activity Role of teacher Role of student Communication Scholars

Teacher-led, Teacher teaches new
large-group content by writing
lecture or dialog notes on blackboard
or transparency
Small-group work Students discuss difficult
concepts and problems
in small groups during
the lesson
Laboratory or Students do practical
practical work work in small groups
Creative problem Students engage in
Teacher controls Student adjusts One-way transmission Leach & Scott
the process to the situation or two-way dialog (2000)
controlled by the teacher
Teacher guides Student is an active Dialog controlled by Bennett, Lubben,
the learning participator and agent the students Hogarth &
process of the process Campbell
(2004)
Teacher controls or Student is an active One-way transmission, Wellington
guides the process participator and agent two-way dialog controlled (1998)
of the process or follows by the teacher or dialog
the textbook instruction controlled by the students
Teacher guides the Student is an active Two-way dialog Fisher (2005)
PREFERRED TEACHING METHODS

solving creative problem solving, process participator and agent

such as brainstorming of the process
Reading and Students read Internet Teacher guides the Student is an active Students read and/or write Tynjälä (1999)
writing to learn pages and write an essay process participator and agent
of the process
Out-of-school Students visit enterprises, Teacher controls or Student is an active Two-way dialog or Resnick (1987);
informal learning industrial plants, museums, guides the process participator and agent one-way transmission Braund & Reiss
or research institutes of the process controlled by (2006)
out-of-school person
 KALLE JUUTI ET AL.

al., 2007; Schreiner & Sjøberg, 2004). Furthermore, we kept in mind that
items needed to be understandable by grade 9 students. Thus, the
emphasis is on descriptions of visible actions (cf. Oser & Baeriswyl,
2001). One of the authors made the preliminary translation of the items
into Finnish, while the other authors carefully read and critiqued the draft
items. The final versions were made after detailed discussion among the
authors in the specialty areas of physics, chemistry, and biology
education. In addition, survey experts who finalized the layout and optic
scanning of the questionnaires suggested a few changes in order to ensure
readability of the instrument. This rigorous selection, development,
evaluation, and revision process addressed validity considerations as the
items related to the research questions, the assessment targets, content,
and their clarity.
The final questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part involved
20 items focusing on teaching methods (Appendix). Students were asked
to evaluate the frequency (number of times) that certain teaching methods
described in nontechnical terms were currently used in teaching and the
frequency they would actually prefer them to be used. The questionnaire
responses used a five-point Likert-type scale between two identified
extremes—never and very often (1=never and 5=almost in every lesson).
The second part consisted of seven items that clarified students’
perceptions of school science and one item related to their opinions
about science and technology using a four-point Likert-type scale. The
third part of the questionnaire documented the students’ socioeconomical
background with a seven-point Likert-type item about the number of
books in the home (1=none…7=more than 500). Our hypothesis was that
students’ preferred teaching methods will differ according to their
competence, interest, feeling of relevance and importance of school
science, occupational intention, gender, and socioeconomic background.

Data Collection
The data were collected by cluster sampling using similar procedures to
those used in the Finnish PISA 2003 Survey (OECD, 2004). Lower
secondary schools (n=75) were randomly selected from the list of
Finnish-speaking comprehensive schools in Finland. Schools were
weighted by the number of the students. Thus, there was a greater
possibility of having a big school in the sample than a small school, and it
was possible to consider Finnish-speaking grade 9 students only for the
population. In total, 4,954 questionnaire forms were sent to these schools
in spring 2003; school headmasters were asked to organize the survey and
 PREFERRED TEACHING METHODS

return the completed questionnaires. The purposes, both national and

international, of the survey were carefully explained in a cover letter
signed by the head of the Department of Teacher Education and the chief
director of the National Board of Education. The headmaster in each
school was asked to select about 65 grade 9 students to complete the
survey. Classes in Finnish schools are typically formed randomly.
However, there are some classes with an orientation to music, visual
arts, sports, craft, modern languages, information communication tech-
nologies, etc. A reminder letter was sent to 26 school headmasters (37%
of the selected schools) who had not returned the survey by the time
indicated. Completed surveys were received from 3,626 students (1,843
boys and 1,772 girls) in 61 schools. The response rate was 73% of the
students expected, which represented 81% of the selected schools. The
number of students answering the survey was 7% of the age cohort for
grade 9 students in Finland. Schools are very similar in Finland; variance
between schools in the PISA 2003 mathematics, science, and reading
literacy was one of the smallest among the OECD countries participating
in the PISA survey (Välijärvi, Kupari, Linnakylä, Reinikainen, Sulkunen,
Törnroos & Arffman, 2007). Therefore, the results can be considered to
generalize quite well to the grade 9 population in Finland.
When the survey was organized in schools, students had the
opportunity to ask questions about things that were unclear. The teachers
and headmasters reported no problems in organizing the survey and
student problems (cf. Fink & Jacqueline, 2005). These results indicated
that the procedures and items were readable and understood by the
responding students. The reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated by
the split-half procedure; the data were randomly split into two groups.
Students’ responses for the teaching methods time amount were compared
using Mann–Whitney U. There were no statistically significant (p90.01)
differences between groups.

Data Analyses
The coding of questionnaire responses was conducted by optic scanners,
and data were read to SPSS. In the questionnaire, students were instructed
to leave an item blank if they did not understand the question. In cases of
missing data, a student was excluded from further analysis of the item. It
is unreasonable to assume that students could evaluate the precise value
of the frequency of any teaching method; therefore, we calculated the
change variable between the current situation and the preferred situation.
For example, if a student answered that the frequency of direct teaching
 KALLE JUUTI ET AL.

(i.e., the teacher teaches new content by writing notes on the blackboard
or on a transparency) is 5 and the preferred frequency is 3, the value of
change variable is −2. These data do not meet the criteria of parametric
analysis (distributions cannot be assumed to be normal and scale cannot
be assumed to be interval). Therefore, descriptive statistics (median and
percentages) and nonparametric analyses were used to describe perceived
frequencies of teaching methods used, students’ preferred changes in
teaching methods, and connections between students’ background and
their teaching method preferences. Descriptive data (median response and
percentage change) are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
In order to determine which demographical variables and perceptions of
school science were connected to the students’ preferred teaching methods,
several calculations and recodings using nonparametric chi-square analysis
were made so that it was possible to consider students as groups (e.g.,
students who are interested or not interested in school science). Differences
between students’ responses in preferred amount of a teaching method and
current amount of a teaching method indicated students’ desire for change.
Thus, the teaching method change variable was calculated as an extraction.
In order to be able to use Pearson’s chi-square test, the teaching method
change variable was recoded into three categories: negative values as a
decrease (−1), zero as current (0), and positive value as an increase (1).
Students’ responses for the four-point Likert-type scale items on perceptions
of school science were recoded as combining responses 4 and 3 as “agree”
and combining responses 1 and 2 as “disagree.” Similarly, the grade in the
last school report was recoded as binary: either high performance (grades
8 to 10, maximum) or low performance (grades 4 to 7, minimum); the
median grade was 8 and the mean was 7.65. The indicator of socioeconomic
background, number of books at home, was recoded as binary: few books
(less than 100) and many books (more than 100); the median number of
books in the home was 51–100 books.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results and discussions are relatively brief and straightforward. They
are integrated and organized according to the research questions.

Teaching Methods Currently Used

Table 2 presents a broad view of how students evaluated the frequency of
the teaching methods used (research question no. 1). The main finding is
 PREFERRED TEACHING METHODS

that, according to students’ perceptions, science lessons seem to be rather

traditional. Direct teaching, solving basic problems, reading textbooks,
and conducting practical work are often used. Classes seldom visit
industrial sites and almost never visit museums. One unexpected finding,
especially as they are rather easy to organize, is that there are no visits
made by experts to the science classroom.
The results of our survey are consistent with science lesson
observations and principal interviews by Norris, Asplund, MacDonald,
Schostak & Zamorski (1996). They concluded that (a) Finnish teachers
are pedagogically conservative and (b) teaching and learning is
traditional, mainly involving direct teaching of whole groups of students.
Simola (2005) claimed that it is possible to teach in the traditional way in
Finland because teachers believe in their traditional role and pupils accept
this traditional position.

Desired Changes to the Teaching Methods

Table 2 also addresses students’ desired changes in teaching methods
(research question no. 2). The majority of students’ desired that changes
to be made to teaching methods (either decreased or increased
frequencies). However, students did not desire major changes in teaching
methods. The majority of students desired more small-group discussions
and also more debates, which are understood to increase interaction
between students (cf. Treagust, 2007). The sociocultural ideas of learning
have too often focused only on student-to-student interaction, but the
teacher has a crucial role in acculturating students to the scientific way of
thinking (Scott, 1998). This finding is consistent with the findings of
Bahar (2003) who suggested that discussion seems to be the main
motivator for students to study science. In the Finnish context, the results
support the well-known finding that teaching methods that lead to
interaction will be well received (cf. Byrne & Johnstone, 1988; Frailich,
Kesner & Hofstein, 2007).
The findings indicate that there is a need for a larger variety of science
teaching methods in Finland (cf. Lavonen et al., 2007; Myers & Fouts,
1992; Woolnough, 1994). According to the present research, all students
do not desire more, for example, hands-on science activities, as Koballa
& Glynn (2007) implicitly propose, to increase motivation; in fact, 21%
of the students in our study desired less hands-on activities.
A further argument against blindly increasing inquiry-based laboratory
activities (Anderson, 2007) is the results of the PISA 2006 survey
concerning learning activities in science teaching (OECD, 2007). Items in
 TABLE 2
Descriptives and change percentages of student responses on teaching method items

Current Preferred Change (%)

Teaching method Median Mean SD Median Mean SD Decrease Current Increase na

We visit museums, exhibitions, or science centers. 1 1.78 1.10 3 2.93 1.29 8.8 27.4 63.8 3,307
An external expert visits our class. 1 1.75 1.11 3 2.74 1.20 9.4 28.7 61.9 3,241
We visit enterprises, industrial plants, or research 2 1.92 1.12 3 2.93 1.22 9.8 29.2 61.1 3,289
institutes [industrial visits].
KALLE JUUTI ET AL.

We discuss difficult concepts and problems in small 2 2.22 1.13 3 3.00 1.17 12.1 32.8 55.1 3,342
groups [group discussion].
We learn by reading nonfiction books, newspapers, 2 1.92 1.09 3 2.64 1.17 10.7 37.2 52.2 3,296
or magazines.
We have a debate during the lesson [debating]. 2 2.15 1.19 3 2.78 1.26 12.9 40.2 47.0 3,272
We are creative (ideate, brainstorming,) 2 2.28 1.11 3 2.79 1.15 13.1 43.4 43.5 3,284
[creativity activities].
We have projects in small groups [group projects]. 3 2.76 1.18 3 3.21 1.16 16.8 41.1 42.2 3,293
Teacher leads discussion about difficult concepts 3 3.22 1.11 4 3.59 1.09 15.6 44.6 39.8 3,346
and/or problems [plenary discussions].
We solve problems or tasks in small groups. 3 2.83 1.17 3 3.23 1.10 15.6 45.5 38.8 3,326
We formulate independently or in small groups 2 2.29 1.14 3 2.64 1.15 16.8 43.6 37.0 3,292
concept maps or other figures that clarify
relations between concepts.
We learn cooperatively (jigsaw, home, or expert group). 2 2.25 1.12 3 2.54 1.12 13.9 53.0 33.1 3,181
We learn by writing, for example, essays, summaries, 2 2.07 1.16 2 2.28 1.20 17.6 51,2 31.1 3,259
stories.
Teacher presents demonstrations or tells about 3 3.32 1.08 4 3.49 1.10 16.9 52.8 30.3 3,256
phenomena.
Teacher clarifies relations between concepts 3 2.17 1.08 3 2.86 1.08 19.2 51.4 29.4 3,284
using figures.
We do practical work [in small groups]. 4 3.61 1.05 4 3.70 1.10 21.6 50.1 28.3 3,270
We solve individually problems or tasks. 3 3.17 1.07 3 3.11 1.09 27.9 48.9 23.5 3,339
Teacher solves problems or sums on blackboard 4 3.73 1.05 4 3.86 1.13 28.8 50.6 20.6 3,379
or transparency.
We learn by reading a textbook. 4 3.46 1.16 3 3.2 1,12 35.5 45.9 18.6 3,301
Teacher teaches new content by writing notes on 4 3.97 1.07 4 3.64 1.18 36.2 48.1 15.6 3,398
blackboard or transparency [direct teaching].
Items are sorted according to percentages of increase preferences
a
Numbers of students who responded to both current and preferred amount of teaching method
PREFERRED TEACHING METHODS
 KALLE JUUTI ET AL.

TABLE 3
Frequency of students’ statements regarding perceptions of school science

Disagree Agree

Items Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

School science is a difficult subject. 2,106 59 1,464 41

School science is rather easy for me 1,910 54 1,642 46
to learn.
School science is interesting. 1,487 42 2,079 58
School science has increased my 1,940 55 1,605 45
curiosity about things we cannot
yet explain.
The things that I learn in science at 1,507 43 2,035 57
school will be helpful in my
everyday life.
Science and technology are 906 25 2,662 75
important for society.
I would like to become a scientist. 2,847 80 710 20
I would like to get a job in 2,416 68 1,134 32
technology.
In addition to the above, the following background variables were asked about: gender (1,794 girls,
1,832 boys), grade in the last report, and number of books at home

relation to teaching methods used in science were in accordance with the

results of this survey. Finnish secondary school students frequently do
experiments or practical work by following the instructions given by their
teacher (or in a workbook). Based on the PISA 2006 survey, they believe
that they are almost never allowed to design their own experiments or do
investigations to test their own ideas. Open-ended inquiry and project-
based activities of this kind happen in other OECD countries more often
(Lavonen, 2008).
Treagust (2007) stated that students are motivated when using
computers in science teaching and learning; therefore, it is understandable
that the students in the present study desired more reading of Web pages.
However, we would like to add that, typically, in Finland, Web pages are
used for self-directed information retrieval (Juuti, Lavonen & Meisalo,
2005). Thus, information retrieval can be assumed to support students’
belief in autonomy and to enhance positive feelings.
The majority of these grade 9 students desired more visits to museums,
industry, or science centers. There is another possible interpretation for
students’ desires for out-of-school learning: at the present, they do not
visit science centers or museums and they hope this will change. The
 PREFERRED TEACHING METHODS

median of students’ responses to the current situation was 1 (never) for

museum exhibition or science center visits and 2 (rarely) for enterprise
and industrial plants visits. However, in addition to supporting the belief
of autonomy, teaching methods emphasizing out-of-school activities have
great potential for demonstrating the relevance of science education from
the point of view of future studies or careers (Stokking, 2000). Moreover,
in Finnish upper secondary schools, students evaluated needed for future
studies to be the most important reason for choosing physics courses
(Juuti, Lavonen, Uitto, Byman & Meisalo, 2004).
It is known that teachers’ and obviously also students’ educational
beliefs or orientations are stable and the resistance to change is strong.
This might be an important reason for the slow change in science
education (Haney, Czerniak & Lumpe, 1996). Geelan (1997) and Carlone
(2003) have pointed out how the prevalent school science culture and the
expectations of students, parents, and teachers inhibit the implementation
of new teaching approaches. Given the inertia of the school science
community, changes cannot be expected to occur overnight.

Subgroups of Students’ Preferred Teaching Methods

In order to determine the students’ demographical variables and
perceptions of school science connected with their preferred teaching
methods, a chi-square analysis compared students’ desires (Table 2) and
perceptions regarding science (Table 3). In Finland, the difference
between students’ intention to pursue science and technology-related
occupations and the feeling of general importance of science is generally
wider than in other OECD countries (OECD, 2007). Less than one third
of students would like to get a job in technology-related areas, while 75%
of students agreed that science and technology are important to society.
Furthermore, almost 60% of the students saw school science as interesting
(Table 3). The students preferred teaching methods according to their
demographical background and perceptions of school science (compe-
tence, interest, relevance and importance, occupational intention) were
explored in parts 2 and 3 of the questionnaire. Figure 1 presents the
statistically significant chi-square results for differences between actual
and expected frequencies for each self-identified group (Table 3).
There were differences between students’ demographic backgrounds
and the perceptions of school science and teaching methods preferences.
Boys seemed to be more satisfied with current science teaching, while
girls desired more teaching methods that can be interpreted as increasing
interaction (cf. Byrne & Johnstone, 1988). The girls preferences for group
 KALLE JUUTI ET AL.

Figure 1. Statistically significant differences (p G 0.05) between students with different

demographic backgrounds (right column, gray, sharp-edged boxes, dot lines), perceptions
of school science (left column, gray, soft-edged boxes, solid line), and teaching methods
(middle column, white boxes)

discussions, debates, and group projects appear to reflect the lesser

amount of time they had for speaking and being heard in the classroom
when compared to boys (Aukrust, 2008). Students who perceive school
science positively find that science is helpful for everyday life; it
increases curiosity and is important to society. They also find school
science interesting as well as easy to learn, but desired more creative
activities. However, the statistical significance of the chi-square for the
creativity-enhancing teaching methods and feeling of easiness was very
small. However, there was no statistically significant difference between
creative teaching methods and academic performance. Low-performing
students desired less direct teaching; there was no other group with
similar desires. Furthermore, it is important to note that there was no
significant connection between students’ occupational intention and
teaching methods. It is interesting that the students’ socioeconomic
background (number of books at home) is related to teacher-centered
plenary discussions, group projects, and creative activities.
The international Relevance of Science Education (ROSE) and PISA
surveys have shown students’ experiences and perceptions of school
science, as well as attitudes toward science and science learning to be
rather similar in developed countries (OECD, 2007; Schreiner & Sjøberg,
 PREFERRED TEACHING METHODS

2007). Thus, in developed countries, there may be a similar tendency in

teaching method preferences. However, since schooling is highly
connected to national culture, one should be careful when generalizing
research results.

IMPLICATIONS

There were assumptions made within the study that require comment
before elaborating on the implications of the research. The main
assumption was the hypothetical connection between preferred teaching
method and positive beliefs as a requirement for interest development.
Students were not asked whether or not a teaching method is enjoyable.
However, it is plausible to think that students consider preferred teaching
methods those they have a positive disposition toward for some reason.
The point of the study is not students’ learning. Students were not asked
to evaluate how they think they learn best. Neither is it impossible to
speculate, based on the results, how teaching should be developed in
order to help students learn science concepts better; this is one of the key
challenges in science education. This study focused on another challenge:
lack of both students’ interest and intention to pursue science and
technology-related occupations. We assumed, as Hidi & Renninger
(2006) proposed, that, by asking about students their preferences as to
teaching methods used in school science, it would be possible to make
suggestions for developing teaching so that it would be a more pleasant
experience for students and, thus, would arouse interest in science and
science careers.
Interpreting students’ teaching method preferences from the point of
view of the four phases of interest development (Hidi & Renninger, 2006)
arouses several future research challenges. Even if our analysis revealed a
number of connections between students’ background and preferred
teaching methods, further classroom-level mixed-methods research is
needed to verify and elaborate the self-reported perceptions and potential
links between perceptions, preferences, interest, motivation, and learning.
Thus, it is important to interview students so as to understand how their
views and beliefs about teacher-centered discussion support the beliefs
about a demonstrated competence. Do they feel a teacher is an authority
or an expert if they discuss with students and gives them learning
challenges leading to knowledge building? (cf. Mortimer & Scott, 2003).
The teacher is the person who mediates the science culture in the
classroom thereby setting environment conditions that might enhance
 KALLE JUUTI ET AL.

student interest. It would be valuable to focus on students’ experiences to

discover how they believe that teacher characteristics are related to
discussion on difficult concepts and their interest in these ideas.
A student who has plenty of books at home, finds science interesting,
easy to learn, and thinks that school science is relevant to everyday life, is
curious about things not yet explained, views science and technology as
being important to society, and desires more creative activities as well.
The connections between socioeconomic indicators and between interest-
ed students and creativity need further elaboration. This needs to be done
not only through surveys, but it will likely require mixed-method designs
involving interviewing students to understand how they clarify the idea of
creativity within the science class. Could, as Hidi & Renninger (2006)
suggest, the desire for creative activities be interpreted as a desire for
more challenges at school for students having a well-developed interest?
It is important to note that students with negative perceptions of school
science did not desire that changes be made. Could it be that methods in
Finnish physics teaching are adjusted according to the desires of those
uninterested and unmotivated students? According to our experience,
students with a negative stance make a fuss and protest if they are not
satisfied with the teaching methods used in the classroom. Some students
are interested in other subjects and they, perhaps, do not have opinions on
the science teaching methods. It is possible that these kinds of students do
not want to do brainstorming or discuss difficult concepts, while students
with a positive perception of school science settle for what is being
provided. Thus, observation studies may offer more information on how
to interpret the desire for creativity and whether creativity-supporting
teaching methods are positively perceived.
This research study illustrated that there are different desires
concerning teaching methods in the science class. Therefore, teachers
should be flexible and sensitively listen to students’ opinions and desires
while choosing teaching methods. This constructivist perspective is one
way to provide all students an equal chance to develop competence,
relatedness, and autonomy leading hopefully to positive beliefs while
learning science and supporting the interaction of individuals and
situational interests.
The relationship between the preferred teaching method and interest is,
of course, hypothetical. Hypotheses about what emotional dispositions
there are in students’ minds can be tested only once they exist. Physics
teachers must be trained to pose and to test hypotheses about what kind of
beliefs students have when certain teaching methods are used. The list
below summarizes the implications of this study for teaching. In order to
 PREFERRED TEACHING METHODS

enhance positive feelings in the science classroom and, thus, hypothet-

ically increase students’ interest towards school science, a teacher should
use:
 More out-of-school connections (visits, visitors, newspapers, and
magazines);
 More discussion on difficult concepts;
 Less teacher presentations of the content on the blackboard;
 Less reading of textbooks;
 For girls, especially, more discussions;
 For interested students and for those who find science useful in
everyday life, more group projects and creative activities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the reviewers for their constructive comments. Especially, we

are grateful to Sharyl A. Yore and Larry D. Yore for their editorial
suggestions; they helped us greatly to improve the manuscript. The
finalizing of the paper was supported by the project Science-Teacher
Education Advanced Methods, the S-TEAM Project, as a part of a
coordination and support action under FP7, SiS 2008, action 2.2.1.1
Innovative Methods in Science Education.
 KALLE JUUTI ET AL.

APPENDIX
Part 1: Questionnaire Items (n=20) on Teaching Methods Used
and Desired in School Science
 PREFERRED TEACHING METHODS

Part 2: Items in the Relevance of Science Education (ROSE)

Questionnaire (n=10) Used in the Study
N.B. Original ROSE questionnaire is available from http://www.ils.uio.
no/english/rose/key-documents/questionnaire.html.
 KALLE JUUTI ET AL.

REFERENCES
Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K.
Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830).
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Aukrust, V. G. (2008). Boys’ and girls’ conversational participation across four grade
levels in Norwegian classrooms: Taking the floor or being given the floor? Gender and
Education, 20(3), 237–252.
Bahar, M. (2003). The effects of motivational styles on group work and discussion-based
seminars. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 461–473.
Bennett, J., Lubben, F., Hogarth, S., & Campbell, B. (2004). A systematic review of the
use of small-group discussions in science teaching with students aged 11–18, and their
effects on students’ understanding in science or attitude to science. In Research
Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit,
Institute of Education.
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The
contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28
(12), 1373–1388.
Byrne, M. S., & Johnstone, A. H. (1988). How to make science relevant. School Science
Review, 70(251), 43–46.
Carlone, H. B. (2003). Innovative science within and against a culture of “achievement”.
Science Education, 87, 307–328.
Donnelly, J. F., & Jenkins, E. W. (2001). Science education: Policy, professionalism and
change. London: Paul Chapman.
Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: How
individual interest moderates the effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 597–610.
Fink, A., & Jacqueline, K. (2005). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Finnish National Board of Education. (2004). Core curriculum for basic education.
Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/
english/page.asp?path=447,27598,37840,72101,72106.
Fisher, R. (2005). Teaching children to think. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Frailich, M., Kesner, M., & Hofstein, A. (2007). The influence of web-based chemistry
learning on students’ perceptions, attitudes, and achievements. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 25(2), 179–197.
Geelan, D. R. (1997). Weaving narrative nets to capture school science classrooms.
Research in Science Education, 27(4), 553–563.
Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions
regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 33, 971–993.
Häussler, P., & Hoffman, L. (2000). A curricular frame for physics education:
Development comparison with students’ interest, and impact on students’ achievement
and self-concept. Science Education, 84(6), 689–705.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development.
Educational Psychologist, 4(2), 111–127.
Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., & Meisalo, V. (2005). Issues on school e-laboratories in science
teaching: Virtuality, reality and gender. In J.-P. Courtiat, C. Davarakis & T. Villemur
 PREFERRED TEACHING METHODS

(Eds.), Proceedings of WS 2, the 18th IFIP World Computer Congress on technology

enhanced learning (pp. 43–58). New York: Springer.
Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Uitto, A., Byman, R., & Meisalo, V. (2004). Students’ reasons to
choose or reject physics. In E. Mecholová (Ed.), Proceedings of selected papers of the
GIREP 2004 Conference on teaching and learning physics in new contexts (pp. 185–
186). Ostrava: University of Ostrava.
Koballa, T. R., Jr., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in
science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on
science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Krapp, A. (2003). Interest and human development: An educational–psychological perspective.
British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II: Psychological Aspects of
Education—Current Trends, Development and Motivation, 1(1), 57–84.
Lavonen, J. (2008). Scientific literacy assessment. In J. Hautamäki, E. Harjunen, A.
Hautamäki, T. Karjalainen, S. Kupiainen, S. Laaksonen, et al. (Eds.), PISA06 Finland.
Analyses, reflections and explanations. Helsinki: Ministry of Education.
Lavonen, J., Angell, C., Byman, R., Henriksen, E., & Koponen, I. (2007). Social
interaction in upper secondary physics classrooms in Finland and Norway: A survey of
students’ expectations. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51(1), 81–101.
Lavonen, J., Juuti, K., Uitto, A., Meisalo, V., & Byman, R. (2005). Attractiveness of
science education in the Finnish comprehensive school. In A. Manninen, K. Miettinen
& K. Kiviniemi (Eds.), Research findings on young people’s perceptions of technology
and science education: MIRROR results and good practises (pp. 5–30). Helsinki:
Technology Industries of Finland. Retrieved from http://www.ils.uio.no/english/rose/
network/countries/finland/fin-lavonen-2005.pdf.
Lavonen, J., & Meisalo, V. (n.d.). Matemaattis-luonnontieteellisten aineiden työtapaopas
[Teaching methods in mathematics and science]. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://
www.edu.helsinki.fi/malu/kirjasto/tyotapa/. In Finnish.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2000). Children’s thinking, learning, teaching and constructivism.
In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has
to say (pp. 41–54). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Mead, G. H. (1909). Teaching of science in college. Science, 24, 390–397.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classroom.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Myers, R., & Fouts, J. T. (1992). A cluster analysis of high school science classroom
environments and attitude toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(9),
929–937.
Norris, N., Asplund, R., MacDonald, B., Schostak, J., & Zamorski, B. (1996). An
independent evaluation of comprehensive curriculum reform in Finland. Helsinki:
Finnish National Board of Education.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). First results from
PISA 2003 executive summary. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/63/34002454.pdf.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006: Science
competencies for tomorrow’s world executive summary. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/
39725224.pdf.
Oser, F. K., & Baeriswyl, F. J. (2001). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging
instruction to learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), AERA’s handbook of research on
 KALLE JUUTI ET AL.

teaching (4th ed., pp. 1031–1065). Washington: American Educational Research

Association.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci
& R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183–203).
Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.
Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE: Background, rationale,
questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (The Relevance of Science
Education)—A comparative study of students’ views of science and science education
(Acta Didactica 4/2004). Oslo: Department of Teacher Education and School
Development, University of Oslo.
Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth’s identity construction—
Two incompatible projects? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-
emergence of values in the science curriculum. Rotterdam: Sense.
Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian
analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45–80.
Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on
teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41(4), 455–470.
Stokking, K. M. (2000). Predicting the choice of physics in secondary education.
International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1261–1283.
Treagust, D. F. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. K. Abell & N.
G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist
and a traditional learning environment in university. International Journal of
Educational Research, 31(5), 357–442.
Välijärvi, J., Kupari, P., Linnakylä, P., Reinikainen, P., Sulkunen, S., Törnroos, J., et al.
(2007). The Finnish success in PISA—And some reasons behind it. Jyväskylä: Institute
for Educational Research.
Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in science. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in
school science: Which way now? (pp. 3–15). London: Routledge.
Woolnough, B. (1994). Effective science teaching. Buckingham: Open University.

Department of Applied Sciences of Education

University of Helsinki
P.O. Box 9, 00014 University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
E-mail: kalle.juuti@helsinki.fi

View publication stats