Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2020

Vol.19, No.
4, 2020
ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The International Journal of the Scientia Socialis Ltd., & SMC “Scientia Educologica”
Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2020
Editorial Board
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
Editor-in-Chief ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Prof., Dr. Vincentas Lamanauskas Siauliai University, Lithuania
Deputy Editor-in-Chief
Prof., Dr. Andris Broks University of Latvia, Latvia
Deputy Editor-in-Chief
Prof., Dr. Miia Rannikmäe University of Tartu, Estonia
Executive Secretary
Dr. Laima Railienė SMC “Scientia Educologica”, Lithuania
Editors:
Prof., Dr. Boris Aberšek University of Maribor, Slovenia
Prof., Dr. Agnaldo Arroio University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Prof., Dr. Martin Bilek Charles University, Czech Republic
Dr. Paolo Bussotti University of Udine, Italy
Prof., Dr. Bulent Cavas Dokuz Eylul University, Turkey
Prof., Dr. Salih Cepni Uludag University, Turkey
Dr. Peter Demkanin Comenius University, Slovakia
Dr. André du Plessis Nelson Mandela University, South Africa
Prof., Dr. Jack Holbrook University of Tartu, Estonia
Prof., Dr. Ryszard M. Janiuk Maria Curie Sklodowska University, Poland
Dr. Milan Kubiatko Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic
Dr. Todar Lakhvich Belarusian State Medical University, Republic of Belarus
Prof., Dr. Jari Lavonen University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Rita Makarskaitė-Petkevičienė Vilnius University, Lithuania
Prof., Dr. Paul Pace Malta University, Malta
Prof., Dr. Valfrids Paškevičs Daugavpils University, Latvia
Prof., Dr. Jongwon Park Chonnam National University, Korea
Prof., Dr. Raffaele Pisano University of Lille, France
Prof., Dr. Pavol Prokop Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia
Prof., Dr. Konstantinos Ravanis University of Patras, Greece
Dr. Alona Rauckienė-Michaelsson Klaipėda University, Lithuania
Dr. Dušica Rodić University of Novi Sad, Serbia
Prof., Dr. Heimo Saarikko Helsinki University, Finland
Prof., Dr. Hae-Ae Seo Pusan National University, Korea
Dr. Uladzimir K. Slabin University of Oregon, USA
Prof., Dr. Andrej Šorgo University of Maribor, Slovenia
Prof., Dr. Borislav V. Toshev Sofia University, Bulgaria
Prof., Dr. Georgios Tsaparlis University of Ioannina, Greece
Dr. Muhammet Usak Kazan Federal University, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation
A scientific journal JBSE issued by the Scientia Socialis Ltd., in cooperation with SMC Scientia Educologica, Lithuania,
emphasizes theoretical, experimental and methodical studies in the field of science education. JBSE is an international
academic journal. In order to maintain the high standards appropriate to such a journal, all contributions received are
submitted for anonymous review by two experts, additionally to review by the Editor. The decision of the Editor on
the acceptance of articles is final and no correspondence can be entered into on reasons for rejection of a submitted
contribution.
Published since 2002 Address:

The journal is published bimonthly. Scientia Socialis, Ltd.
IF: 1.024 (2018) Donelaičio Street 29, LT-78115 Siauliai, Lithuania
H Index: 14 (2019) E-mail: mail.jbse@gmail.com
SJR: 0.435 (2019) Phone: +370 687 95668
ICDS: 10.7 (2017) Home page: http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/
ICV: 151.38 (2018) Skype: scientia12
ISSN 1648–3898 (Print) © Scientia Socialis Ltd., a member of the Lithuanian

Publishers Association, Lithuania, 2020
ISSN 2538–7138 (Online)
The articles appearing in this journal are indexed/abstracted in Copernicus Index, EBSCO:
518 Academic Search Premier, Web of Science Core Collection (Social Sciences Citation Index ),
SCOPUS, ProQuest, Road, Crossref, and DOI.
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ Contents
CONTENTS
Editorial
WHO IS AND SHOULD BE A SCIENCE TEACHER

Martin Bilek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
Articles
UPPER-SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ APPROACHES TO SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS IN AN

EXAMINATION DRIVEN CURRICULUM CONTEXT
Tamirirofa Chirikure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
THE INFLUENCE OF INTERACTION WITH NATURE IN CHILDHOOD ON FUTURE PRO-

ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR
Šárka Doležalová Křepelková, Jan Krajhanzl, Roman Kroufek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536
TRENDS AND FOUNDATIONS IN RESEARCH ON STUDENTS’ CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING IN

SCIENCE EDUCATION: A METHOD BASED ON THE STRUCTURAL TOPIC MODEL
Shuaishuai Mi, Shanshan Lu, Hualin Bi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
PHYSICS TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE PHYSICS EDUCATION

Nurfaradilla Mohamad Nasri, Nurfarahin Nasri, Mohamad Asyraf Abd Talib. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF USING THE BLENDED LEARNING APPROACH FOR STEM-RELATED

SUBJECTS WITHIN THE FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
Jayaluxmi Naidoo, Asheena Singh-Pillay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
THE IMPACT OF PHYSICAL MOLECULAR MODELS ON STUDENTS' VISUO-SEMIOTIC REASONING

SKILLS RELATED TO THE LEWIS STRUCTURE AND BALL & STICK MODEL OF AMMONIA
Thobile Nkosi, Lindelani Mnguni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594
THE SCIENCE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS' IMAGINE

Demet Şahin Kalyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY SKILLS OF SCIENCE TEACHING THROUGH ARGUMENT-

FOCUSED VIRTUAL LABORATORY APPLICATIONS
Aysegul Kınık Topalsan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628
EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF GUIDANCE IN A COMPUTER DETECTIVE GAME FOR SCIENCE

EDUCATION
Fu-Hsing Tsai, I-Ying Hsu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647
DEFINING TEACHER OWNERSHIP: A SCIENCE EDUCATION CASE STUDY TO DETERMINE

CATEGORIES OF TEACHER OWNERSHIP
Ana Valdmann, Jack Holbrook, Miia Rannikmäe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659
INFLUENCING FACTORS OF 10TH GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE CAREER EXPECTATIONS: A

STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL
Jingying Wang, Mingyue Yang, Beibei Lv, Feixiong Zhang, Yonghe Zheng, Yihong Sun . . . . . . . . . . . 675
Information
INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687
519
Martin Bílek
Charles University, Czech Republic
Who is and should be a Science teacher like? This seemingly multiple-time answered question, however, has
not been clearly answered yet; moreover, in this case, a multi-alternative answer is required.
Ideas of an optimal characteristic of Science teacher should be defined in context of their main activity. Two
alternatives are under the focus; the apparent discrepancy which has been solved in some legal documents, and
the state which is frequently not unambiguous in practice.
In Alternative One, the learner is the main objective of the teacher´s activities and to contribute to the learner´s
personal development is the main task. To develop a creative and flexible personality is the priority which requires a
set of appropriate means. The learning content in Science subjects as part of general education is one of the means.
This approach is applied in study programmes Teaching for Secondary Schools in general-education subjects; then,
the graduate´s target is to form Science literacy of the whole population (Lamanauskas, 2012).
In Alternative Two, the learning content in Science subjects, particularly the learning content of one of them,
or of one part, is shifted from the category of means to the category of objectives. This approach to be ensured,
teachers of so called professional (specialized, vocational) subjects are prepared. Their teaching qualification is
provided in the form of further pedagogical studies conducted as a follow-up, or concurrent study with a master
(mostly engineering) programme. Field specialists thus gain additional pedagogical qualification; the field spe-
cialization is essential and irretrievable for this type of teacher profession.
In Alternative One, i.e. In general education, strong preference to the content often results in suppressing the
learner´s personal identity and excessive misuse in the assessment of the formal content as a means of securing
learners´ discipline, or it can cause formalism applied in forming knowledge structures. The negative approach of
a large part of the younger generation in Science education is an illegible consequence. Teacher´s orientation in
general education should be based on balanced subject-didactic, pedagogical-psychological and subject (field)
foundations. Although the field knowledge forms the basis for creative activity of general-subject teacher conducted
within the process of forming learner´s personality, the way of knowledge interpretation should be in accord with a
carrier of the teacher, not with the carrier of field specialist. Thus the interpretation and communication of profes-
sional information are the basis of professional/field part of teacher preparation. However, it is neither under the
“roof“of the field, nor the general pedagogy (educational science) but under the subject didactics which deserves
appropriate attention and space within the teacher preparation.
In latest trends, subject didactics is a synonym for Pedagogical (didactic) Content Knowledge – PCK (see e.g.
Yun, 2020). In our opinion, this approach is not new but it goes for the need to create space for strengthening
subject didactics (subject methodology) in teacher preparation including appropriate research and development
activities. In fact, subject didactics are border disciplines dealing with problems of both the upbringing and edu-
cation. They closely relate to pedagogical-psychological disciplines and the field (subject). Currently, it has not
been enough to characterize subject didactics as the intersection of pedagogy and the field (subject). It is highly
required to discover wider relations and connections. When designing subject didactics, knowledge and findings
from other fields must be considered – gnoseology, philosophy, ethics, sociology, history, methodologies of relat-
520
https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.520
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ WHO IS AND SHOULD BE A SCIENCE TEACHER
(pp. 520-522)
ing fields, psychology, informatics and others. Moreover, cooperation between the teaching of subject didactics
and research should be supported, which is in close relation to the teaching as the output of teaching study pro-
grammes. Numerous institutions dealing with pre-graduate Science teacher preparation do not produce appropri-
ate research activities in subject didactics. Thus the question appears: is it acceptable to study e.g. Chemistry, or
Analytic Chemistry study programme in an institution which does not conduct any research activities in Analytic
Chemistry? Is it acceptable to consider e.g. specialization in analytic chemistry as an addendum to chemistry and
replace the learning content with a set of directions for work in analytic laboratory, instructions on filling records
on the researched sample, sanitary and safety rules etc.? It is superfluous to continue with these “illogical“samples”;
however, do they not resemble (not only in chemistry) the approach to the teaching as a profession with higher
education qualification? (Bilek, 2003)
Well, what is the current state of subject didactics? “The support to theoretical and research work and the
development of efficient instructional processes in all subject didactics is one of important pre-requirements of the
subject-focused teacher preparation. Subject didactics should be more supported by Accreditation Commission
within institution research intentions and in resort plans of pedagogical research. “The above mentioned text is
part of “The call for 10 million to National programme of education development preparation“(Auth’s, 1999) in the
Czech Republic. Unfortunately, 20 years after, we still have not been close to meeting the requirements. A small
part (units of percent) of curriculum in pre-gradual teacher preparation is devoted to subject didactics (or PCK). If
standards of teacher preparation are available, they mostly form requirements on the field and pedagogy; subject
didactic ones, i.e. those which directly form and develop teacher professional skills, are not under sufficient atten-
tion, or even not included at all. They are, then, acquired in teaching practice or further education. This state causes
problems for novice teachers and is often a reason of the leaving the profession in experienced in-service teachers.
Let´s go back to the reality of teacher preparation and our current analyses (Bílek et al., 2019). The necessity
to solve inter-subject, or interdisciplinary relations is one of the appeals (Bilek, 2018). Out-of-school, community,
participating or outdoor learning, these relations were identified as the core innovation in teacher preparation, not
only in science subjects. Integrated instruction, integration in education, integrated view of instruction and others
are under the discussion in relation to learning plans, being led either by efforts to unify the view of the nature and/
or society, or to reduce the amount of lessons within economical measures of ministries of education. The topic of
integration in education is rather populistic without strong professional basis in countries where science-related
subjects are taught separately. Excited discussions between supporters and rejectors of integrated instruction often
fail in misunderstanding whether it means the preference of field integration, or untimely field differentiation. The
core of misunderstanding mostly lies in imprecise setting of the discussion topic. There is, of course, difference,
when speaking about “integration“ within more widely designed Natural Science and Homeland Study as unified,
integrated general-education subjects taught in 13 – 14/15 – 16-year-old learners, or about the integration of already
built knowledge from various fields in upper secondary grades of grammar and other professional schools. These
differences are often forgotten, or rejected, which does not contribute to finding appropriate solutions. Thus the
teacher preparation strongly bounded to the field/subject seems to be one of the barriers in teacher cooperation
and reaching final consensus, and the concept of studying separate subjects within teacher preparation arises
from this state. Doubled, or partially doubled subjects can be found within single subject specializations, border
subjects and joint projects are missing etc., communication between departments co-operating on specializations
is far from been ideal. For example, it is clear from the text of “White Book of Educational Development in the Czech
Republic” (Kotásek et al., 2000) that topics on integration should have their current value. Several new features
of curriculum concepts for pre-primary, primary, lower and upper secondary schools are mentioned in the White
Book; they are directly connected to the discussed problems of teacher preparation:
•• To support the key competency development as a tool for changing encyclopaedic concepts of edu-
cation,
•• To apply new forms of active instruction – mainly the project instruction – and various forms of inter-
subject integration, e.g. Inter-subject topics and projects, and other forms of after-school activities,
•• To exploit the above-mentioned forms in implementing new fields into curricula (e.g. environmental
education),
•• To systematically prepare teachers for a new concept of curriculum and implementation of appropriate
methods and forms of instruction,
•• To include these forms and topics into the innovation and developmental programmes of the decision-
making sphere.
521
(pp. 520-522)
Has the time come to complementing, or rewriting the teacher preparation curriculum? Should we widen the
specializations, or decrease amounts of school subjects, and reflect it in teacher preparation? Should we prepare
Science teachers from the beginning of university study, or should we add several courses on teaching Science
subject(s) to the study programme preparing specialists in different science and technology-oriented fields?
We have not reached consensus in answering these questions; however, latest trends in science education
and relating teacher preparation strongly call for finding reasonable answers to them.
References
Auth’s (1999). Teacher – Lead actor of the change (in Czech). In The call for 10 million to National programme of education devel-
opment preparation (in Czech). Attachment to Newspaper “Ucitelske noviny a Verejna sprava (Teacher’s Newspaper and
Public Administration)”, 2/2000.
Bilek, M. (2003). Chemistry didactics: Research and university instruction (in Czech). M&V.
Bilek, M. (2018). Intercultural learning: Challenges for current science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(4), 532 –
534. https://dx.doi.org/10.33225/jbse/18.17.532
Bilek, M. et al. (2019). Teaching study programmes and forming civic and social competences (in Czech). Gaudeamus.
Kotasek, J. a kol. (2000). National programme of educational development in Czech Republic (2nd working version in Czech). Ministry
of Education. http://www.msmt.cz
Lamanauskas, V. (2012). A problem of science literacy encountered by primary school teachers and learners. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 11(4), 300 – 301. http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/?q=node/264
Yun, E. (2020). Review of trends in physics education research using topic modeling. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(3),
388-400. https://dx.doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.388
Received: July 15, 2020 Accepted: August 05, 2020
Cite as: Bilek, M. (2020). Who is and should be a science teacher. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4), 520-522.
Martin Bilek PhD, Professor, Faculty of Education, Charles University, Magdalény Rettigové 4,
110 00 Nové Město, Prague, Czech Republic.
E-mail: martin.bilek@pedf.cuni.cz
Website: https://is.cuni.cz/webapps/whois2/osoba/1645913964829846/?lang=en
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1076-4595
522
UPPER-SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS’ APPROACHES
TO SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
IN AN EXAMINATION DRIVEN ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
CURRICULUM CONTEXT Abstract: This research explored upper-

secondary school students’ approaches
when they engage in planning and conduct-
ing science experiments. Approaches to
Tamirirofa Chirikure science experiments are important because
they provide insight into students’ scientific
reasoning and their enactment of scientific
methods. An explanatory mixed-methods
Introduction design was employed to determine and
explain students’ approaches to science
Science experiments, as a form of practical work, have long been re- experiments. Data were generated by
garded as the epitome of doing science. While there are strong arguments administering a 15-item Approaches to Sci-
for doing science experiments, their effectiveness in developing substantive ence Experiments Questionnaire (ASEQ) on
and procedural knowledge has been questioned with students either fail- 211 participants and interviewing a smaller
ing to do what was expected and/or learn what was intended (Abrahams & sample of 33. The linear approach was
Millar, 2008; Abrahams & Reiss, 2012). Students’ shortcomings when doing predominant while the divergent approach
experiments have led some to design programmes and activities to improve was least adopted by the participants. The
students’ understanding and application of substantive and procedural teaching-learning context, substantive and
knowledge (Roberts, 2009; Roberts et al., 2010; Schalk et al., 2013). Students’ procedural knowledge lead to specific ap-
retrieval and application of substantive and procedural knowledge during proaches and the emergence of subcatego-
minds-on-hands-on engagement with science experiments translates into ries of the three broad approaches. Capable
distinguishable approaches. Approaches to science experiments refer to stu- students engaged in a self-directed iterative
dents’ minds-on-hands-on engagement when they plan and conduct science approach while external help resulted in
experiments. Roberts et al. (2010) established that students use an iterative, an assisted iterative approach. Rigid and
linear or divergent approach as influenced by their residual substantive and contrived linear approaches were a result of
procedural knowledge. While the three approaches have been sufficiently time constraints, substantive and procedural
characterised, there is a dearth of literature on the profiling of students’ ap- shortcomings. Scattergun and blanking di-
proaches to science experiments based on their self-reporting. vergent approaches emerged from extreme
Profiling students’ approaches through self-reporting is not new. Howev- weaknesses in substantive and procedural
er, this has been restricted to approaches to learning which have been exten- knowledge. Assessing practical skills through
sively researched leading to the emergence and evolution of the dichotomy long-term projects is recommended to focus
of deep and surface approaches to learning (Biggs, 1991; Cano, 2007; Chin & more on developing students’ scientific rea-
Brown, 2000; Chiou et al., 2013; Marton & Saljo, 1997; Minbashian et al., 2004; soning and process skills. Research with the
Tsai, 2004). Chirikure et al. (2018) extended this knowledge by exploring how ASEQ in other teaching-learning cultures,
students approach chemistry experiments from a learning perspective but observing students in action and analysing
fell short of investigating how they engaged with the processes of designing, their write-ups could provide deeper insights
planning, data collection, processing and interpretation. In an earlier study into approaches to science experiments.
Lubben et al. (2001) gave insight into university undergraduate first-year Keywords: science experiments, divergent
students’ point and set reasoning when they generate, process and interpret approach, iterative approach, linear ap-
measurement data while Kanari and Millar (2004) explored how students proach, mixed methods.
collect and interpret data in pendulum experiments. The focus on students’
engagement in science domain specific experiments apparently obviates the
fact that students often import ways of working from one science domain
Tamirirofa Chirikure
to another. If the same skills set is required, this leads to the crystallisation of University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
specific approaches. A generalised profiling of students’ approaches to sci-
ence experiments can give insight into their understanding of the practice
of science and how scientific knowledge is generated.
523
(pp. 523-535) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Science Experiments in Context and Their Worth
The ability to do science experiments is highly regarded in the Zimbabwean Advanced Level science cur-
riculum. The majority of the schools use curricula designed by the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education
(MoPSE) and examined by the Zimbabwe School Examinations Council (ZIMSEC) while a minority follow the
Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) curriculum. However, both curricula have similar assessment objec-
tives in relation to practical work. For example, their Chemistry syllabi indicate that students will be assessed
on their ability to plan and carryout experiments including the evaluation of methods and suggesting possible
improvements (Cambridge International Examinations, 2016; Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education,
2015). Students’ competence in planning and conducting science experiments is assessed through a practical
examination by both the ZIMSEC and CIE. This component has a weighting of up to 11.5% of the final examina-
tion in each science subject.
Science experiments, in the context of this research, are “practical activities in which students are not given a
complete set of instructions to follow, but have some freedom to choose the procedures to use, and to decide how
to record, analyse and report the data collected” (Millar, 2010, p. 2). This conceptualisation of science experiments
advances the idea of open-endedness. In the context of the current study the experiments done by Advanced
Level students are not necessarily open-ended, the problem questions are provided by the science teachers (during
syllabi coverage) and the examiners in final examinations. This is apparently a compromise to achieve a uniform
assessment of practical skills especially for the Cambridge examinations which are administered to students in
many countries across the world. In contrast, the Dutch curriculum has shifted towards industry-inspired design
practices with a view to promoting meaningful learning (Stammes et al., 2020).
Doing science experiments is believed to enable students to actively construct knowledge (Škoda et al., 2015),
develop scientific reasoning, and science process skills while practically experiencing how scientists work to gener-
ate scientific knowledge (Abrahams & Millar, 2008; George-Williams et al., 2020; Kanari & Millar, 2004; Toplis & Allen,
2012). Minds-on activities such as science experiments are also essential for internalising procedures paramount
for solving contemporary problematic situations occasioned by disease, hunger, environmental pollution and an
exponential increase in the world population leading to knowledge generation (Bernard et al., 2019; Hammer &
Manz, 2019). The emphasis on science experiments at high school level is also informed by the global advocacy
on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education given the universal nature of (science)
process skills.
Millar (1989) described doing science as a craft and advised against a singular algorithmic scientific method by
suggesting that science experiments involve “the exercise of skill in deciding what to observe and selecting which
observations to pay attention to in interpreting and drawing inference, in drawing conclusions from experimental
data, even in replicating experiments” (p. 168). Regrettably, students often misconstrue science experiments as
activities characterised by a singular scientific method with a rigid experimental procedure (Moeed, 2013). This
misplaced focus on algorithms often leads to a superficial understanding of scientific reasoning and practice
(Windschitl et al., 2007). In this regard, Tang et al. (2010) argued for a change in the enactment of science experi-
ments in order to shift from obligatory ineffectual learning to productive cognitive engagement.
A Framework for Students’ Approaches to Science Experiments
Students’ approaches to science experiments are encapsulated in how they use substantive and procedural
knowledge to plan and conduct their own experimental procedures, process, analyse and interpret data. Arguably
the most elaborate approach to science experiments is derived from the problem solving chain (Woolnough & Allsop,
1985) which Roberts et al. (2010) called the iterative approach to science experiments. Linear and divergent complete
the triad of approaches which can be adopted by students as they cognitively engage with science experiments.
The iterative approach can be consolidated into five phases: designing and planning; performance and data
recording; data processing and interpretation; reflection and reporting. The first phase of designing and planning
starts once the students are presented with a problem. The students start with problem perception and refor-
mulation. According to Woolnough and Allsop (1985), “the students analyse the factors relevant to the question,
assemble the appropriate information; create or consider various ways of attacking the problem, select the best
option and then plan the science investigation” (p. 51). The methodological implication of highlighting problem
perception and reformulation is that there is emphasis on problem sense-making which discourages students from
524
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ UPPER-SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ APPROACHES TO SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS IN AN
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 523-535)
diving headlong into writing the experimental steps without a good understanding of what is required of them.
Problem perception and reformulation is therefore the beginning of the planning part of this phase. Planning may
also involve formulating a hypothesis especially when the science investigation falls under quantitative analysis.
Once the students identify a feasible way of doing the science investigation, they then proceed to outline a series
of steps that consist of the experimental procedure to be used. The designing part of this phase involves a descrip-
tion and often a diagrammatic representation of the set-up of the apparatus to be used.
The second phase of performance and data recording phase involves executing the proposed experimental
procedure. The students will set the apparatus and corresponding experimental conditions to collect the relevant
data. During this stage, they will make the necessary measurements and/or observations and capture this data
in an appropriate manner such as tables. Coupling performance with data recording ensures that students are
reminded of the need to write down the relevant data from measurements and/or observations as they occur.
Such data were often captured in tables with appropriate headings.
During the third phase of data processing and interpretation, students often transform the collected data to
determine derived values in quantitative analysis. For example, in a science investigation to determine the rate
of a chemical reaction, concentration and time measurements will be transformed to give the rate of reaction at
various stages of the reaction. Numerical data can also be used to construct graphs from which extrapolations or
interpolations can be done. This is followed by data sense making and providing an answer to the initial problem.
In qualitative analysis students use their observations to make deductions based on known characteristics of the
various inorganic ions and organic functional groups.
The fourth phase of reflection is when students do an evaluation of their results. Students should auto-assess
and make judgements on whether their results make sense or not in relation to the original problem. If the results
deviate from their expectations, then they (students) can go back to reformulate, redesign or improve their tech-
niques and collect new data with the aim of obtaining better results. In essence, reflection should not be enacted
as a time specific process done after data processing. Reflection on practice defines iteration during a science inves-
tigation. Hence, the phases in the iterative approach are not done one after another in a linear and unidirectional
process. Most of them are done concurrently with continuous modification of the proposed plan (Hodson, 2009).
The fifth and final phase of reporting is done, in most cases, when the students feel they have the sufficient
results and correct interpretation. In typical science experiments, apart from the results, reporting includes the
experimental design and if necessary, details of why the experimental design did not work. Reporting should ide-
ally reflect that doing a science investigation is a messy process which does not always lead to success although
valuable lessons are always learned.
When students use a linear approach, stages are done sequentially. The first stage is the same as in the iterative
approach, which is problem perception and reformulation. Differences with the iterative approach are noticeable
from the planning stage onwards. Students will come up with one experimental design (plan) and then see it
through without necessarily minding about its appropriateness (Roberts et al., 2010). This might be because of us-
ing a procedure used before in a similar science investigation or as a direct consequence of limited autonomy. The
Science teachers might suggest the best experimental procedure to use and out of trust, the students do not see
it necessary to consider alternative ways of doing the science investigation. The students don’t always appreciate
the need to constantly review their plan, experimental design or techniques in order to do any necessary changes
leading to better results. The same can be said of the data processing and interpretation stages. Students tend to
use predetermined ways of transforming the data and do not always give the interpretations that match the results.
Generally, there is limited reflective practice and learning from the data generated. Consequently, the success rate
of students associated with a linear approach is lower than that of their counterparts using the iterative approach.
An emphasis on neatness by the teachers can also lead to this approach. Students will prioritise pleasing their
teachers at the expense of reflecting the messiness of doing science experiments.
A divergent approach is when students find it extremely challenging to come up with a plausible experimental
procedure (Roberts et al., 2010). Students get stuck from the beginning, in problem perception and reformulation.
A limited conceptual understanding and failure to link theory with practical work might explain this. Students then
fail to come up with a workable experimental procedure, make wrong choices of materials and fail to understand
the basis of data collection. If students manage to collect some data, the processing is often flawed, leading to
incorrect conclusions. Students who use a divergent approach are generally devoid of reflective practice. They never
revisit their experimental designs which would potentially lead to improvements. Consequently, these students
are unlikely to succeed when doing science experiments.
525
(pp. 523-535) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The current research focused on determining upper-secondary school students’ approaches to science experi-
ments as well as giving perspective to the adoption of observed approaches. The key research questions were:
1. How do upper-secondary school students approach science experiments?
2. Why do upper-secondary school students approach science experiments the way they do?
Research Methodology
General Background
This research adopted a pragmatic paradigm and mixed-methods approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Ted-
dlie & Tashakori, 2009) to quantitatively explore the students’ approaches and use qualitative data to explain why
students used specific approaches. A mixed-methods allowed the researcher to make use of appropriate methods
aligned with either quantitative or qualitative approaches (Creswell, 2017). An explanatory design (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018) was employed where quantitative data were generated and analysed before interviewing selected
students to obtain qualitative data. The qualitative data were meant to give meaning to the quantitative data. The
data were generated during the participants’ final upper-secondary school year, a week after the mid-year exami-
nations. This was three months before the commencement of the final Advanced Level public examinations. The
mid-year examinations serve as a dry run for the final examinations so, the assumption was that the students were
at their optimum performance levels and their approaches were well defined.
Participants
The participants were 211 upper-secondary school science students from eight conveniently sampled
Zimbabwean schools. Challenges with accessing schools offering science subjects at Advanced Level meant this
was the best number of participants. There is no consensus in literature on the minimum sample size for factor
analysis with figures ranging from 30 to 300 (Cohen et al., 2018) but 100 is general acceptable (MacCallum et al.,
1999). Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) considered 211 as a fairly good sample size. Five of the schools were enact-
ing the MoPSE curriculum examined by ZIMSEC while the remaining three were enacting the CIE curriculum. The
MoPSE curriculum is largely similar to CIE due to the historical ties between Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom.
The localisation of high school examinations was only completed in 2002 but retaining the major components of
the CIE curriculum. The students’ ages ranged from 17 to19 years. Apart from the theory lessons, each school had
one dedicated two hour practical sessions for each science subject. All the participants did at least two science
subjects and Mathematics (Table 1). Given the varying subject combinations, the findings of the current study
must be read with the understanding that even students from the same school did not necessarily have the same
experiences of doing science experiments.
Table 1
Distribution of students by subject combination
Subject combination Number of students
Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics 79

Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics 83
Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics 39
Total 211
All the students consented to completing the ASEQ and participated in one-on-one interviews. Pseudonyms
were used in reporting the data to protect the identity of the students. In addition, there was only a maximum of
five girls doing science subjects in each school so, no demographic data relating to gender was collected as this
would have compromised the identity of the female students. Furthermore, there was no intention to explore
gender differences with respect to the students’ approaches to science experiments.
526
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 523-535)
Instrument and Procedures
A 15-item Approaches to Experiments Questionnaire (ASEQ) was used to determine the students’ approaches.
The ASEQ was designed for the purposes of the current research based on the theoretical framework. Students
self-reported on each item based on a Likert scale ranging from always to never (always = 5; often = 4; sometimes
= 3; seldom = 2; never = 1).
The validation of the ASEQ was done by establishing its factor structure through exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) and the clarity of the items through participants’ feedback. A pilot sample of 34 students (greater than the
minimum of 30 from literature) from one school was used. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure was greater
than .6 and the Bartlett test was statistically significant (p < .05) (Table 2) hence a principal component analysis
was performed (Cohen et al., 2018).
Table 2
KMO and Bartlett’s test output statistics
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .895
Bartlett‘s Test of Sphericity χ 2

150.112
df 21
p <.001
An oblique direct oblimin rotation was performed because the factor correlation matrix had a correlation of
.379 which exceeded the Tabachnick and Fiddell threshold of .32 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Three factors had
Eigen values greater than the recommended cut-off of one (Cohen et al., 2018) and the total variance explained was
80.1%. The factors were named iterative, linear and divergent based on the theoretical framework. Their respective
overall Cronbach alpha coefficients were .871; .868 and 0.814 indicating a high reliability in assessing students’
approaches to experiments. The mean correlation coefficient between factors was .38 thus indicating convergent
and discriminant validity. There were no issues about the clarity of the items so, no modifications were made to
the original questionnaire draft.
Face-to-face open-ended interviews (McMillan & Schumacher, 2014; Yin, 2016) were conducted to probe
selected students with the aim of getting insight into their adoption of specific approaches. Open-ended ques-
tions allowed the students to express themselves in their own words and engage in reflexivity. The interviewees
were asked to describe how they went about planning and carrying out science experiments and why they made
specific choices. The interviews were audio recorded with the permission of the participants. The audio transcripts
were subjected to member checking for respondent validation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).
Data Analysis
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to ascertain the factor structure of the ASEQ with a larger
sample and determine if any factors were to be extracted. EFA with a oblique direct oblimin rotation was performed
with the orthogonal factors as iterative, linear and divergent. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed
to check for construct, convergent, and discriminant validity and to ascertain the structure given that the factors
were derived from a theoretical framework (Cohen et al., 2018).
The mean agreement scores were used to determine the approach for each student. Each student’s mean
agreement scores by approach were computed and the highest score was used to determine a particular student’s
approach to science experiments.
The qualitative data from the face-to-face open-ended interviews were subjected to inductive analysis (Mc-
Millan & Schumacher, 2014). Two critical friends, who were colleagues in science education, assisted with check-
ing the accuracy of the coding and interpretation of the data. The emergent patterns lead to themes from which
subcategories of the three approaches to science experiments were conceptualised.
527
(pp. 523-535) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Research Results
Quantitative Results
The factor structure of the ASEQ was established through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin (KMO) measure was greater than .6 and the Bartlett test was statistically significant (p < .05) (see Table 3)
hence principal component analysis was performed (Cohen et al., 2018).
Table 3
KMO and Bartlett’s test output statistics
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .937
Bartlett‘s Test of Sphericity χ 2

2763.820
df 105
p <.001
An oblique direct oblimin rotation was performed because the factor correlation matrix had a correlation of
.354 which exceeded the Tabachnick and Fiddell threshold of .32 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). All the three factors
had a factor loading greater than .50 and none had cross-loadings (Table 4) hence, they were all retained (Cohen
et al., 2018). The Eigen values were all greater than one and the total variance explained was 78.5%. The respective
overall Cronbach alpha coefficients were .929; .928 and 0.814 indicating a high reliability in assessing students’
approaches to experiments. A mean correlation coefficient between factors of .35 indicated convergent and dis-
criminant validity. The factor mean scores showed that the students scored high on both linear (M = 3.46, SD =
1.34) and iterative (M = 3.09; SD = 1.36) but low on the factor divergent (M = 2.02 SD = 1.04). Consequently, it can
be deduced that linear or iterative approaches to science experiments were more frequently used.
Table 4
Rotated factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha values, means and standard deviations for the four factors of the ASEQ
Factor 1: Iterative Factor 2: Linear Factor 3: Divergent
Factor 1: Iterative (∝ = .929, mean = 3.09, SD = 1.36)

ASEQ1 .823
ASEQ4 .815
ASEQ7 .813
ASEQ10 .815
ASEQ13 .862
Factor 2: Linear (∝ = .928 mean = 3.46, SD = 1.34)
ASEQ2 .848
ASEQ5 .819
ASEQ8 .829
ASEQ9 .825
ASEQ14 .867
Factor 3 – Divergent: (∝ = .814, mean = 2.02 SD = 1.04)
ASEQ3 .786
ASEQ6 .731
ASEQ9 .723
ASEQ12 .763
ASEQ15 .734
*Total variance explained: 74.2%.
528
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 523-535)
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) further confirmed the structure of the ASEQ. The hypothesis was: Students’
approaches to science experiments have a three-factor structure. Three tests for the goodness of fit were considered:
the Chi-squared test, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
(Kline, 2015). The ASEQ Chi-square per degree of freedom was 120.748 (df = 87; p = .010) indicating a poor fit given
that p < .05. However, pragmatic indicators of goodness of fit showed that the model was a good fit (see Table 5).
The RMSEA, which is regarded as a very informative criterion in covariance structure modelling (Byrne, 2016),
was less than .05 indicating a good fit. Because of the achieved Chi-squared value, other fit indices were used to
evaluate the goodness of fit of the three-factor structure together with the CFI. The three-factor was a superior fit
based on the CFI, Normed Fit Index (NFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (Tulis et al., 2016) which
were all greater than .950. The model-fit was marginally adequate based on the Relative Fit Index (RFI) whose value
was less than .950. The sample (211) for this study just exceeds the minimum requirement. Based on the RMSEA
and CFI values it can be concluded that the ASEQ had sufficient fit with convergent, construct, and discriminant
validity (Cohen et al., 2018).
Table 5
Selected goodness-of-fit statistics for the hypothesized three-factor CFA model
NFI RFI IFI TLI

Model CFI
Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2
Default model .958 .949 .988 .985 .988

Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000
Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
RMSEA
Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model .043 .022 .060 .728
Independence model .352 .341 .364 .000
As shown in Figure 1, all the factor loadings were relatively high (> .80), and statistically significant (Cohen et
al., 2018). It can therefore be concluded that all the observed variables (ASEQ items) were strongly correlated to
the ascribed latent variables (approaches to science experiments).
529
(pp. 523-535) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Figure 1
Standardised estimates for the three-factor model of approaches to science experiments.
The mean scores for each student were computed to determine the prominent approach for each one of
them. The highest mean score was used to determine each student’s prominent approach and at least 50% of the
participants were categorised under the linear. Table 6 shows examples of how individual students’ approaches
to science experiments were determined.
Table 6
Individual students’ prominent approaches
Mean score
Frequency
Participant Prominent approach
(n = 211)
Iterative Linear Divergent
Student 1 4.32* 3.51 1.54 Iterative 79

Student 71 3.25 4.53* 2.12 Linear 106
Student 135 2.46 2.55 4.01* Divergent 36
*Highest mean score
After profiling each student, interview participants were selected based on their prominent approaches.
Interviews were conducted until data saturation occurred. A total of 33 students were interviewed: iterative - 11;
linear - 16; divergent - 6.
530
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 523-535)
Qualitative Results
Significant insights emerged from the systematic analysis of the interview data. The students who fell under
the iterative approach gave detailed descriptions of how they went about planning and carrying out their science
experiments. They comprehensively outlined how they dealt with any challenges they encountered while doing
the science experiments which often involved retracing their steps in the experimental design to identify any er-
rors and redoing the science investigation until they were satisfied with their data. One student’s response was a
typical example of those that were categorised under the iterative approach:
I prepare for all practical sessions thoroughly by studying all the theory we do in each topic. I also spend time practis-
ing doing the calculations and drawing graphs, for example the rate of reactions, the order of reaction and enthalpy
changes. It helps when you know the calculations because you can tell from the investigation problem what data
you will need to generate and how you process it. You can also tell if your own data are sensible or not and make
decisions to either process it, redo the experiments, or go ahead and explain the anomalies. It also helps to repeat
the experiments because it improves your accuracy…… After doing the calculations I always check to see whether
the results conform to the theory I know. If not, I repeat and collect new data. If the results are similar, then I have to
find a way of explaining them. (ST51)
Five students indicated that they often asked for help from their science teacher or the laboratory technician
when they were convinced that they were not doing the science investigation the right way. One of them had
this to say:
Sometimes I ask for pointers from the teacher or lab technician when I feel I am really stuck and cannot help myself.
I do it as a last resort during our regular practical session because I know I will not be able to ask them during the
final examinations. For example, if I am in doubt, I ask the teacher to check if my data is sensible. If not, I modify my
experimental design and do the investigation all over again. (ST116)
A total of 106 students fell under the linear approach to science experiments and 16 of them were interviewed.
These students came up with only one way of doing a science investigation based on what they could remember
from practical work done before and what their science teacher said in previous post practical discussions. The
quotes below illustrate this:
When it comes to experiments, I often come up with a plan which I carry out to completion. I do my best with the
knowledge that I have for a specific topic related to the investigation. Once I get the results, I interpret them based
on the theory we learn in class. It’s not always easy for me to link the experiments to theory. Sometimes the results
don’t match the theory, so I just leave them like that. (ST7)
Teaching strategies also seemed to promote a linear approach. When the Science teachers gave feedback on
the experiments, they often outlined one way of doing it. One of the interviewed students said:
I am always pressed for time when we do science experiments. When I process my data, sometimes I realise it doesn’t
make sense but because of limited time I can’t repeat the investigation. When we get feedback from our teacher after
each practical session, he gives us a model answer on the experimental design. This is helpful because we learn the
correct way of setting up the experiment, collecting the required data, and processing it. (ST89)
Thirty-six students were classified under the divergent approach. Substantive and procedural knowledge
deficiencies meant students falling under this approach did not attempt investigative questions, could not design
a feasible experimental procedure, or could not generate sensible data. They did not know what data to collect
and how to process it. One of the students said:
I am very weak in science experiments. For example, in our last practical session, I did not know how to determine the
order of reaction so, I could not come up with a feasible experimental procedure. I did not know what data to collect
and how to set up the experiment. I just wrote something. (ST37)
531
(pp. 523-535) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
During end of term examinations, four of the interviewed students with a divergent approach indicated that
they did not attempt science investigation questions at all. They just focused on the sections which came with an
experimental procedure like ST201 who said, “Science experiments are very challenging for me especially under
examination conditions. I just focus on the sections where the experimental procedure is provided. I can’t waste
time on experiments when I know can’t do much”.
Discussion
The results of both EFA and CFA confirm the existence of a three-factor structure leading to three definite ap-
proaches to science experiments: iterative, linear and divergent. The prominence of the linear approach is unexpected
given the amount of time dedicated to practical work and science experiments in particular in the upper-secondary
school science curriculum. The ideal outcome would have been the results skewed towards the iterative approach
given that the data was collected at a time when the students were apparently at optimum performance level
regarding science experiments. The relatively low frequency of the divergent approach tallies with expectations as
students at this level should have a good grasp of the scientific method after doing several science experiments in
at least two of Biology, Chemistry, and Physics.
More than half of the participants (106 of 211) used the linear approach when planning and carrying out science
experiments. The use of the linear approach was in part a result of limited substantive and procedural knowledge.
Students lacked the requisite conceptual understanding and competence in science process skills and reflexivity.
Consequently, students consciously mastered one way of doing things as a practice which inherently hindered itera-
tion especially in the planning stage of a science investigation. This leads to a rigid linear approach where students
come up with one experimental procedure and stick with it no matter what their results look like. This arises out of
weaknesses in scientific reasoning hindering conceptual understanding (Kisiel et al., 2012), and incompetence in
one or more process skills (Kanari & Millar, 2004). Erlina et al. (2018) attribute this to ineffective teaching strategies
which deviate from the philosophy of science experiments. The science teachers were reported to be focusing on
ideal procedures and data during revision while disregarding the learning derived from other data sets. This focus
on conformity with canonical science emerges as a hindrance to developing a nuanced view and practice of science
experiments as it leads to predetermined interpretation of results and less productive approaches.
Of the 16 students interviewed under the linear approach, 10 alluded to time constraints as a significant factor
in their decision to stick to a planned experimental procedure and the absence of reflection and iteration during
science experiments. Given that they were able to identify weaknesses in their experimental procedures but were
restricted by time, their approach can be described as a contrived linear approach. Perhaps time restrictions are in-
advertently creating a less desirable enactment of the scientific method and understanding of how scientists work.
The less than 50% (79 of 211) under the iterative approach corroborate findings by scholars who established
that only a few students were associated with the iterative approach (Hackling & Garnett, 1995; Hammann et al.,
2008; Watson, 1994). Those who used the iterative approach had sound substantive and procedural knowledge as
well as the ability to reflect on own work and correct any weaknesses identified. These students had a developed
sense of the scientific method driven by their desire to achieve good grades. When students worked independently
in planning and carrying out science experiments, a self-directed iterative approach is manifested. Four of the students
interviewed under the iterative approach sought assistance from their teacher or laboratory technician when they
got stuck. Improving experimental procedures and/or data based on external input can be described as an assisted
iterative approach.
The students (36 of 173) who adopted a divergent approach apparently had weak substantive and proce-
dural knowledge. Therefore, they used a scattergun divergent approach leading to experimental designs which
were generally not feasible. Some students did not attempt science investigation questions during examinations
because they did not know what to do. This can be described as a blanking divergent approach. In earlier studies,
Hackling and Garnett (1995) and Watson (1994) also asserted that a divergent approach led to poor results and
performances. Erlina et al. (2018) recommended inquiry-based teaching as a panacea to low scientific reasoning
evident in a scattergun approach. This encompasses teaching students the various stages of a science investiga-
tion and alerting students to the fact that significant learning can be derived from errors (Metcalfe, 2017). Dealing
with students’ errors also helps in fostering self-regulatory learning and reflexivity (Tulis et al., 2016), important
traits in the practice of science.
While, the quantitative data lead to the collective and individual profiling of upper-secondary school students’
532
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 523-535)
approaches to science experiments, the qualitative findings extended the theoretical conceptualisation by establish-
ing two subcategories in each approach to science experiments.
Conclusions
The focus of the current study leads to the administration of a purposefully designed ASEQ whose three-factor
structure was validated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Many countries around the world
assess high school students on their ability to plan and carry out experiments. Assuming that approaches to sci-
ence experiments are culture specific, administering the ASEQ in other countries would provide deeper insights
into the phenomenon.
Qualitative data supported the existence of iterative, linear and divergent approaches to experiments as well
as subcategories as influenced by contextual factors and personal student attributes. The prominence of the linear
approach and the existence of the divergent approach deduced from the means of the ratings, the distribution of
the participants by approach, and the qualitative data suggests weaknesses in the enactment of science experi-
ments inadvertently induced by the nature of the assessment and partly by the teaching strategies. A few options
can be used to improve the situation. First, a shift from short-term to long-term science experiments would possibly
remove time constraints and give students ample opportunities to attempt the work and move towards iteration.
The long term science experiments could be assigned as group work to encourage cooperation, brainstorming
and reflection between students reminiscent of how scientists work. Inevitably, this should be balanced with
the challenges of integrating assessment and science experiments. In addition, the influence of assessment on
approaches to science experiments merits further research. Second, adding a design element framed in industry-
contextualised long-term science projects might also improve students’ motivation and cognitive engagement
thereby promoting the iterative approach. Third, science teachers could systematically employ teaching strategies
which develop the iterative approach. A longitudinal study may be useful in tracking how students’ approaches
evolve during an entire course of study such as the two-year Advanced Level programme. Observing high school
students doing science experiments and analysing students’ write-ups might also yield more insight into their
approaches and offset the pitfalls of self-reporting.
References
Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teach-
ing and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0950069071749305
Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035 –1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21036
Bernard, P., Dudek-Różycki, K., & Orwat, K. (2019). Integration of inquiry-based instruction with formative assessment: The case of
experienced chemistry teachers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(2), 184-196. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.184
Biggs, J. B. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong: Some comparative studies. Educa-
tional Research Journal, 6, 27-39.
Byrne, B. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3 ed.). Routledge.
Cambridge International Examinations. (2016). Syllabus: Cambridge International AS & A Level Chemistry 9701. https://pastpapers.
co/cie/view.php?id=/cie/A-Level/Chemistry-9701/Syllabus%20&%20Specimen/9701_y19-21_sy.pdf
Cano, F. (2007). Approaches to learning and study orchestrations in high school students. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 22(2), 131-151.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(2), 101-138.
Chiou, G. L., Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). High school students’ approaches to learning physics with relationship to epistemic
views on physics and conceptions of learning physics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(1), 1-15.
Chirikure, T., Hobden, P. A., & Hobden, S. (2018). Exploring Zimbabwean advanced level chemistry students’ approaches to inves-
tigations from a learning perspective. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(1),
60-69. https://doi.org/10.1080117295.2018.1426239
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8 ed.). Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (5 ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative & mixed methods approaches. Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5 ed.). Sage Publications.
Erlina, N., Susantini, E., Wasis, W., & Pandiangan, P. (2018). The effectiveness of evidence-based reasoning in inquiry-based physics
teaching to increase students’ scientific reasoning. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(6), 972. https://doi.org/10.33225/
jbse/18.17.972
533
(pp. 523-535) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
George-Williams, S. R., Ziebell, A. L., Thompson, C. D., & Overton, T. L. (2020). Inquiry-, problem-, context- and industry- based
laboratories: An investigation into the impact of large-scale, longitudinal redevelopment on student perceptions of teach-
ing laboratories. International Journal of Science Education, 42(3), 451-468. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1714788
Hackling, M. W., & Garnett, P. J. (1995). The development of expertise in science investigation skills. Australian Science Teachers
Journal, 41(4), 80-86.
Hammann, M., Phan, T. T. H., Ehmer, M., & Grimm, T. (2008). Assessing pupils’ skills in experimentation. Journal of Biological Educa-
tion, 42(2), 66-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2008.9656113
Hammer, D., & Manz, E. (2019). Odd ideas about learning science: A response to Osborne. Science Education, 103(5), 1289–1293.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21538
Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Sense.
Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 748-769. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20020
Kisiel, J., Rowe, S., Vartabedian, M. A., & Kopczak, C. (2012). Evidence for family engagement in scientific reasoning at interactive
animal exhibits. Science Education, 96(6), 1047-1070. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21036
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4 ed.). Guilford Press.
Lubben, F., Campbell, B., Buffler, A., & Allie, S. (2001). Point and set reasoning in practical science measurement by entering uni-
versity freshmen. Science Education, 85, 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1012
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. J. Hounsell, & N. J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning:
Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2 ed., pp. 39-58). Scottish Academic Press.
McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7 ed.). Pearson.
Metcalfe, J. (2017). Learning from errors. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 465-489. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
psych-010416-044022
Millar, R. (1989). What is scientific method and can it be taught? In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Skills and processes in science education: A
critical analysis (pp. 165-178). Routledge.
Millar, R. (2010). Practical work. In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (2 ed.).
Open University Press.
Minbashian, A., Huon, G. F., & Bird, K. D. (2004). Approaches to studying and academic performance in short-essay exams. Higher
Education, 47(2), 161-176.
Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education. (2015). Chemistry Syllabus Forms 5-6: 2015 - 2022 Zimbabwe School Examinations
Council. https://www.zimsec.co.zw/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Chemistry.pdf
Moeed, A. (2013). Science investigations that best supports student learning: Teachers’ understanding of science investigation.
International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 8, 537-559. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2013.218a
Roberts, R. (2009). Can teaching about evidence encourage a creative approach in open-ended investigations? School Science
Review, 90(332), 31-38.
Roberts, R., Gott, R., & Glaesser, J. (2010). Students’ approaches to open-ended science investigation: The importance of substantive
and procedural understanding. Research Papers in Education, 25(4), 377-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520902980680
Schalk, H. H., van der Schee, J. A., & Boersma, K. T. (2013). The development of understanding of evidence in pre-university biology
education in the Netherlands. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 551-578.
Škoda, J., Doulík, P., Bílek, M., & Šimonová, I. (2015). The effectiveness of inquiry-based science education in relation to the learners´
motivation type. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(6), 791-803.
Stammes, H., Henze, I., Barendsen, E., & de Vries, M. (2020). Bringing design practices to chemistry classrooms: Studying teachers’
pedagogical ideas in the context of a professional learning community. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4),
526-546. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1717015
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5 ed.). Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Tang, X., Coffey, J. E., Elby, A., & Levin, D. M. (2010). The scientific method and scientific inquiry: Tensions in teaching and learning.
Science Education, 94(1), 29-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20366
Teddlie, C., & Tashakori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the
social and behavioral sciences. Sage Publications
Toplis, R., & Allen, M. (2012). ‘I do and I understand?’ Practical work and laboratory use in United Kingdom schools. Eurasia Journal
of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(1), 3-9.
Tsai, C.-C. (2004). Conceptions of learning science among high school students in Taiwan: A phenomenographic analysis. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 26(1733-1750). https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000230776
Tulis, M., Steuer, G., & Dresel, M. (2016). Learning from errors: A model of individual processes. Frontline Learning Research, 4(2),
12-26. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v4i2.168
Watson, J. R. (1994). Pupils’ engagement in practical problem solving: A case study. International Journal of Science Education,
16(1), 27-43.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2007). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of
preference for school science. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259
Woolnough, B. E., & Allsop, T. (1985). Practical work in science. Cambridge University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2 ed.). The Guilford Press.
534
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 523-535)
Appendix A
Thank you for agreeing to complete this questionnaire.

The questionnaire is about how you plan and conduct science experiments in the Advanced Level science
subjects you do (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics). Please respond to each item as honestly as possible based on
your knowledge of how work when doing science experiments. The questionnaire should take you about 10
minutes to complete.
* Indicate your response to each item by writing “✗” in the appropriate box.
No. Item Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
ASEQ 1 When planning a science investigation, I consider many options before

settling on the most viable procedure.
ASEQ 2 When asked to plan a science investigation, I come up with only one
experimental procedure.
ASEQ 3 In a science practical examination, I do not attempt an investigation ques-
tion
ASEQ 4 When planning and carrying out a science investigation, I reflect on what I
am doing and make changes where necessary.
ASEQ 5 I carry out a science investigation to completion even when I am not sure
of the feasibility of my plan.
ASEQ 6 I fail to design a feasible experiment when asked to do an investigation in
science.
ASEQ 7 After collecting experimental data for a science investigation, I check to
see if it makes sense before processing it.
ASEQ 8 I fail to identify weaknesses in my plan when I do science experiments.
ASEQ 9 I leave important steps when I design an experiment for an investigation
in science.
ASEQ 10 When I process experimental data for a science investigation, I identify
and discard outliers.
ASEQ 11 I do not know how to correct weaknesses in my plan of a science investi-
gation even if I identify them.
ASEQ 12 When doing experiments in science, I fail to collect the required data.
ASEQ 13 If the results a science investigation do not make sense, I revise my
procedure and re-do the experiment(s).
ASEQ 14 During an examination, I do not find time to re-do a science investigation
even when I know the results do not make sense.
ASEQ 15 When I plan experiments in science, I fail to figure out how the data will be
processed.
Notes for scoring:
Never = 1; Seldom = 2; Sometimes = 3; Often = 4; Always = 5
Iterative approach: items 1; 4; 7; 10; 13. Linear approach: items 2; 5; 11; 14. Divergent approach: items 3; 6; 9; 12; 15
Received: May 04, 2020 Accepted: August 05, 2020
Cite as: Chirikure, T. (2020). Upper-secondary school students’ approaches to science experiments in an examination driven
curriculum context. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4), 523-535. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.523
Tamirirofa Chirikure PhD Science Education, Lecturer, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag
X3, Ashley 3605, Pinetwon, South Africa.
E-mail: chirikure@ukzn.ac.za
Website:http://www.ukzn.ac.za
535
THE INFLUENCE OF
INTERACTION WITH NATURE IN
CHILDHOOD ON FUTURE PRO-
ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
Abstract. Pro-environmental behavior is a Šárka Doležalová Křepelková,

key to environmental sustainability. It is im- Jan Krajhanzl,
portant to know which variables influence
Roman Kroufek
the development of pro-environmental
behavior and how important direct interac-
tion with nature is for future environmental
engagement. The aim of the research
Introduction
was to examine the correlation between
childhood interaction with nature and pro- The public is increasingly aware of today’s environmental problems and
environmental behavior as an adult and the ecological consequences of human activities. In order to address these
the mediators influencing this correlation. problems, we must try to better understand human behavior and to examine
The respondents (N = 370) were selected actions in support of ecological sustainability, and other pro-environmental
by the snowball method and completed an behavior (Schultz & Kaiser, 2012). It is necessary to gain more insights into
on-line questionnaire. Bivariate correlation how individuals become nature conservationists or at least what makes them
and parallel mediation analysis were done. interested in nature and take good care of it. It is very important to explore
Previous research studies focused mainly what types of experiences lead people to pro-environmental behavior. Sev-
on one type of influence, and this research eral research studies of adult pro-environmental behavior have been done
brought a comparison of three mediators. (Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Gifford & Nilsson, 2014) and several models of the
The results confirmed that interaction with causes of pro-environmental behavior have been proposed (Ajzen, 1985;
nature in childhood affects future pro-en- 1991; Hines et al., 1987; Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Schwartz, 1977; Stern et
vironmental behavior. The main mediator al., 1999) in an attempt to clarify why people do what they do and what facts
seems to be the affective mediator. The cog- and instruments can support best practice. People are affected by a series
nitive mediator and interaction with nature of influences over time; their behavior evolves continually, and influences
in adulthood had only a small mediation in childhood can be essential for their future pro-environmental behavior.
effect. Children’s emotional bonding with
One of the possible factors of influence seems to be interaction with
nature. The idea that experiences acquired in childhood can have a funda-
nature is the important element for the de-
mental effect on children’s behavior and can last into adulthood has been
velopment of pro-environmental behavior.
often discussed in environmental education as well as in other fields (Cheng
This appears to be a more effective way of
& Monroe, 2012; Lamanauskas & Vilkonis, 2005; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Mül-
ensuring stronger pro-environmental be-
ler et al., 2009; Wells & Lekies, 2006). Can one’s childhood interaction with
havior in the future than building environ-
nature direct one’s behavior to act respectfully and responsibly toward the
mental knowledge or relying on sufficient
environment? What are the key moments that cause this pro-environmental
interaction with nature in adulthood. direction?
Keywords: affective mediator, interaction Although people are part of nature, we usually think of nature as an en-
with nature, mediation analysis, pro-envi- vironment without an obvious human impact, an environment that includes
ronmental behavior. all the biomes and landscapes, all the living and non-living elements like
water, stones, etc. Clayton and Opotow (2003) have used the term nature or
Šárka Doležalová Křepelková, natural environment for an environment where there is a minimal or not an
Jan Krajhanzl obvious human impact on the living creatures of that environment (trees and
Masaryk University, Czech Republic animals) and also on the non-living parts of nature (like seashores). Further,
Roman Kroufek
Jan Evangelista Purkyně University, the term natural environment has been broadly defined to “include any kind
Czech Republic of environment, place or setting where vegetation and other natural elements
(such as water) are dominantly present” (Steg et al., 2012, p. 50).
536
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ THE INFLUENCE OF INTERACTION WITH NATURE IN CHILDHOOD ON FUTURE PRO-
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 536-550)
Nature as it is used in the present research refers to the first meaning of Castree´s concept of external nature
– “the non-human world, especially those parts barely affected by humans” (Castree, 2013, p. 9-10). Castree also
pointed out the social context, that nature “is not really “over there”, it is just that we think it is” (p. 12). It is possible
to differentiate degrees of naturalness and thus distinguish an “antropogenic” nature from a variously “untouched”
nature, bearing in mind that the border line is not obvious and that it is influenced by human socio-cultural percep-
tion. In this way the research included experiences taking place not just in “untouched” but also in semi-natural
environments. A child who is in interaction with nature is experiencing a direct physical interaction with nature or
with one of its parts. The child can play freely in a backyard, a nearby forest, a meadow, near a river, in a park. As
Kellert wrote, even if these places have been influenced by human activity, the important characteristic is that they
contain areas and creatures independent of human intervention and control (Kellert, 2002, p.118-119).
Many research studies have explored the connection between children and nature, trying to identify the mo-
ments when the transformative life experiences that then influence one’s behavior in one’s future adult life take
place. These research studies usually differ in their methodology, research questions and operationalization, and
research sample, as well as in their research approach in general. The purpose and the main contribution of the
review of the existing research that follows is to sort these various research studies into a comprehensive overview
of the correlation between interaction with nature in childhood and pro-environmental behavior in adulthood.
Significant Life Experiences
Early research studies based on Significant Life Experiences (SLE) retrospectively explored whether children
who have had important experiences with nature tend to acquire environmental concern and take environmental
action (Corcoran, 1999; Furihata et al., 2007; Hsu, 2009; Palmer et al., 1998a; 1998b, 1999; Sivek, 2002; Sward, 1999;
Taner, 1980; Wells & Lekies, 2006). These were mostly qualitative research studies and they focused on environmental
educators or conservationists. Based on the respondents’ memories, the time spent outdoors in childhood (alone
or with parents, teachers or other adults) was reported as a significant influence for individuals (Corcoran, 1999;
Chawla, 1999; Furihata et al., 2007; Hsu, 2009; Palmer et al., 1998a; 1998b, 1999; Sivek, 2002; Sward, 1999; Taner,
1980). The other important significant experiences included being a witness to the destruction of a nearby natural
habitat and being influenced by the media and books (Corcoran, 1999; Chawla, 1999; Ewert et al., 2005; Furihata
et al., 2007; Palmer et al., 1999; Sivek, 2002; Sward, 1999).
A lot of critical comments have been brought up about the methodology of the SLE approach (Dillon et
al., 1999; Gough, A., 1999; Gough, N., 1999; Gough, S., 1999; Payne, 1999), but these research studies represent
an important line of the research on the effect of one’s connection with nature. On the one hand, the research
studies have shown that childhood experiences with nature may affect adult pro-environmental behavior. On the
other hand, the focus on individuals’ personal reminiscences has limited the potential for the generalization of the
findings, even when the respondents were engaged in environmental careers or when they were environmental
activists. SLE are perceived as a methodological approach opening the nature experiences research, but nowadays
the correlation analysis is more appropriate and used methodology in research studies.
Correlation and Comparative Research Studies
A later research approach employed in this field has consisted mostly of quantitative correlation or com-
parative research studies of a direct and indirect connection between interaction with nature in childhood and
pro-environmental behavior in adulthood. One research explored the experiences that adults who acted pro-
environmentally had interaction with nature before the age of twenty (Finger, 1994). It identified having an expe-
rience with an environmental catastrophe and interaction with nature as two of the most frequently mentioned
influences. Wells and Lekies (2006) identified the time spent participating in outdoor activities before the age of
eleven as the most significant predictor of pro-environmental behavior. Similarly, a German research concluded
that positive experiences with nature strengthen environmental action (Bögeholz, 2006).
A direct connection was suggested in several research studies (Bögeholz, 2006; Duerden & Witt, 2010; Finger,
1994; Wells & Lekies, 2006). They concluded that experience with nature in the past influences present interaction
with nature, but it has no effect on pro-environmental behavior. There were other research studies that did not
confirm a direct connection, but they demonstrated a particular indirect mediated connection between interac-
537
(pp. 536-550) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
tion with nature and pro-environmental behavior or willingness to protect the environment (Cheng & Monroe,
2012; Kals et al., 1999; Nisbet et al., 2009; Tugurian, 2014; Zhang et al., 2014). Even though the researchers reached
similar conclusions in general, they used various mediator variables (mostly affective and cognitive ones), and their
research methods of the predictors that lead to protecting nature were also diverse.
Research Studies of a Mediated Connection
Several research studies have proposed that affective factors are the most important predictors of pro-environ-
mental behavior (Kals et al., 1999; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Otto & Pensini, 2017). Kals et al. (1999) explored Emotional
Affinity toward Nature (EAN) as an affective predictor of pro-environmental behavior in contrast to a cognitive
interest in nature. They assumed that time spent in nature, especially in childhood, can cause an emotional bond
with nature that subsequently acts as motivation for nature conservation. The results showed that one’s emotional
affinity toward nature, interest in nature, and indignation about insufficient nature protection explained 47% of the
variance in one’s willingness to engage in pro-environmental behavior. EAN as a predictor of pro-environmental
behavior was confirmed also by the Müller et al. (2009) research. Affinity toward nature has been studied as several
slightly different variables. Mayer and Frantz (2004) used The Connectedness to Nature Scale to measure individuals’
trait levels of feeling emotionally connected to the natural world. Similarly, other researchers used various other
kinds of scales to measure one’s sense of connection with the natural environment: Connectivity to Nature (Dutcher
et al., 2007), nature relatedness measured by The Nature Relatedness Scale (Nisbet et al., 2009), Connection to Nature
(Cheng & Monroe, 2012), Inclusion with Nature (Schultz et al., 2004), Interconnectedness (Davis et al., 2009) and The
Disposition to Connect to Nature Scale (Brügger et al., 2011; Otto & Pensini, 2017). The last one seems better suited
for research with children because it only minimally relies on self-reflection.
Some researchers have been interested in cognitive factors. They suppose that one’s beliefs regarding certain
facts are important for one’s later commitments. According to Stern’s value-belief-norm theory, a direct predictor
for environmental responsibility is one’s awareness of the consequences for valued objects that can be negative for
the environment (Stern, 2000). Environmental Concern (Dutcher et al., 2007) and Awareness of Risks to Nature (Müller
et al. 2009) are other possibilities used as variables for cognitive mediators of pro-environmental behavior. Both
studies also qualified them as predictors, although to a lesser degree. According to Larson et al. (2001) and Rosa
et al. (2018), greater interaction with nature during childhood is associated with greater interaction with nature in
adulthood, which is positively associated with pro-environmental behavior.
In summary, the above overview of the research available to date showed that people’s connection with nature
and nature’s importance in one’s life can play a role in pro-environmental behavior. The research studies conducted
to date have been aimed at specific aspects of the connection. There are research studies of a direct connection
between interaction with nature and pro-environmental behavior or willingness to engage in pro-environmental
behavior (Bögeholz, 2006; Duerden & Witt, 2010; Finger, 1994; Wells & Lekies, 2006) or research studies of the im-
portance of affective mediation (Dutcher et al., 2007; Finger, 1994; Kals et al., 1999; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Nisbet
et al., 2009; Wells & Lekies, 2006) and cognitive mediation (Müller et al., 2009). Comprehensive research studies
comparing the direct and indirect connections have been conducted only rarely (Müller et al., 2009; Otto & Pensini,
2017). Despite some conceptual differences, these research studies have shown that one’s connection with nature
varies among individuals and can be considered a relatively constant trait. Most of the research studies concerned
with affective connectedness have confirmed that one’s connection with nature is based on affective experiences
rather than on cognitive appraisals only (Kals & Müller, 2012). The limitation of these research studies is that they
have used different variables and different measuring tools. They have mainly focused on one type of influence,
they have not compared several types together. This research brought a comparison of three mediators which are
discussed below.
Research Aim and Research Questions
The aim of this research was to explore the connection between one’s experiences in nature as well as the
amount of time spent in nature as a child and one’s pro-environmental behavior as an adult. The above review
of existing research has indicated that one’s experiences in nature may lead to pro-environmental behavior.
Therefore, identifying the connection in more detail can be useful in further research as well as in the practice of
environmental protection.
538
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 536-550)
The present research attempted to answer three research questions. Firstly, is there a correlation between
interaction with nature in childhood and pro-environmental behavior in adulthood, and what is the strength of
this correlation? Secondly, is the connection between interaction with nature and pro-environmental behavior
mediated by a predictor? And thirdly, what is the strength of the mediated influence?
General Background
The research was designed as an exploratory quantitative research, with the data gathered by a questionnaire.
There were three predictors of the connection between interaction with nature in childhood and pro-environmental
behavior in adulthood: Interaction with Nature in Adulthood, the Cognitive Mediator, and the Affective Mediator (see
Figure 1). Interaction with Nature in Childhood was measured retrospectively by the activities that the respondents
experienced in childhood. Recalling previous behavior and expressing rather concrete personal preferences did
not require any connection with nature-related self-reflection. In other words, behavioral self-reports and specific
evaluative statements concerning nature were easy to answer because they primarily rest on recollection; as such,
they were probably not particularly vulnerable to response biases (Brügger et al., 2011). Pro-environmental Behavior
and the Affective Mediator and the Cognitive Mediator measured the respondents’ present behavior.
Figure 1
Explanatory design
Participants
The respondents in the sample (N = 370, female = 255, male = 115) were adults who were not interested in
nature conservation, they did not study or work in this field. The respondents were chosen from the Moravian part
of the Czech Republic and randomly selected online by the snow-ball method (Fricker, 2008). The first respondents
were asked to recruit more informants with the same characteristics as mentioned above. Virtual snowball sampling
was used as a cost-effective alternative to a representative random sampling while recognizing all the limitations
of this type of sampling (Johnson, 2014). The sample size was determined using the rule suggested by Hair et al.
(2014). They recommended that sample size should be equal or greater than 5 observations per variable (Hair et
al., 2014). The questionnaire for this research has 54 items, so the number of respondents needed to exceed 270.
The questionnaire was self-completed by the respondents. The age ranged from 19 to 66, the mean age was
28.85. Of this sample, 261 had attained a college degree and 96 had completed a post-graduate degree. The size
of the towns in which the respondents grew up was distributed equally from rural areas to large cities. The relevant
APA ethical, legal, and professional standards in publishing were followed (APA, 2019).
539
(pp. 536-550) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
All of the participants received an identical, online, five-part questionnaire and instructions how to fill it in.
They anonymously supplied their basic sociodemographic information, including age, gender, education level, the
size of the town in which they grew up, and whether their college education was related to nature conservation.
In addition, all of the participants completed the following scales (see Table 1). As recommended by Šorgo (2017),
for the questionnaire see the Appendix A.
Table 1
Scales used in the questionnaire
Measured variable Scale Items (N) Researcher(s) Reliability
Long-Term Childhood Experiences 10

Interaction with Nature in Childhood Krajhanzl & Vostradovska α = .88;
Inventory of Childhood Experiences 30
(2005); Zhang et al. (2014) α = .71
General Ecological Behavior scale Kaiser (1998), Kaiser & Wilson
Pro-environmental Behavior 20 α = .72-.88
(GEB) (2000, 2004)
Interaction with Nature in Adulthood Interaction with Nature in Adulthood 4
Brügger, Kaiser, & Rozcen
Affective Mediator Disposition to Connect with Nature 40 α = .89
(2011)
Environmental Concern 5 Dutcher et al. (2007) α = .77
Cognitive Mediator
Awareness of Risks to Nature 9 Müller, Kals, & Pansa (2009) α = .76
Interaction with Nature in Childhood was measured retrospectively by the activities that the respondents
experienced in nature in childhood. Having just one experience or spending time in nature repeatedly may have
a different effect. Therefore, Interaction with Nature in Childhood was divided into two parts: One-Time Childhood
Experiences and Long-Term Childhood Experiences. Pilot testing of both scales was done to validate the compre-
hension and meaning of the items (N = 12). The basic criteria for the selection of the items were the factuality and
measurability of the nature experiences remembered from childhood. The respondents only determined if they
had had the experience or not, without any deep reflection on how important this experience was for their future
behavior.
Long-Term Childhood Experiences were measured by 10 items; the respondents reported how many years
they had practiced a particular activity in nature. There were activities like: “We had a garden near the house or
in community gardens;” or: “We spent one weekend a month at a country cottage.” These activities are typical in
the Czech context and there is a strong probability of more frequent and more intense interaction with nature.
The range was supplemented by the years spent by doing these types of activities. The reliability of the measured
Long-Term Childhood Experiences was rather low, α = .59; therefore, exploratory factor analysis was conducted to
extract different factors. Two major factors were identified: Rural Nature Experiences (four items) and Leisure-Time
Nature Experiences (three items; see Appendix A). Rural Nature Experiences explained 24 % of the variance in the
scores, whereas Leisure-Time Nature Experiences explained 18 % of the variance. Finally, the Long-Term Childhood
Experiences variable was substituted by two other variables: Children’s Rural Nature Experiences (α = .64) and
Children’s Leisure-Time Nature Experiences (α = .61).
One-time Childhood Experiences were assessed with an abbreviated version of the 69-item Inventory of Child-
hood Experiences (Krajhanzl & Vostradovska, 2005). 26 items from the original Inventory were used, supplemented
by 3 items connected with interaction with nature from Zhang et al. (2014) and one new item (see Appendix A). The
abbreviated scale contained the items with high internal consistency and, simultaneously, the items mentioned
by all of the respondents in the pilot testing were excluded. The respondents reported whether they had gained
the experience before or after they were 18 years old or never. The reliability of the Inventory of Childhood Experi-
ences scale used was α = .82.
Pro-environmental Behavior was measured by the General Ecological Behavior (GEB) scale, a well-known and
often-used instrument based on Campbell’s paradigm, providing comprehensive data for the present research
540
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 536-550)
(Kaiser, 1998; Kaiser et al., 2010; Kaiser & Wilson, 2000; 2004). According to Campbell (1963, p. 160), any performed
behavior involves costs (personal effort and resources) that constitute the difficulty level of the behavior (Kaiser
et al., 2010, p. 3). The fewer the costs that the behavior has, the more likely a person is to carry it out. The levels
of behavior difficulty are approximated by the number of people who behave in a certain way (Kaiser & Wilson,
2000, p. 954). Thus, the more demanding the behavior that a person engages in, the more pro-environmentally
this person generally behaves.
The 50-item GEB scale was translated and adapted to Czech conditions in the same way as in Urban’s (2015)
research, and then a shortened version of 20 items was used. In terms of the normal distribution of the items’ dif-
ficulty levels, the same number of items was selected from each decile. The second condition was the inclusion of
all the six behavior domains. The scale was shortened because of the overall length of the questionnaire. A yes/
no format was used for the 10 items of behaviors related to waste disposal, and for the other 10 items, a 5-point
polytomous response format was used. The answers “I don’t know” as a response option were coded as missing
values. The reliability of the GEB scale was Cronbach’s alpha = .66.
Three mediators were tested: Interaction with Nature in Adulthood, a Cognitive Mediator, and an Affective
Mediator. Interaction with Nature in Adulthood was measured by the amount of time spent in nature last week
and last month. The aim was to measure the frequency and the time that the respondents spent in nature as a
possible motivator toward pro-environmental behavior.
The Affective Mediator was measured by the Disposition to Connect with Nature scale (Brügger et al., 2011). It
is an attitude measurement assessing people’s connection with nature that only minimally relies on self-reflection
(Brügger et al., 2011, p. 332). An alternative approach is grounded in Campbell’s paradigm (Kaiser et al., 2010).
Brügger et al. (2011, p. 325) proposed that Campbell’s paradigm requires the presupposition that the extent of a
person’s overall connection with nature can be indirectly derived from an inspection of both (a) reports of past
activities that provide a bonding with nature and (b) responses to evaluative statements that reflect one’s view of
nature. The higher the appreciation in the evaluative statements and the more of the reported bonding activities,
the more obvious a person’s connection with nature is expected to be. A participant’s Disposition to Connect with
Nature was measured by 40 items with two different response formats: for 17 items, a 3-point frequency scale from
1 (never) to 3 (often) was used, and for 23 items, a dichotomous yes/no format was used.
The Cognitive Mediators that were measured were Environmental Concern and Awareness of Risks to Nature.
For measuring Environmental Concern, a scale from Ellis and Thompson (1997) as cited by Dutcher et al. (2007)
was used. Five items were scored using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree), and
the second and fourth items were reverse-coded (see Appendix A). The reliability of the original scale was alpha =
.77, and the reliability of this measurement was alpha = .86. Awareness of Risks to Nature was measured by a scale
used in Müller et al. (2009). Nine items were used to measure Awareness of Risks to Nature on a 5-point Likert scale,
where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree (see Appendix A). Six out of the nine items were negatively
formulated. The responses to these items were reversed in coding. The reliability of the Disposition to Connect
with Nature scale as an Affective Mediator was α = .90 and the reliability of the Cognitive Mediator was α = .86.
Data Analysis

Missing data were excluded, and Spearman Rank-order correlation analysis for the main variables was con-
ducted at the significance level of p < .05. Due to using Bonferroni correction, the significance level for mediation
analysis was set to p < .017. For mediator analysis, the parallel mediator analysis (Hayes, 2018) was used because
of the weak correlations among the mediators. The data were analyzed with the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) Version 22.0 with Process 3.2 macro and R 3.2.2 software and with the Statistica data analysis
software system, version 13.
Research Results
The results described below present the general findings regarding the explanation of the connection between
interaction with nature and pro-environmental behavior.
In order to find out what the correlations between these variables were like, the first step was to use bivari-
ate correlation (for correlation matrix, see Table 2). The Inventory of Childhood Experiences correlated with all the
variables except the Cognitive Mediator. GEB related significantly to almost all of the dependent variables. The
541
(pp. 536-550) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
correlations significantly rose mutually between mediators, r = .42, p < .0001 between the Cognitive and Affective
Mediators, r = .35, p < .0001 between the Affective Mediator and Interaction with Nature in Adulthood.
Table 2
Inter-correlations for the main variables (N = 325-370)
Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. GEB - .17** -.02 .02 .31** .38** .32**

2. Inventory of Childhood Experiences - .23** .31** .29** .31** .04
3. Rural Nature Experiences - -.01 .03 .22** .11**
4. Leisure-Time Nature Experiences - .19** .16** .03
5. Interaction with Nature in Adulthood - .35** .11*
6. Affective Mediator - .42**
7. Cognitive Mediator -
** p <.01, * p <.05
As the second step, a parallel mediator analysis with three mediators (Interaction with Nature in Adulthood,
Affective Mediator, Cognitive Mediator) was conducted for each of the observed types of Interaction with Nature in
Childhood (the Inventory of Childhood Experiences, Rural Nature Experiences, and Leisure-Time Nature Experiences).
The Inventory of Childhood Experiences had no significant direct effect on environmental behavior (p = .08),
but there was a significant indirect effect with full mediation of the Affective Mediator (Figure 2). The other two
mediators did not mediate GEB significantly.
Figure 2
Model of the effect of the Inventory of childhood experiences on GEB with three mediators (regression coefficients in bold are
significant on level p <.017)
Rural Nature Experiences did not have a significant effect on Pro-environmental Behavior while the effect was
significantly indirectly mediated by the Affective Mediator. Interaction with Nature in Adulthood and the Cogni-
tive Mediator did not mediate GEB significantly. Therefore, in this model (Figure 3), there was a full mediation by
the Affective Mediator.
542
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 536-550)
Figure 3
Model of the effect of Rural nature experiences on GEB with three mediators (regression coefficients in bold are significant on
level p <.017)
Leisure-Time Nature Experiences had no significant direct effect on environmental behavior (p = .28). In the
model (Figure 4), the indirect effect was fully mediated by the Affective Mediator while the other two mediators
did not mediate environmental behavior significantly.
Figure 4
Model of the effect of Leisure Time Nature Experiences on GEB with three mediators (regression coefficients in bold are significant
on level p <.017)
Discussion
Direct Connection between Interaction with Nature and Pro-Environmental Behavior
A direct connection between the Inventory of Childhood Experiences and General Ecological Behavior (GEB)
was confirmed by bivariate correlation. Similar conclusions were also presented in Bögeholz (2006), Finger (1994),
and Wells and Lekies (2006). But this direct connection was not identified by parallel mediator analysis. It was
543
(pp. 536-550) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
identified just a negative connection between Rural Nature Experiences and GEB. This is in opposition to the belief
that positive emotions connected with nature and pro-environmental behavior are based on recurring interaction
with nature as claimed in the Hinds and Sparks research (2008). It could mean that a childhood spent in a rural
area is not a predictor of pro-environmental behavior on its own and the participation of other factors is essential.
Indirect Connection between Interaction with Nature and Pro-Environmental Behavior
Parallel mediator analysis confirmed an indirect connection between the Inventory of Childhood Experi-
ences and General Ecological Behavior through the Affective Mediator. A similar mediation effect of the Affective
Mediator was also recorded in the case of Rural Nature Experiences and Leisure-Time Nature Experiences. This
result agrees with research studies that tested some of the affective types of (Bailey, 2014; Dutcher et al., 2007;
Cheng & Monroe, 2012; Hinds & Sparks, 2008; Kals et al., 1999; Nisbet et al., 2009; Tugurian, 2014). A similar survey
was presented by Montada et al. (2007). They showed that the psychological impact of emotions is a predictor of
long-term conservation action, even though it could be changeable in the short term. The time spent in nature as
a child can lead to an affective connection with nature, which is a strong mediator of pro-environmental behavior
Müller et al. (2009) (p. 65). Also, in environmental education research, affective connectedness to nature seems to
be a premise for engagement in pro-environmental behavior (Frantz & Mayer, 2014; Kossack & Bogner, 2012; Roczen
et al., 2014). If the affective connectedness to nature as the degree of the closeness between a person and nature
is considered, like other connections, it can be preserved or improved by interaction and nature experiences (Kals
& Maes, 2002; Otto & Pensini, 2017).
The mediation effect of the Cognitive Mediator was not registered. According to Stern (2000), Awareness of
Risks to Nature is a crucial variable for the development of conservation action regarding the environment. As a
mediator of pro-environmental behavior in this research, Awareness of Adverse Consequences for Nature and
Environmental Concern as Cognitive Mediators have a negligible effect. The other possibility is to measure envi-
ronmental knowledge as an alternative Cognitive Mediator like Duerden and Witt (2010) did. Further, Otto and
Pensini (2017) examined environmental knowledge and its effect on ecological behavior. They proved the effect,
but they emphasized that the effect of affective connectedness to nature on ecological behavior is considerably
stronger (Otto & Pensini, 2017).
Only the amount and frequency of interaction with nature correlated with GEB and with two variables that
described childhood experiences (the Inventory of Childhood Experiences, and Leisure-Time Nature Experiences).
The mediation effect was not proved. How much time a young or adult person spends in nature may contribute
to positive feelings and an affective connection toward nature (Müller et al., 2009), which can be confirmed by
the correlation between these variables. However, even when nature is valued as part of ourselves, there is a
willingness to protect it (Pensini et al., 2016). Positive emotional experiences with nature are fundamental for the
development of the connection to nature especially in childhood if these experiences are linked with significant
others (Duerden Witt, 2010; Müller et al., 2009).
This finding can be used to support various environmental education programs. Regarding a particular envi-
ronmental education topic, it is less important whether it fits the children’s age than whether it is passed on with
positive emotional bonding, creating a positive affective connection between the children and nature that can
develop into their pro-environmental behavior. Since an affective connection to nature can be cultivated through
interaction with nature (Mayer & Frantz, 2009; Pensini et al., 2016), longer-lasting or more frequent nature-based
environmental education programs will have a stronger impact on pro-environmental behavior than shorter or less
frequent ones (Chawla & Cushing, 2007; Otto & Pensini, 2017). Furthermore, repeated visits to natural areas (Schultz
& Tabanico, 2007), as much natural environment as possible (Mayer & Frantz, 2009), nature close to home (Cheng &
Monroe, 2012) as well as children’s close assisted interaction with nature during which the children feel entertained
and relatively safe (Clayton & Myers, 2009, p. 134) are all positively related to the affective connection to nature.
Limitations
The research was framed as a retrospective research in spite of the limitations inherent in these kinds of
research studies. There has been some debate about the positives and the negatives of retrospective research
studies. Some researchers have observed that retrospective research studies artificially inflate treatment effects
(Taylor et al., 2009). In contrast, Hawkins (2009) argued that the researchers of traditional direct research studies
544
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 536-550)
did not acknowledge the biases of traditional research studies – social desirability and situational determinants
– that may also inflate test scores.
The respondents reported their actual pro-environmental behavior and recalled their experiences regarding
interaction with nature when they were children. The retrospective approach could be restricting because the re-
spondents had to remember knowledge and experiences they had in the past instead of their present dispositions
(Duerden & Witt, 2010, p. 391). It would be difficult for the respondents to identify the exact period when they had the
experience and what it was like, but it is sufficient that they knew for sure that they had had this actual experience.
The self-reported answers of the respondents were minimalized by selecting appropriate measurement scales.
Instead of the Significant Life Experiences (Sward, 1999), the respondents named their childhood experiences
without any evaluation of their importance. Issues like social desirability and the consistency motive remained,
and they could have caused a bias of increased correlations between the variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
The research used a non-representative sample for the research because the aim was to measure a general
connection between the variables. A virtual snowball sampling method was used for data collection. The conve-
nience sample of the respondents obtained by this method does not allow for the results to be generalized to
the whole population because of the sampling bias. Despite the impossibility of generalization, the analyses have
been carried out “because the sample can provide useful information for answering questions and hypotheses.”
(Creswell, 2012, p. 146).
As another limitation, other causal connections are possible. The reported amount of time spent in nature
could have been misreported due to emotional distortions. Positive emotions toward nature might cause people
to think that they had spent more time in nature as children than they really had (Kals et al., 1999, p. 196). An al-
ternative explanation for the results can be that connection to nature can motivate interaction with nature (Soga
& Gaston, 2016).
The methodological limitations include the questionable reliability of the Long-Term Experiences scale
(mentioned above).
Further Research
The most suitable experimental approach for minimalizing self-reported bias and retrospective recalling ap-
pears to be a longitudinal research. It is valuable for the continual observation of the phenomenon, but it is also
time-consuming. Both longitudinal research and retrospective research have their advantages and disadvantages.
The correlation between one’s interaction with nature in childhood and one’s pro-environmental behavior in
adulthood should be explored in different cultural and natural conditions that can have a bearing on one’s affective
connection with nature (Müller et al., 2009, p. 66). One’s connection with nature is also affected by other variables,
such as family values, preceding experiences with nature not only in childhood, education, etc. (Kals et al., 1999).
Especially the last one mentioned variable is very important for the one’s correlation with nature, because of the
teachers´ influence and their content knowledge of nature science education (Lamanauskas, 2009).
Another possibility is to test this connection on a sample of children’s population with the presumption that
if a person behaves pro-environmentally as a child, he or she will behave that way also later as an adult (Cheng &
Monroe, 2012, Evans et al., 2007a; 2007b; Zhang et al., 2014).
Conclusions and Implications
Interaction with nature in childhood has been discussed widely in the fields of education, environmental
conservation and sustainable living. These discussions and the accompanying research have included not only
the benefits of being in nature for children’s physical and mental development, but also the potential effect on
children’s future action which can lead to more pro-environmental behavior in adulthood.
This research has confirmed that children’s interaction with nature is associated with their pro-environmental
behavior in adulthood. Regardless of the type of nature experience, it has been found that the connection between
interaction with nature and pro-environmental behavior seems to be realized mainly through the Affective Media-
tor – people’s affective connection with nature. It has been shown that developing an emotional bond between a
child and nature is a much more effective way of ensuring a more pro-environmental behavior in the future than
building environmental knowledge or relying on sufficient interaction with nature in adulthood.
The strength of the emotional bond between a child and elements of nature is a fundamental influence on
545
(pp. 536-550) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
that child’s future behavior toward the natural environment. Previous research studies had established a number
of tools for measuring certain forms of connectedness with nature or have measured solely the cognitive influence
of information or solely the influence of time spent in nature. In this research, we put three of the most often used
variables into interaction through parallel mediation and we can state (subject to the research limitations mentioned
above) that interaction with nature (the form, amount and frequency) in childhood leads to pro-environmental
behavior in adulthood. This is so not because of the time spent in nature itself, nor because of the knowledge
about the natural environment, but mainly because of the emotional bond that was developed in childhood.
This information can be useful mainly for educators in that it can help them to design effective environmental
programs and projects.
Acknowledgements
This research is one of the outputs of the project Promoting Behavioral and Value Change through Outdoor
Environmental Education, which is supported by grant no. GA18-15374S provided by the Czech Science Foundation.
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckmann (Eds), Action control (pp. 11-
39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
APA (2019). Publication manual of the American psychological association (7th Ed.). APA.
Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social deter-
minants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14-25.
Bailey, K. (2014). The role of childhood environment and outdoor exposure on connectedness to nature. Doctoral thesis, Gal-
laudet University, Washington, DC.
Bögeholz, S. (2006). Nature experience and its importance for environmental knowledge, values and action: Recent German
empirical contributions. Environmental Education Research, 12(1), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620500526529
Brügger, A., Kaiser, F. G., & Roczen, N. (2011). One for all? Connectedness to nature, inclusion of nature, environmental identity,
and implicit association with nature. European Psychologist, 16, 324-333. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000032
Campbell, D. T. (1963). Social attitudes and other acquired behavioral dispositions. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a sci-
ence (pp. 94-172). McGraw-Hill.
Castree, N. (2013). Making sense of nature. Routledge.
Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15-26. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00958969909598628
Chawla, L., & Cushing, D. F. (2007). Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 13(4),
437-452. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701581539
Cheng, J. C. H., & Monroe, M. C. (2012). Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environment and Be-
havior, 44(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510385082
Clayton, S., & Myers, G. (2009). Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature. John Wiley & Sons:
Hoboken.
Clayton, S. D., & Opotow, S. (2003). Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature. Mass, MIT Press.
Corcoran, P. B. (1999). Formative influences in the lives of environmental educators in the United States. Environmental Education
Research, 5(2), 207-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462990050207
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.).
Pearson.
Davis, J. L., Green, J. D., & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and
environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(2), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.001
Dillon, J., Kelsey, E., & Duque‐Aristizabal, A. M. (1999). Identity and culture: Theorising emergent environmentalism. Environmental
Education Research, 5(4), 395-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462990050405
Duerden, M. D., & Witt, P. A. (2010). The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of environmental knowledge,
attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 379-392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.007
Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., & Johnson, J. B. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values.
Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 474-493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506298794
Ellis, R. J., & Thompson, F. (1997). Culture and the environment in the Pacific Northwest. American Political Science Review, 91(4),
885-897. https://doi.org/10.2307/2952171
Evans, G. W., Brauchle, G., Haq, A., Stecker, R., Wong, K., & Shapiro, E. (2007). Young children’s environmental attitudes and behav-
iors. Environment and Behavior, 39(5), 635-658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506294252
Evans, G. W., Juen, B., Corral-Verdugo, V., Corraliza, J. A., & Kaiser, F. G. (2007). Children’s cross-cultural environmental attitudes
and self-reported behaviors. Children Youth and Environments, 17(4), 128-143.
546
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 536-550)
Ewert, A., Place, G., & Sibthorp, J. (2005). Early-life outdoor experiences and an individual’s environmental attitudes. Leisure Sci-
ences, 27(3), 225-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400590930853
Finger, M. (1994). From knowledge to action? Exploring the relationships between environmental experiences, learning, and
behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02424.x
Frantz, C. M., & Mayer, F. S. (2014). The importance of connection to nature in assessing environmental education programs.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41, 85-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.001
Fricker, R. (2008). Sampling methods for web and e-mail surveys. In N. Fielding, R. M. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE handbook
of online research methods (pp. 195-216). SAGE Publications.
Furihata, S., Ishizaka, T., Hatakeyama, M., Hitsumoto, M., & Ito, S. (2007). Potentials and challenges of research on “Significant Life
Experiences” in Japan. Children Youth and Environments, 17(4), 207-226.
Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review.
International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141-157.
Gough, A. (1999). Kids don’t like wearing the same jeans as their mums and dads: So whose ‘life’should be in significant life
experiences research? Environmental Education Research, 5(4), 383-394. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462990050404
Gough, N. (1999). Surpassing our own histories: Autobiographical methods for environmental education research. Environmental
Gough, S. (1999). Significant life experiences (SLE) research: A view from somewhere. Environmental Education Research, 5(4),
353-363. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462990050402
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Pearson New International Edition. Multivariate Data Analysis. Harlow:
Pearson Education.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach (2nd Ed.).
Guilford Press.
Hawkins, A. J. (2009). Retrospective deflation vs. situational inflation. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3), 440-441.
Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 28(2), 109-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.11.001
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behav-
ior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
Hsu, S. J. (2009). Significant life experiences affect environmental action: A confirmation study in eastern Taiwan. Environmental
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 21(3), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743
Johnson, T. P. (2014). Snowball sampling: Introduction. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. doi:10.1002/9781118445112.
stat05720
Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(5), 395-422. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01712.x
Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2000). Assessing People’s General Ecological Behavior: A Cross-Cultural Measure 1. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 30(5), 952-978. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02505.x
Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2004). Goal-directed conservation behavior: The specific composition of a general performance. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 36(7), 1531-1544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.06.003
Kaiser, F. G., Byrka, K., & Hartig, T. (2010). Reviving Campbell’s paradigm for attitude research. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 14(4), 351-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310366452
Kals, E., & Maes, J. (2002). Sustainable development and emotions. In P. Schmuck, & P. W. Schultz (Eds.). Psychology of sustainable
development (pp. 97-122). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_6
Kals, E., & Müller, M. M. (2012). Emotions and Environment. In S. D. Clayton, (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and
conservation psychology (pp. 128-147). Oxford University Press.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environ-
ment and Behavior, 31(2), 178-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972056
Kellert, S. R. (2002). Experiencing Nature: Affective, Cognitive, and Evaluative Development in Children. In P. H. Kahn, & S. R. Kellert
(Eds.), Children and nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. Mass, MIT Press.
Kossack, A., & Bogner, F. X. (2012). How does a one-day environmental education programme support individual connectedness
with nature? Journal of Biological Education, 46(3), 180-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2011.634016
Krajhanzl, J., & Vostradovska, H. (2005). Children and Nature: Living through and experience. In E. Strejčková (Ed.), Výzkum
odcizování člověka přírodě: Závěrečná zpráva (pp. 178-229). Toulcův dvůr.
Lamanauskas, V. (2009). Learners’ interaction with nature: Some educational issues. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 17,
5-9. http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/pec/node/files/pdf/vol17/5-9.Lamanauskas_Vol.17.pdf
Lamanauskas, V., & Vilkonis, R. (2005). The characteristics of the learners’ (forms 5 to 12) interaction with nature: The evaluation as-
pects of behavioural situations. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 4(2), 55-67. http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/?q=node/99
Larson, L. R., Whiting, J. W., & Green, G. T. (2011). Exploring the influence of outdoor recreation participation on pro-environmental
behaviour in a demographically diverse population. Local Environment, 16(1), 67-86.
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
Mayer, F. S., Frantz, C. M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., & Dolliver, K. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to
nature. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 607-643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508319745
547
(pp. 536-550) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Montada, L., Kals, E., & Becker, R. (2007). Willingness for continued social commitment: A new concept in environmental research.
Environment and Behavior, 39(3), 287-316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506290953
Müller, M. M., Kals, E., & Pansa, R. (2009). Adolescents’ emotional affinity toward nature: A cross-societal study. Journal of Devel-
opmental Processes, 4(1), 59-69.
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to
environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715-740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748
Otto, S., & Pensini, P. (2017). Nature-based environmental education of children: Environmental knowledge and connectedness
to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour. Global Environmental Change, 47, 88-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2017.09.009
Payne, P. (1999). The significance of experience in SLE research. Environmental Education Research, 5(4), 365-381. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1350462990050403
Palmer, J. A., Suggate, J., Bajd, B., & Tsaliki, E. (1998a). Significant influences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness
in the UK, Slovenia and Greece. Environmental Education Research, 4(4), 429-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462980040407
Palmer, J. A., Suggate, J., Bajd, B., KP, P. H., Ho, R. K., Ofwono-Orecho, J. K. W., ... & Staden, C. V. (1998b). An overview of significant
influences and formative experiences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness in nine countries. Environ-
mental Education Research, 4(4), 445-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462980040408
Palmer, J. A., Suggate, J., Robottom, I. A. N., & Hart, P. (1999). Significant life experiences and formative influences on the develop-
ment of adults’ environmental awareness in the UK, Australia and Canada. Environmental Education Research, 5(2), 181-200.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462990050205
Pensini, P., Horn, E., & Caltabiano, N. J. (2016). An exploration of the relationships between adults’ childhood and current nature
exposure and their mental well-being. Children, Youth and Environments, 26(1), 125-147.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review
of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879
Roczen, N., Kaiser, F. G., Bogner, F. X., & Wilson, M. (2014). A competence model for environmental education. Environment and
Behavior, 46(8), 972-992. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513492416
Rosa, C. D., Profice, C. C., & Collado, S. (2018). Nature experiences and adults’ self-reported pro-environmental behaviors: The role
of connectedness to nature and childhood nature experiences. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1055. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2018.01055
Schultz, P., & Kaiser, F. G. (2012). Promoting pro-environmental behavior. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environ-
mental and conservation psychology (pp. 556–580). Oxford University Press.
Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psy-
chology, 24(1), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00022-7
Schultz, P. W., & Tabanico, J. (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment: Exploring implicit connections with nature. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 1219-1247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00210.x
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10(1), 221-279. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5
Sivek, D. J. (2002). Environmental sensitivity among Wisconsin high school students. Environmental Education Research, 8(2),
155-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220128220
Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of human–nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 14(2), 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225
Šorgo, A. (2017). User-friendly reporting of research findings from a questionnaire. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(5), 632-
633. http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/files/pdf/vol16/632-633.Sorgo_JBSE_Vol.16_No.5.pdf
Steg, L., Berg, A. E., & De Groot, J. I. (2012). Environmental psychology: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of
Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The
case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97.
Sward, L. L. (1999). Significant life experiences affecting the environmental sensitivity of El Salvadoran environmental profes-
sionals. Environmental Education Research, 5(2), 201-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462990050206
Tanner, T. (1980). Significant life experiences: A new research area in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 11(4), 20-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1980.9941386
Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Taylor, H. (2009). Gilding the outcome by tarnishing the past: Inflationary biases in retrospective
pretests. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(1), 31-43.
Tugurian, L. P. (2014) An exploratory investigation of children’s connectedness with the natural world. Doctoral thesis, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh.
Urban, J. (2015). Predicting pro-environmental behaviours: comparison of the theory of planned behavior and Campbells
paradigm. In 11th Biennial Conference on Environmental Psychology. Paper presented at 11th Biennial Conference on Envi-
ronmental Psychology, Groningen, Netherlands
Wells, N. M., & Lekies, K. S. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmen-
talism. Children Youth and Environments, 16(1), 1-24.
Zhang, W., Goodale, E., & Chen, J. (2014). How contact with nature affects children’s biophilia, biophobia and conservation at-
titude in China. Biological Conservation, 177, 109-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.011
548
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 536-550)
Appendix A
Scales
Long-term Experiences in Nature (a new scale)
α = .59; number of years
Divided into rural nature experiences (items 1, 4, 5 and 9; α = .64) and leisure-time nature experiences (items 6, 7
and 8; α = .61).
1. We lived in a village.
2. We spent one weekend a month at a country cottage.
3. I spent holidays at my grandparents’ rural house.
4. We had a garden near the house or in community gardens.
5. I helped with planting in the garden.
6. I went to a science club about nature.
7. I attended scouts or some other informal children’s or youth group.
8. I went to summer camps.
9. I played outdoors with my friends.
10. We went on a nature trip with my parents at least once a month.
Inventory of Experiences (Krajhanzl & Vostradovska, 2005; Zhang et al., 2014)
Items from Zhang et al. (2014) in italics and one new item in bold.
α= .82; yes-no format
1. I saw a bird of prey in flight.
2. I saw the pollination of a flower by an insect.
3. I saw a bird’s nest with eggs.
4. I saw the killing of an animal.
5. I heard the stomping of a hedgehog.
6. I held a frog in my hand.
7. I walked barefoot on the grass or the ground.
8. I walked over a ploughed field.
9. I crossed a river by (a non-motorized) boat.
10. I planted a tree.
11. I climbed rocks without belays (security equipment).
12. I cut grass with a scythe or sickle.
13. I slept outdoors (bivouacking).
14. I fed a wild animal in its natural habitat.
15. I treated or handled an ill or injured animal.
16. I was in the forest after dark.
17. I played and explored in the soil.
18. I went fishing.
19. I lay in tall grass.
20. I cleared snow off a path.
21. I got totally drenched by rain.
22. I built a forest shelter.
23. I trail-blazed through bushes or a forest.
24. I went home in muddy clothes.
25. I chopped wood.
26. I recycled materials/waste.
27. I cooked a meal using a natural campfire.
28. I swam in a pond.
29. I saw a snake in nature.
30. I got lost in the forest.
549
(pp. 536-550) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Environmental Concern (Dutcher et al., 2007)

α = .86; 5-point Likert scale
1. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.
2. The problems of the environment are not as bad as most people think. (-)
3. We are fast using up the world’s natural resources.
4. People worry too much about human progress harming the environment. (-)
5. We are spending too little money on improving and protecting the environment.
Awareness of Risks to Nature (Müller et al., 2009)
α = .86; 5-point Likert scale
1. Without any major changes, nature will be threatened even more in the coming years.
2. The problems of nature already have many negative consequences today (endangered species, resource
scarcity, etc.)
3. Contamination and pollution are increasingly becoming a problem.
4. It will probably not be necessary to worry about the extent and consequences of natural problems over
the next few years. (-)
5. There are enough natural resources. We don’t have to be economical with them or waste money on
renewable energies. (-)
6. Whenever I see a burning pile of garbage, I don’t think it’s anything bad, but that it’s good that the
waste is taken off the street. (-)
7. I think there is too much importance placed by others on the protection of nature. (-)
8. I don’t think that the climate change caused by the “greenhouse effect” is dangerous. (-)
9. Nuclear power plants and radioactive waste are less dangerous than is proclaimed to the public. (-)
Received: April 27, 2020 Accepted: August 01, 2020
Cite as: Krepelkova, Š., Krajhanzl, J., & Kroufek, R. (2020). The influence of interaction with nature in childhood on future pro-
environmental behavior. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4), 536-550. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.536
Šárka Doležalová MSc, et Mgr., Research Assistant, Department of Environmental

Křepelková Studies,Masaryk University, Faculty od Social Studies, Joštova 218/10,
(Corresponding author) 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic.
E-mail: sarka.krepelkova@gmail.com
Jan Krajhanzl PhD, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., Department of Environmental Studies,
Masaryk University, Faculty od Social Studies, Joštova 218/10, 602 00
Brno, Czech Republic.
E-mail: jan.krajhanzl@gmail.com
Roman Kroufek PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Preschool & Primary Education,
Faculty of Education, Jan Evangelista Purkyně University, 40096 Ústí nad
Labem, Czech Republic.
E-mail: roman.kroufek@ujep.cz
550
TRENDS AND FOUNDATIONS
IN RESEARCH ON STUDENTS’
CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
IN SCIENCE EDUCATION: ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
A METHOD BASED ON THE

STRUCTURAL TOPIC MODEL
Abstract. This study aims to reveal the

Shuaishuai Mi,
trends and foundations in research on stu-
Shanshan Lu, dents’ conceptual understanding in science
Hualin Bi education. The literature was selected from
three recognized journals in science educa-
tion. The Structural Topic Model (STM)
Introduction method was used to categorize articles into
ten topics considering information about
Concepts and principles are the basic building blocks of scientific the semantic cohesion and exclusivity of
knowledge, and understanding a concept is a prerequisite to making com- words to topics. The topic, which has at-
plex inferences or accomplishing any scientific work with it (Reif, 1995). tracted increasing research interest, was se-
Therefore, it is crucial for students to attain conceptual understanding. lected using a method similar to standard
Enormous interest from science educators has been captured by research regression analysis, and its changing focus
into students’ conceptual understanding, and many articles on it have been was identified through an analysis of its
published since 1980 (Tsai & Wen, 2005). However, it is not clear what aspects research contents. Foundations of research
of students’ conceptual understanding these papers were concerned with, about students’ conceptual understanding
or which aspects are likely to attract more interest from researchers. This between 1980–1999 and 2000–2019 were
information might be important for researchers to reflect upon within their obtained through a review of their top
own research foci and plan further investigations (Lin et al., 2019). Therefore, 10 most-cited papers. Three conclusions
this study focused on the trends and foundations of research on students’ were drawn: a) there were ten sub-topics
conceptual understanding. of research about students’ conceptual
Before identifying the trends and foundations of present research, it understanding; b) the research on the
is necessary to define students’ conceptual understanding. The research on development (or pathways) of students’
students’ conceptual understanding was initiated by the research on the scientific argumentation/reasoning is likely
constructivist view of learning, knowledge, and understanding. According to attract further interest in the future;
to the constructivist view of learning, the growth of understanding always and c) compared to the studies in the first
involves a learner constructing his or her own private understanding of some period, the studies in the second stage favor
part of the public knowledge. Here, students’ own private understanding research on the description (nature, mental
was often described as misconception (the use of “mis-” applies only when process, etc.) of the process of students’
one implicitly compares a student’s private conception with some public, ac- conceptual understanding as the research
cepted meaning (Bezzi, 1996; Pines & West, 1986)). Of course, students’ private foundation.
understanding can be described not only as misconceptions (Brumby, 1984;
Keywords: conceptual understanding,
Cho et al., 1985; Gallegos et al., 1994; Taber, 2014) but also as preconceptions,
journal publication, structural topic model,
alternative conceptions, alternative frameworks, alternative conceptual
text mining.
frameworks, intuitive theories, mini-theories (Taber, 2015a), prior knowledge
(Taber, 2015b), and students’ conceptions (a collection of related and inter-
related conceptions that students hold, see M. Hewson & P. Hewson, 1983). Shuaishuai Mi,
To illustrate the above constructing process, Posner et al. (1982) used Shanshan Lu,
conceptual change to describe it. Conceptual change means a people’s Hualin Bi
Shandong Normal University, China
central, organizing concept changing from one set of concepts to a different
set that is incompatible with the first (Posner et al., 1982). To date, conceptual
551
Trends and Foundations IN Research ON Students’ Conceptual Understanding in Science
Education: A Method Based on THE Structural Topic Model
(pp. 551-568) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
change has been one of the research strands of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST)
conference (Lin et al., 2019).
The terms used to describe the constructing process also included conceptual development (a process of com-
ing to view one theory or model as having more explanatory power than others, see Taber, 2001; or the production
of coherent mental maps, see Gilbert et al., 2011) and learning progression (mapping individual students’ perfor-
mance to reveal a picture of conceptual change in the domain over time, see Claesgens et al., 2002; Salinas, 2009).
In sum, in this study, students’ conceptual understanding is regarded as a process of transformation of students’
experiences from the initial state (private understanding) to the final state (some part of the public knowledge).
Thus, the research on students’ conceptual understanding includes the research on students’ private understanding
(described by misconception, alternative conception, etc.), and the research on the constructing process (described
by conceptual change, conceptual development, etc.).
Literature Review
Since this study concerns the trends and foundations of research on students’ conceptual understanding,
the trends should be discussed first. What, then, do the trends of research on students’ conceptual understanding
mean? Trends are often regarded as the interest in a research topic (Cuccurullo et al., 2016; Dukes & Strauch, 1984),
and with the help of these, researchers can reflect on their own research foci and plan further investigations (Lin
et al., 2019). Therefore, some studies have analyzed the trends of science education, and some features of research
on students’ conceptual understanding in science education has been included in these papers.
White (1997) gathered counts of keywords from summaries of articles in the Educational Research Information
Clearinghouse (ERIC). Then, he divided the years from 1966 to 1995 into six five-year periods. Finally, the paper
presented the number of times the keywords appeared per 10,000 articles in each period. White found that the
instances of conceptions or misconceptions grew from 0 to 355 in these six five-year periods. The results indicated
that the research on conceptions or misconceptions captured the most interest from researchers from 1965 to 1996.
The research trends of science education in the period 1998–2017 are reported in four articles: Tsai and
Chang (2005), Lee et al. (2009), Lin et al. (2014), and Lin et al. (2019). The methods used in these four papers were
similar. Specifically, the literature for analysis was selected from three widely recognized journals: specifically,
International Journal of Science Education (IJSE), Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST), and Science
Education (SE). Then, authors referred the criteria from the National Association for the Research in Science Teach-
ing (NARST) conference categories (https://narst.org/conferences) and classified literature (excluding “editorials,”
“commentaries,” “responses,” and “book reviews”) into only one artificial category. Finally, the trends of nine topics
were summarized through the comparison of percentages of the quantity of publications on them. Tsai and Chang
(2005) analyzed the trends in science education from 1998 to 2002. They concluded that, although the research
topic about Learning-Conception was the most frequently investigated one, a declining trend was observed when
analyzed by year. Lee et al. (2009) analyzed the papers published in all three journals from 2003 to 2007. Similar
to the years 1998 to 2002, Learning-Conceptions revealed a declining trend. In contrast to 1998–2007 (Lee et al.,
2009; Tsai & Chang, 2005), the declining trend of Learning-Conceptions decelerated in the period from 2008–2012
(Lin et al., 2014). In the period of 2013–2017, Learning-Conceptions was still one of the top research topics (Lin et
al., 2019), although the percentage of publications on the research topic of Learning-Conceptions fell lower than
the period, 2008–2012. In sum, these four papers indicated that though Learning-Conceptions has been one of
the top research topics, it has been in rapid decline over the last 20 years. A similar result was obtained by Jong
(2007) after analyzing the articles published from 1995 to 2005 in IJSE, JRST, and SE. Chang et al. (2010) analyzed
the papers published from 1990 to 2007 in the four journals of IJSE, JRST, SE and Research in Science Education
(RISE), and nine topics were obtained, using complete linkage clustering. This research presented a similar result:
although conceptual change and concept mapping attracted most studies in the field of science education, a
declining trend was observed after 2000.
Two results regarding research on students’ conceptual understanding can be obtained from the above-
mentioned studies. One is that research on students’ conceptual understanding has been a focus of science educa-
tion research (Lee et al., 2009; Lin et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2019; Tsai & Wen, 2005). The second result is that, although
the research on students’ conceptual understanding has been one of the top research topics in science education,
the publications on it have shown an upward trend from 1965 to 2000s (Chang et al., 2010; White, 1997) and a
downward trend was revealed after 2000 (Chang et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2009; Lin et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2019; Tsai &
552
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ Trends and Foundations IN Research ON Students’ Conceptual Understanding in Science
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 551-568)
Wen, 2005). It seems contradictory that this research area has been one of the top three research foci of science
education for almost twenty years, but with a downward trend of publications for this same period. How can we
account for this confusing conclusion? In the present study, two possible reasons were considered.
One reason for this phenomenon may be the popularity of research on students’ conceptual understanding
to the varied sub-topics within it (Lin et al., 2019). It can be explained that, as an area of research, there are some
research contents that have been evoked, and simultaneously, there are some research contents that have been
vanishing. Therefore, an upward trend for some sub-topics may be accompanied by a downward trend for others.
The downward trend of the research on conceptual understanding might be attributed to the process of change
in the prevalence of sub-topics. For example, the number of sub-topics with upward trends might be smaller than
the number with downward trends, and in terms of the quantity of publications of research on students’ concep-
tual understanding, it might show a downward trend. In fact, the research on students’ conceptual understanding
covers many sub-topics, including the investigation of students’ misconception (or alternative conception, or
alternative framework, see Banerjee, 1991 and Simpson & Marek, 1988) and the instructional interventions to help
students overcome misconceptions or to facilitate students’ conceptual change (Basili & Sanford, 1991; Stavy, 1991).
Unfortunately, no article reported sub-topics of research on students’ conceptual understanding in the above. As
the information about sub-topics was not provided, the upward (or downward) trends of sub-topics cannot be
identified, nor can the change of interest in research on students’ conceptual understanding. Therefore, the first
purpose of this study is to identify the sub-topics of research on students’ conceptual understanding.
The second reason for the abnormal trends of the research may be attributed to the variety of methods used
to obtain trends. White (1997) obtained trends through summarizing the number of times the keywords appeared
per 10,000 articles in all time periods. Tsai and Wen (2005), Lee et al. (2009), Lin et al. (2014), and Lin et al. (2019)
evaluated trends through the comparison of percentages of quantity of publications on them. Chang et al. (2010)
obtained trends through a line chart of the quantity of articles belonging to a specific topic published annually.
Though the above-mentioned studies used different methods to obtain the trends of research on students’ con-
ceptual understanding, they all used descriptive statistical methods to deduct the research trends. However, such
descriptive statistical methods cannot be used to make a statistical prediction (Aron et al., 2013). Therefore, even
if the information on the sub-topics of research on students’ conceptual understanding is obtained, the change in
interest from researchers cannot be predicted using the methods mentioned above. Therefore, the second issue in
the present study was to obtain the trends of sub-topics in research on students’ conceptual understanding using
a method that could make a statistical prediction.
To address the above issues, the first step is to obtain the sub-topics of research on students’ conceptual un-
derstanding. There are two ways to do this according to the previous studies. The first method is to use the criteria
from the NARST conference categories to analyze the sub-topics (Lee et al., 2009; Lin et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2019;
Tsai and Wen, 2005). There are two reasons this method did not work well: no sub-topics of students’ conceptual
understanding reported in the criteria from NARST conference categories and the inevitably subjective assignment
of articles (Chang et al., 2010). The second method is provided by Chang et al. (2010) (complete linkage clustering),
and this method is also designed to reduce the subjectivity of assignment. This method calculates the similar-
ity between articles, then employs a similarity threshold to combine different articles into clusters. This process
repeats until no clusters can be merged. Finally, each of the articles can be assigned to a cluster. Simultaneously,
the sub-topics are obtained. One fact to be noticed here is that all the articles belong to research on students’
conceptual understanding. Therefore, when the complete linkage clustering with the similarity threshold 0.05 is
used to obtain the topics, most articles would be assigned to one topic (before this study was conducted, we tried
this method and the results showed that it did not work well). Therefore, a different method needed to be used to
obtain the sub-topics. This method was capable of obtaining the sub-topics of research on students’ conceptual
understanding in a non-preset style (reducing the subjective assignment of articles). In addition to being able to
avoid the subjective assignment of articles, this method was also able to obtain the trends of sub-topics using a
method that can make a statistical prediction.
The Structural Topic Model (STM) is a model used for dividing collections of documents into natural groups
(Roberts et al., 2014a). It divides articles into different groups using a method for unsupervised classification (Chan-
delier et al., 2018), which is different from supervised methods, where the topics are defined by hand-coding a
corpus of documents (Banks et al., 2018). This method infers topics from the texts rather than assuming them prior
to analysis (Banks et al., 2018), which means the sub-topics are obtained in a non-preset style. Therefore, STM can
not only divide documents into groups based on texts but also eliminate much of the subjectivity of ratings and
553
(pp. 551-568) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
categorizations. The STM has additional advantages that make it as a proper model to analyze the research trends
about students’ conceptual understanding. The special advantages of STM include allowing researchers to estimate
the relationship (in a way that is similar to standard regression analysis) between topics and document metadata
(such as publication date, see Chandelier et al., 2018; Roberts et al., 2014a), which is a characteristic that the other
topic modeling models (such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation, see Blei et al., 2003 etc.) do not possess. Simultaneously,
this is necessary to address the second issue mentioned above. Therefore, STM was used to obtain the trends of
the research on students’ conceptual understanding in this study. This study is not the first to use STM to obtain
trends of research topics; it has been used in political (Dybowski & Adämmer, 2018; Geese, 2019; Shirokanova &
Silyutina, 2018) and education sciences (Reich et al., 2015) (the published research that used STM can be found at
www.structuraltopicmodel.com).
This study is concerned not only with the trends of research on students’ conceptual understanding but
also the foundations of this research. In every field of science, select publications play an important role in the
development of the field. Certain articles become an expediting factor in the development of the field because
of their influence (Berry & Parasuraman, 1993), which is the basis of the present study. That is, the studies that
play an important role in the development of research on students’ conceptual understanding are regarded as
its foundations. In the above-mentioned studies, highly cited references in science education were analyzed by
the researchers (Lee et al., 2009; Lin et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2019; Tsai & Wen, 2005). However, the foundations of the
research on students’ conceptual understanding have not been concerned with such studies. Therefore, the third
objective of this study is to obtain the foundations of the research on students’ conceptual understanding in sci-
ence education by summarizing the 10 most cited papers.
Research Questions
The above analysis revealed three significant questions to be answered:

1. What sub-topics are included in the research on students’ conceptual understanding?
2. How did the sub-topics of the research on students’ conceptual understanding vary with time?
3. How did the 10 most highly cited studies of research on students’ conceptual understanding vary with
time?
Data Collection and Pre-processing
The Web of Science database contains more than 10,000 world authoritative and high-impact journals, cover-
ing the fields of physical sciences, social sciences, technology, the earliest of which dates back to 1900 (Zhang et al.,
2015). For many years, Web of Science has had a virtual monopoly on the provision of citation tracking (Bakkalbasi
et al., 2006). Therefore, Web of Science has often been used as a source of data.
The journals widely used as sources for selecting articles in science education included International Journal
of Science Education (IJSE), Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST), and Science Education (SE) (Lee et al.,
2009; Lin et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2019; Tsai & Chang, 2005). Chang et al. (2010) also used the journal of Research in
Science Education (RISE) in addition to the three recognized journals above due to similarly high impact and zonal
characteristics (JRST, SE in North America, IJSE, in Europe, and RISE in Australasia).
In the present study, IJSE, JRST, SE, and RISE were all used as sources for selecting articles in consideration
of impact and zonal characteristics. Thus, the publication name (SO) was set as SO= (“SCIENCE EDUCATION” OR
“INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION” OR “JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING” OR “RE-
SEARCH IN SCIENCE EDUCATION”) in Web of Science.
As the definition of students’ conceptual understanding states, students’ private understanding was described
using several terms (e.g., misconception, alternative framework), and the constructing process was described by
several terms (e.g., conceptual change, conceptual development). These terms were grouped as a suite of terms
to represent the research on students’ conceptual understanding. Thus, the topic was set as TS=(“misconcept*”
OR “preconception*” OR “alternat* concept*” OR “alternat* framework*” OR “alternat* concept* framework*” OR
“intuit* theor*” OR “mini-theor*” OR “prior knowledge*” OR “student* concept*” OR “concept* change” OR “concept*
develop*” OR “learn* progress*”)(quotation marks indicated, for example, alternat* framework* were combined as
a word group, * was used to indicate synonyms of a term, for example, misconception instead of misconceptions).
554
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 551-568)
In addition, the language types were confined to English, and the document types were confined to articles.
As the introduction section mentioned that numerous studies on students’ conceptual understanding have been
published since the 1980s (Lin et al., 2019), only the studies published in or after 1980 were selected and the time
span was set as “1980 to 2019” in this study. The date of data collection was February 12, 2020. Finally, the results
showed that a total of 1,388 articles were suitable according to the searching criteria.
An abstract is a brief and comprehensive summary of the contents of an article that can correctly reflect the
purpose and content of a manuscript (APA, 2009). Readers can grasp the necessary information of an entire paper
through the abstract without reading all the words or sentences in the article (Zhang et al., 2015). In this study, a
corpus of article abstracts was used to obtain the sub-topics of research about students’ conceptual understand-
ing. Therefore, the 33 studies without abstracts were excluded.
It was necessary to engage in some processing of the textual data before modeling it. The most common
processing steps included lemmatization (Benoit & Matsuo, 2019), dropping punctuation, dropping numbers, and
stopping word removal (e.g., the, is, at) (Roberts et al., 2014a). In this study, the copyright information presented
in some abstracts was also removed.
Statistical Analysis
The STM package was used to conduct the statistical analysis according to the description of Roberts et al.
(2014a) about usage (Roberts et al., 2018), namely model search and understanding. With regard to model search,
the most important step was to select an appropriate number of topics. There is no right answer to the number of
appropriate topics for a given corpus (Grimmer & Stewart, 2013). Based on the recommendations of Roberts et al.
(2014b), the topic quality was measured through words that were semantically cohesive and exclusive to topics.
Thus, 10 sub-topics were regarded as appropriate.
Understanding means the interpretation of model results. The first aspect of understanding is to comprehend
topics through words and example articles. Chandelier et al. (2018) described the selected topics based on the
inspection of the 20 top words and the reading of the 5 abstracts that were most representative of each topic.
In the present article, we referred in the same manner to defined sub-topics mentioned in research on students’
conceptual understandings in science education. The second aspect of understanding is to estimate relationships
between metadata and topical content (Roberts et al., 2014a). As the literature review section stated, trends refer
to the change of interest in a topic over time. Therefore, the publication time was set as a covariate to obtain the
change of interest in sub-topics. As for the research interest in a topic, there are typically two characteristics of
concern: the prevalence and the research content (Roberts et al., 2014b). In sum, the second aspect of understand-
ing is to estimate relationships between publication time of a study and the prevalence and research content. In
addition to the above, to obtain the trends of topics efficiently, the topic correlations were estimated using STM.
As mentioned in the literature review section, there was an upward trend in the publications of research
on students’ conceptual understanding from 1965 to 2000 (Chang et al., 2010; White, 1997). The year 2000 was a
defining period in the publications of this research. After 2000, there was a downward trend (Chang et al., 2010;
Lee et al., 2009; Lin et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2019; Tsai & Wen, 2005). Simultaneously, only articles published in or after
1980 were included in this study. Therefore, in this study, two periods of time were examined: 1980–1999 and
2000–2019. Therefore, the change in research contents was obtained through the comparison of the most frequent
words between the two periods. Furthermore, foundations of research on students’ conceptual understanding
within the two periods were derived through an analysis of the 10 most highly cited papers in the two periods.
Research Results
20 Most Probable Words of Topics and 5 Papers Most Highly Associated with Each Topic
The 20 most probable words of each topic were as follows:

Topic 1: Hypothetico, evolutionary theory, evolutionary explanation, species, leverage, evolution, ex-
planatory hypothesis, evolutionary change, natural selection, loss, survival, combustion, adaptation, trait,
biological evolution, worksheet, predictive, Greek, item, progression.
Topic 2: Intuitive rule, teacher belief, pedagogical knowledge, elementary school child, initial teacher
555
(pp. 551-568) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
training, main category, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), vignette, content, teacher education,
content knowledge, science method, teacher view, physicist, teaching practice, physics teacher, opinion,
constructivism, professional development.
Topic 3: Philippines, cellular respiration, subsequent, Science-Technology (ST), epistemological view, as-
sertion, pre-service teacher view, scientific community, science teacher education program, ambiguity,
intelligible, science method, teaching approach, expectation, simultaneous, prospective teacher, classroom
discourse, ST instruction, meet, classroom activity.
Topic 4: Low achiever, dependent variable, teacher demonstration, anchor, student achievement, achiever,
boy, gender, covariance, work, prior knowledge, diagnostic test, achievement, repeat, visualization, elec-
tricity, girl, factor analysis, sufficiently, treatment.
Topic 5: Gender difference, future study, incline, survey, genetic, depict, adoption, science learning,
relationship, school student, male, positively, meaningful, negatively, semester, deep, questionnaire,
predict, female, worldview.
Topic 6: Analogy, analog, metaphor, analogically, analogical reasoning, exert, bridge analogy, visit, stu-
dent teacher, literacy, bridge, situational, analogue, classroom discourse, table, teacher educator, root,
education level, clinical, light.
Topic 7: Refutational text, control student, Lakatos, plot, experimental treatment, exercise, heat, experi-
mental, treatment, log, achievement test, teach experiment, cooperative, text, Cambridge, promising,
simulation, concept mapping, quasi, curiosity.
Topic 8: Velocity, ozone layer, boiling, impose, condensation, relativity, greenhouse effect, reconstruct,
presupposition, anode, atmosphere, air pressure, solute, aqueous solution, naive view, character, pupil,
existence, distance, pre-instructional.
Topic 9: Science teaching efficacy, psychometric, operation, diagnosis, Le Chatelier, reasoning ability,
analogical model, bond, gas behavior, electron, diagnose, invertebrate, respiration, freshman, item dif-
ficulty, alternative conceptual framework, tier, vertebrate, meiosis.
Topic 10: Reinterpret, rejection, anomalous datum, induce, taxonomy, reject, uncertainty, cognitive
conflict, response, exclude, accept, respond, scientific conception, 9th, stimulate, ignore, final, logical
thinking ability, socio-scientific, conflict map.
To understand the research content of each topic, Roberts et al. (2014a) suggested that both the collections
of words associated with topics and the actual documents estimated to be highly associated with each topic be
examined. Thus, for each topic, five documents were selected by examining the abstracts, which were highly as-
sociated with each topic, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Top 5 Documents that are highly associated with each topic
Topic Document 1 Document 2 Document 3 Document 4 Document 5
Topic LAWSON, AE, 1992, 10.1002/ PEEL, A, 2019, ZANGORI, L, 2017, 10.1002/ ROMINE, WL, 2017, 10.1002/ PEEL, A, 2019, 10.1002/
1 TEA.3660290205 10.1080/09500693.2018.1564084 TEA.21404 TEA.21380 TEA.21545
Topic GROSSSCHEDL, J, 2014, COLLINS, A, 1993, 10.1002/ PITJENG-MOSABALA, P, 2018, STAVY, R, 1996, TIROSH, D, 1996,
2 10.1080/09500693.2014.923949 TEA.3660300908 10.1080/09500693.2018.1446569 10.1080/0950069960180602 10.1080/0950069960180603
Topic AKERSON, VL, 2000, 10.1002/ TABACHNICK, BR, 1999, MESCI, G, 2017, 10.1007/S11165- HANUSCIN, DL, 2006, TSAI, CC, 1999,
3 (SICI)1098-2736(200004)37:4<295::AID- 10.1002/(SICI)1098- 015-9503-9 10.1002/SCE.20149 10.1080/095006999290156
TEA2>3.3.CO;2-U 237X(199905)83:3<309::AID-
SCE3>3.0.CO;2-1
Topic TRUMPER, R, 2001, WU, HC, 2010, 10.1007/S11165- STAVER, JR, 1988, 10.1002/ YEH, TK, 2012, CHAMBERS, SK, 1997,
4 10.1080/09500690010025085 009-9138-9 TEA.3660250906 10.1080/09500693.2011.579640 10.1002/(SICI)1098-
2736(199702)34:2<107::AID-
TEA2>3.0.CO;2-X
556
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 551-568)
Topic Document 1 Document 2 Document 3 Document 4 Document 5
Topic LIN, TJ, 2014, CAVALLO, AML, 1994, 10.1002/ SCHMIDT, HJ, 1995, CHIOU, GL, 2012, LIN, TC, 2015,
5 10.1080/09500693.2013.780317 TEA.3660310408 10.1080/0950069950170605 10.1080/09500693.2011.558131 10.1080/09500693.2014.992057
Topic BROWN, DE, 1994, NIEBERT, K, 2012, 10.1002/ AFONSO, AS, 2007, 10.1002/ BROWN, BA, 2016, 10.1002/ LAWSON, DI, 1993, 10.1002/
6 10.1080/0950069940160208 SCE.21026 SCE.20220 SCE.21212 TEA.3660301012
Topic ZACHARIA, ZC, 2008, 10.1002/TEA.20260 OLYMPIOU, G, 2012, 10.1002/ RYOO, K, 2014, 10.1002/ ZHANG, ZH, 2013, NIAZ, M, 1995, 10.1002/
7 SCE.20463 TEA.21128 10.1080/09500693.2013.792971 TEA.3660320907
Topic FELZMANN, D, 2014, JOUNG, YJ, 2009, EBENEZER, JV, 2001, 10.1002/ BOYES, E, 1993, GRECA, IM, 2002, 10.1002/
8 10.1080/09500693.2014.936328 10.1080/09500690701744603 SCE.1021 10.1080/0950069930150507 SCE.10013
Topic NEUMANN, K, 2013, 10.1002/TEA.21061 ABRAHAM, MR, 1994, 10.1002/ CALEON, IS, 2010, 10.1007/ ROMINE, WL, 2016, 10.1002/ OTHMAN, J, 2008,
9 TEA.3660310206 S11165-009-9122-4 SCE.21240 10.1080/09500690701459897
Topic LIN JY, 2007, 10.1002/TEA.20125 CHINN, CA, 1998, KANG, SJ, 2004, ZEIDLER, DL, 2002, 10.1002/ CHEN, YC, 2019, 10.1002/
10 10.1002/(SICI)1098- 10.1023/B:RISE.0000021001.77568. SCE.10025 SCE.21527
2736(199808)35:6<623::AID- B3
TEA3>3.0.CO;2-O
The Correlations between Topics
The correlations between topics reveal how topics correlate with one another through co-occurrence at the
document level (Roberts et al., 2014a). This assists in getting a sense of how likely a single document discusses
any given set of topics (Bohr and Dunlap, 2018). In this study, as mentioned in the research methodology section,
the information on correlations of topics has provided additional evidence for the inference pertaining to the
prevalence of topics. Figure 1 shows the correlations between topics.
Figure 1
The correlations between topics
As shown in Figure 1, ten topics are divided into ten clusters. There is no correlation between the topics. This
result indicated that there are no correlations between the changes in quantity of articles belonging to different
topics.
557
(pp. 551-568) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The Prevalence of Sub-Topics
As mentioned in the research methodology section, the change in prevalence of topics over time was ac-
counted for. STM can do this in a manner that is similar to standard regression analysis, where topic-proportions
are the outcome variable (Roberts et al., 2018). Table 2 lists the results of the estimations of regressions.
Table 2
The prevalence of topics
Topic Estimate t value p (>|t|)
1 .002263 2.603035 .009341**

2 .000693 .927234 .353971
3 -.000624 -.809862 .418162
4 .000517 .737848 .460735
5 .000814 1.281784 .200138
6 -.002327 -2.997701 .002770*
7 .000796 .982515 .326022
8 -.001480 -1.734005 .083145
9 -.000567 -.712903 .476028
10 -.000085 -.287854 .773502
Note. **p<.01; *p<.05; estimates=regression coefficient
As Table 2 shows, the results indicate that there is a statistical significance of topic 1 (t=2.60, p<.01) and topic
6 (t=-2.99, p<.05). Figure 2 shows the change in the prevalence of topic 1 and topic 6 over the years. As shown
in Figure 2, the proportion of topic 1 shows an upward trend from 1980, and the proportion of topic 6 shows a
downward trend from 1980.
Figure 2
The prevalence of topic 1 and topic 6.
558
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 551-568)
The Change of Research Contents in Sub-Topics over Time
Besides the change in prevalence over time, the change in research topics also includes the change in research
content. As the above section stated, only the regression coefficient (estimate) of topic 1 reached a significant level
at 0.05 with a positive value. Thus, only the change in research contents in topic 1 is presented in this section. As
mentioned in the method section, the years from 1980 to 2019 are divided into two periods, before and after 2000.
Therefore, the change in research contents in topic 1 is shown in these two periods, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3
The change in research contents in topic 1
Note. Words are sized proportionally to their use within the topic-covariate combinations and oriented along the X-axis based
on how much they favor one of the two configurations.
As Figure 3 shows, the phrases type, belief, significantly, reasoning, and explain are exclusive to the period before
2000, while the phrases natural selection, engage, assessment, acceptance, and learning progression are exclusive
to the period after 2000. Evolution is shared with the content of the two periods, which indicates the focus of the
research on evolution across the two periods.
The 10 Most Highly Cited Papers in the Two Periods
As mentioned in the literature review section, highly cited papers were recognized as being of crucial impor-
tance to the development of research on students’ conceptual understanding. By reviewing highly cited papers,
the foundations of the research can be obtained. Table 3 shows the 10 most highly cited papers in the two periods,
one from 1980 to 1999 and another from 2000 to 2019.
559
(pp. 551-568) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 3
The change in the 10 most highly cited papers in the two periods from 1980 to 2019
Before 2000 From 2000 to now
GILBERT, J. K., 1983, STUDIES SCI ED, V10, P61, DOI POSNER, G.J, 1992, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, COGNITIVE PSY-
10.1080/03057268308559905 CHOLOGY, AND EDUCATIONAL THEORY AND PRACTICE, P147
DRIVER, R, 1983, STUDIES SCI ED, V10, P37, DOI CAREY, S., 1985, CONCEPTUAL CHANGE IN CHILDHOOD
10.1080/03057268308559904
HEWSON, PW, 1989, INT J SCI EDUC, V11, P541, DOI DRIVER, R., 1994, MAKING SENSE OF SECONDARY SCIENCE
10.1080/0950069890110506
PINTRICH, PR, 1993, REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, V63, VOSNIADOU, S., 1994, LEARN INSTR, V4, P45, DOI 10.1016/0959-
P167, DOI 10.3102/00346543063002167 4752(94)90018-3
GILBERT, J. K., 1982, SCI EDUC, V66, P623, DOI 10.1002/ DUIT, R, 2003, INT J SCI EDUC, V25, P671, DOI
SCE.3730660412 10.1080/09500690305016
NOVAK, J.D., 1984, LEARNING LEARN VOSNIADOU, S, 1992, COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, V24, P535, DOI
10.1016/0010-0285(92)90018-W
FREYBERG, P, 1985, LEARNING IN SCIENCE. THE IMPLICATIONS PINTRICH, PR, 1993, REV EDUC RES, V63, P167, DOI
OF CHILDREN’S SCIENCE 10.3102/00346543063002167
DRIVER, R, 1985, CHILDRENS IDEAS SCI DISESSA, AA, 1993, COGNITION INSTRUCT, V10, P105, DOI
10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008
DRIVER, R, 1978, STUDIES SCI ED, V5, P61, DOI NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 1996, NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCA-
10.1080/03057267808559857 TION STANDARDS
POSNER, GJ, 1982, SCI EDUC, V66, P211, DOI 10.1002/ POSNER, GJ, 1982, SCI EDUC, V66, P211, DOI 10.1002/
SCE.3730660207 SCE.3730660207
As Table 3 shows, there are two identical papers between the first period (from 1980 to 1999) and the second
period (from 2000 to 2019) (Pintrich et al., 1993; Posner et al., 1982).
Discussion
Main Research Topics
The results section provided information about the 20 most probable topic phrases and the top five papers
highly associated with each topic. With the results of these two types of information on each topic, the focus
of topics was obtained. The process of obtaining the focus of topic 1 is shown below, using these two types of
information.
Within the framework of STM, a topic is defined as a mixture of words where each word has a probability
of belonging to a topic, which means the sum word probabilities for a given topic is one (Roberts et al., 2014a).
Therefore, the 20 most probable words of topics presented in the results section are, in fact, the words with the
highest probability of belonging to a given topic. As for topic 1, the collection of words that are associated with
it include hypothetico, evolutionary theory, evolutionary explanation, specie, leverage, evolution, explanatory
hypothesis, evolutionary change, natural selection, loss, survival, combustion, adaptation, trait, biological evolu-
tion, worksheet, predictive, Greek, item, progression. Among the above 20 phrases, hypothetico had the highest
probability, which means it is the most representative phrase of topic 1. Hypothetico is one of the elements
of hypothetico-predictive argumentation (or hypothetico-deductive), which represents a pattern of scientific
argumentation (Lawson, 1985; Lawson, 2003). Lawson (2003), Lawson (1985), and Niaz (1988) presumed that the
ability to construct and comprehend hypothetico-predictive (or hypothetico-deductive) arguments is neces-
sary for the construction of conceptual knowledge due to its essential functions in concept construction and
conceptual change. Given that explanatory hypothesis (the process of creating possible, alternative explanations
for a given set of information, see Park, 2006) and predictive are included in the collection, it is suggested that
topic 1 concerns some patterns of students’ scientific argumentation, which play an important role in students’
560
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 551-568)
conceptual understanding. As with the importance of scientific argumentation in students’ conceptual under-
standing, the research of scientific argumentation has vast appeal to researchers. Moreover, it seems negligent
to infer the focus of topics is using just three phrases (hypothetico, explanatory hypothesis, and predictive) since
evolutionary theory, evolutionary explanation, specie, leverage, etc. are also included in the collection. Most
phrases are related to scientific concepts except hypothetico, explanatory hypothesis, and predictive, which
reflect the goal of students’ conceptual understanding (or the goal can be defined as constructing students’ own
private understanding, see introduction section). These concepts can be discussed in relation to the research on
students’ scientific argumentation. For example, Lawson (2003) took Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as an example
to illustrate how hypothetico-predictive argumentation is involved in concept construction and conceptual
change. Lavoie (1999) investigated the effect of emphasizing hypothetico-predictive reasoning within the
science learning cycle on high school students’ conceptual understandings in biology (natural selection), etc.
The 20 most probable phrases of topic 1 were provided by the STM package (Roberts et al., 2014b), which
means all these phrases are highly associated with topic 1, and in this study, this meant that these phrases col-
lectively represented the research about scientific argumentation. One fact that should be noticed here is that
there is a possibility that these scientific concepts were discussed together in a topic that was not concerned
with students’ scientific argumentation, because these scientific concepts are the goal of students’ conceptual
understanding (these scientific concepts may have been discussed together in reference to a topic that concerned
the investigation of students’ conceptions). Therefore, though there is a reason to believe these twenty words
strongly correlated with each other and were combined together to discuss students’ scientific argumentation
due to belonging to the same topic, it is premature to conclude that topic 1 concerned students’ scientific ar-
gumentation only using the above twenty phrases.
To check the above judgments of the focus of topic 1, it is necessary to use the five studies highly associ-
ated with topic 1, which are presented in Table 1. The first study, conducted by Lawson and Worsnop (1992),
found that the acquisition of domain-specific concepts largely depends on reflective reasoning skill. The second
study, conducted by Peel et al. (2019b), investigated students’ natural selection and antibiotic resistance (ABR)
knowledge through model-based explanations. The third study, conducted by Zangori et al. (2017), theorized
that embedding model-based reasoning within a socio-scientific issue (SSI) unit would support students in
developing and using models to articulate explanations of carbon cycling, climate change, and their interre-
lationships. The fourth study, conducted by Romine et al. (2017), validated the Measure of Acceptance of the
Theory of Evolution (MATE) on undergraduate students using the Rasch model and a path to mediate evolution
acceptance might be reasoning and understanding (Ha et al., 2012). The fifth study conducted, by Peel et al.
(2019a), analyzed students’ pre- and post-unit algorithmic explanations of natural selection and obtained the
change in students’ conceptions of natural selection. It can be found that the studies highly associated with
topic 1 were all concerned with students’ scientific reasoning rather than with scientific argumentation, which
was concluded from the phrases that are associated with topic 1. As Osborne (2010) and Fischer et al. (2014)
stated, educational and science education research on scientific argumentation has focused on the external-
ized processes and products of scientific reasoning within social contexts. Therefore, there is no disagreement
between the conclusion obtained from the phrases that are associated with topic 1 and the studies highly as-
sociated with topic 1.
In sum, by combining the information provided by the 20 most probable phrases of topic 1 and studies
highly associated with topic 1, it can be concluded that topic 1 focuses on the research about scientific argu-
mentation/reasoning in students’ conceptual understanding. The foci of other topics are obtained through the
same process mentioned above, as follows:
Topic 1: Scientific argumentation/reasoning, which plays an important role in the construction of students’
conceptions.
Topic 2: Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, etc.),
which contributes to students’ conceptual understanding.
Topic 3: Nature of science (both teachers’ and students’), which can facilitate students’ conceptual un-
derstanding.
Topic 4: The investigation of students’ conceptions (or prior knowledge), and the relationships (e.g., me-
diators) between it and other factors (e.g., gender, treatment).
561
(pp. 551-568) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Topic 5: Conceptions of science learning (both teachers’ and students’), which is of benefit to students’
conceptual understanding.
Topic 6: Analogies and metaphors, which can enhance students’ conceptual understanding.
Topic 7: Cognitive conflict, which is effective in promoting students’ conceptual understanding.
Topic 8: Contexts, which have influence on the construction of students’ specific conception.
Topic 9: The development of the diagnostic instruments of students’ conceptions, and the source of the
variation of students’ conceptual understanding.
Topic 10: Students’ response to the discrepant events, which can promote students’ conceptual under-
standing.
The focus of each sub-topic is typically stated in a short statement. The purpose of obtaining the sub-topics
of research on students’ conceptual understanding is a sub-step to obtain the trends of research on students’
conceptual understanding. Therefore, only the sub-topics that have been attracting more and more interest
from researchers were used to develop and provide a full and detailed account of topics that might attract more
interest from researchers.
It must be reemphasized that the foci of sub-topics were obtained by combining the information provided
by the 20 most probable phrases of each topic and five documents that were highly associated with each topic,
rather than simply using one or the other. This led to the result that the foci of some sub-topics seemed to
conflict with the information provided by the 20 most probable phrases. For example, cognitive conflict was
one of the 20 most probable phrases of topic 10, but the focus of topic 7, rather than the focus of topic 10, was
described as cognitive conflict that can be effective in promoting students’ conceptual understanding. In fact,
this is attributed to the information provided by the five documents that were most highly associated with each
topic. The five documents that were most highly associated with topic 7 focused on intervention to promote
students’ conceptual understanding; these interventions facilitated students’ conceptual understanding through
invoking a cognitive conflict. They include the instructional interventions of physical and virtual manipulations
(Olympiou & Zacharia, 2012), and teaching strategies based on cognitive conflict (Niaz, 1995). The five docu-
ments that were most highly associated with topic 10 primarily focused on the students’ responses to discrepant
events (Kang et al., 2004) or anomalous data (Lin, J-Y, 2007). Therefore, in this study, the focus of topic 7, rather
than the focus of topic 10, was identified as cognitive conflict, which can be effective in promoting students’
conceptual understanding. This followed the recommendations of Roberts et al. (2014b), that the results should
not only be dependent upon the data, but also upon human judgment.
Trends of Sub-Topics
Trends of sub-topics reflect the degree of researchers’ interest in a research topic. As stated in the research
methodology section, the trend of a topic includes two aspects: the change of prevalence over time and the
change of research contents over time.
The change of prevalence of a topic can be obtained using STM. As the section result stated, STM func-
tions in a manner similar to standard regression analysis, where topic-proportions are the outcome variable
and publication time is the covariate (Roberts et al., 2014a, 2018). The result indicated that only the estimate
of topic 1 had statistical significance (p<.05) with a positive value (see Table 2, Figure 2), which meant that only
the prevalence of topic 1 had been showing an upward trend. Therefore, it can be concluded that only topic 1
might attract increasing interest from researchers among all topics mentioned in the previous section.
Through the analysis of co-occurrence at the document level, the correlation within the topics can be found
(see Figure 1, Roberts et al., 2014a). That is, the topics, linked together, would frequently be discussed in the same
document. Therefore, theoretically speaking, topics linked together may show the same trend for prevalence. To
illustrate this, if two topics (topic A and topic B) are linked together, and topic A shows an upward trend while
topic B shows a downward trend, topic B might attract more interest from researchers due to the upward trend
of topic A. Thus, it can be inferred that if there is a topic linked with topic 1, even if this topic currently shows a
downward trend, an upward trend of this topic is regarded as probable, due to the sustained upward trends of
562
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 551-568)
topic 1. In fact, there is no edge linking other topics with topic 1 in Figure 1. In sum, in this study, the focus of
topic 1 was regarded as the trends of research on students’ conceptual understanding.
As the above section mentioned, topic 1 focused on the scientific argumentation/reasoning in the construc-
tion of students’ conceptions. This result can only provide the focus of topic 1 rather than the change of focus
over time. Fortunately, STM provides a function to estimate the correlation between the phrases’ use within a
given topic and publication time using a method that is similar to standard regression analysis (Roberts et al.,
2014a, 2018) (see result section, Figure 3).
This study is concerned with trends of research on students’ conceptual understanding, and the second
period represented these trends. Therefore, only the research contents of the second period are discussed here.
As Figure 3 shows, the second period emphasized words including learn (ing, this results from the pre-process
using lemmatization) progression, natural selection, evolution (shared by both periods), etc.
As the result section mentioned, the more frequently a word is used, the higher the probability of it belong-
ing to a topic (Roberts et al., 2018). As Figure 3 shows, evolution (shared by both periods), natural selection, and
learning progression, are the three largest phrases among all words belonging to the second period of topic
1. Therefore, these three words have the largest probability among all words belonging to the second period
of topic 1 in Figure 3 (like hypothetico of topic 1 in the above section), which means that these three phrases
all have potential to represent the focus of it. In other aspects, the x coordinate of phrases in the second period
remains closer to the right, having more potential to represent the characteristics of the second period. Therefore,
compared to evolution and natural selection, learning progression had more potential to explain the trends
of research of topic 1. In conclusion, though the words of the second period, except for learning progression,
can represent the focus of the second period of topic 1, learning progression can represent the trends of the
second period of topic 1 more.
Learning progressions are generally viewed by researchers as conjectural or hypothetical model pathways
of learning over periods of time that have been empirically validated (Duschl et al., 2011). As the discussion sec-
tion stated, topic 1 focused on scientific argumentation/reasoning. Taking this result into account, it might be
concluded that the research on the development (or pathways) of students’ scientific argumentation/reasoning
over periods of time may attract more interest from researchers in the foreseeable future.
The Foundations of Research on Students’ Conceptual Understanding
The result section listed the 10 most highly cited papers of both periods. As mentioned earlier, there are
unique studies in each period and there are identical studies between both periods. In this section, the foun-
dations of the topics were obtained through reviewing these unique or identical papers’ changes over time in
each period.
The first period included 10 papers, which mainly focused on three aspects of research on students’ concep-
tual understanding: the studies that played an important role in the period when researchers began to focus on
the research pertaining to students’ conceptual understanding (e.g., term definitions and reviews); the factors
(instruction tools or conditions) that could promote students’ conceptual understanding; and the investigation
of students’ conceptions. As for the first aspect, the studies included research about the epistemological and
ontological status of misconceptions, preconceptions, alternative conceptions, etc. (Gilbert & Watts, 1983), a
review of theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’ conceptual frameworks (Driver & Erickson,
1983), a review of literature-related concept development in adolescent science students (Driver & Easley 1978),
and the work of Posner et al. (1982) initiating the research about conceptual change. The second aspect includes
the research on the conditions of conceptual change in the classroom (Hewson & Thorley, 1989), the mediators
of the process of conceptual change (Pintrich et al., 1993), and the powerful strategies, including concept map-
ping and Vee diagramming, to help students construct their conceptual understanding (Novak et al., 1984). The
third aspect includes research about the investigation of students’ conceptions (or children’s science, Gilbert et
al. 1982, Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; children’s ideas, Driver, 1985).
Compared to the first period, the highly cited studies of the second period gave attention to far more than
three aspects of research about students’ conceptual understanding, namely the nature (or mental process,
or mechanism) of the process of students’ conceptual understanding (or change, see Disessa, 1993; Duschl &
Hamilton, 1992; Vosniadou, 1994), description of the process of students’ conceptual understanding (or change,
Carey, 1985, Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992), investigation of students’ conceptions (Driver, 1994), the mediators of
563
(pp. 551-568) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
the process of conceptual change (Pintrich et al., 1993), and the value of the framework of conceptual change for
science learning (Duit & Treagust, 2003); the work of Posner et al. (1982) initiated the research about conceptual
change. It should be noticed that the document named National Science Education Standards (Council & others,
1996) was not discussed here, because it is not purely designed to develop students’ conceptual understanding
(though numerous studies referred to it).
Like Berger (1979), Klopfer (1983) stated that science education was still considered a pre-paradigmatic
domain around 1980. Therefore, in the research about students’ conceptual understanding, which is one of the
research topics of science education that no doubt was a pre-paradigmatic domain, this meant that new terms
had to be defined. Many of the highly cited studies in the first period (1980–1999) were studies like this (four of
ten studies, Driver & Easley, 1978; Driver & Erickson, 1983; Gilbert & Watts, 1983, and Posner et al., 1982). Since
the 1980s, science education had experienced impressive development and had become its own domain of
research. Most of the highly cited studies in the second period were published in this period, and most of them
concerned the description of the process of students’ conceptual understanding (or change), or the nature (or
mental process, or mechanism) of the process of students’ conceptual understanding (five of nine studies, one
excluded) (Carey, 1985; Disessa, 1993; Duschl & Hamilton, 1992; Vosniadou, 1994; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992).
That is to say, compared to the studies in the first period, the studies in the second period prefer to focus on the
research about the description (or nature, mental process, etc.) of the process of students’ conceptual under-
standing as their research foundations.
The identical aspects between these periods represent the continuity between them. As mentioned above,
empirical evidence provided by the research about the investigation of students’ conceptions (Driver, 1994;
Osborne & Freyberg, 1985) and the research about mediators of the process of conceptual change (Pintrich
et al., 1993) were regarded as the research foundations in both periods. In addition, the work of Posner et al.
(1982) initiated the research about conceptual change, which was also seen as the foundations in both periods.
Conclusions and Limitations
In this study, with consideration of the information about the semantic cohesion and exclusivity of words
to topics, the retrieved articles were divided into 10 sub-topics using STM. Topic 1, scientific argumentation/
reasoning, was seen to attract more interest from researchers, which was determined using a method similar
to standard regression analysis (see discussion section). The foundations of research on students’ conceptual
understanding in each period were also obtained by reviewing the 10 most highly cited papers of these periods.
The conclusions of this study were drawn as follows:
1. There are 10 sub-topics of research on students’ conceptual understanding, which include scientific
argumentation/reasoning, teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, nature of science, etc.
2. Only topic 1 (scientific argumentation/reasoning, which plays an important role in the construction
of students’ conceptions) might attract increasing interest from researchers among all topics men-
tioned above. Specially, the research about the development (or pathways) of students’ scientific
argumentation/reasoning over periods of time may attract more interest from researchers in the
foreseeable future.
3. The result about highly cited studies shows that the studies in the second period (from 2000 until
now) tend to regard research about the description (or nature, mental process, etc.) of the process
of students’ conceptual understanding as the research foundation in comparison to the studies in
the first period (before 2000). Further, the empirical evidence provided by the research about the
investigation of students’ conceptions and the research about mediators of the process of conceptual
change has been the foundation of both periods.
There are many advantages to obtaining the trends and foundations of research on students’ conceptual
understanding using STM. One advantage is that it divides articles into different groups using a method for
unsupervised classification rather than a supervised method where the topics are defined by hand-coding a
corpus of documents. A second advantage is that it can discover topics and estimate their relationship (in a
manner that is similar to standard regression analysis) to document metadata (such as publication date). It is
noteworthy that STM has a number of limitations. Besides the complexity of the method and the difficulty in
planning survey experiments, the method does not provide a direct quantification of focus or interest when
studying the change of research content of topic 1 (see result section, discussion section). Therefore, the analysis
564
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 551-568)
of the change of interest in topic 1 may lead to subjectivity, although this paper reduces subjectivity in further
analysis by analyzing the position and size of phrases. Finally, although a recent comparison showed that the
identification of topics with STM provided similar results to human coding, the results obtained in this study
need to be tested further over time. In conclusion, although there are some limitations to obtaining the trends
and foundations using STM, this study highlights the value of using STM to address trends and foundations of
research on students’ conceptual understanding. Meanwhile, this study holds that the value of STM will be more
fully achieved as the studies on students’ conceptual understanding become more abundant.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the 13th Five-Year Plan on Educational Science Project (YZ2017029) of Shandong
Province of China.
References
Aron, A., Aron, E., & Coups, E. (2013). Statistics for psychology (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
American Psychological Association (APA). (2009). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).
American Psychological Association.
Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(1), 7.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-7
Banerjee, A. C. (1991). Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science
Education, 13(4), 487–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130411
Banks, G. C., Woznyj, H. M., Wesslen, R. S., & Ross, R. L. (2018). A review of best practice recommendations for text analysis in R
(and a user-friendly app). Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(4), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9528-3
Basili, P. A., & Sanford, J. P. (1991). Conceptual change strategies and cooperative group work in chemistry. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 28(4), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280403
Benoit, K., & Matsuo, A. (2019). spacyr. Wrapper to the ’spaCy’ ’NLP’ Library. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=spacyr
Berger, C. F. (1979). What are the implications of paradigm-based research for science education research? Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 16(6), 517–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660160605
Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). Building a new academic field: The case of services marketing. Journal of Retailing, 69(1),
13–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(05)80003-X
Bezzi, A. (1996). Use of repertory grids in facilitating knowledge construction and reconstruction in geology. In Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 33(2), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199602)33:2<179::AID-
TEA4>3.0.CO;2-R
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(Jan), 993–1022.
Bohr, J., & Dunlap, R. E. (2018). Key Topics in environmental sociology, 1990–2014. Results from a computational text analysis.
Environmental Sociology, 4(2), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2017.1393863
Brumby, M. N. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical biology students. Science Education,
68(4), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730680412
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. MIT press.
Chandelier, M., Steuckardt, A., Mathevet, R., Diwersy, S., & Gimenez, O. (2018). Content analysis of newspaper coverage of wolf
recolonization in France using structural topic modeling. Biological Conservation, 220, 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2018.01.029
Chang, Y-H, Chang, C-Y, & Tseng, Y-H (2010). Trends of science education research. An automatic content analysis. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 19(4), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9202-2
Cho, H-H., Kahle, J. B., & Nordland, F. H. (1985). An investigation of high school biology textbooks as sources of misconceptions
and difficulties in genetics and some suggestions for teaching genetics. Science Education, 69(5), 707–719. https://doi.
org/10.1002/sce.3730690512
Claesgens, J., Scalise, K., Draney, K., Wilson, M., & Stacy, A. (2002). Perspective of a Chemist: A Framework to Promote Conceptual
Understanding of Chemistry. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Cuccurullo, C., Aria, M., & Sarto, F. (2016). Foundations and trends in performance management. A twenty-five year biblio-
metric analysis in business and public administration domains. Scientometrics, 108(2), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11192-016-1948-8
Disessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105–225. https://doi.org/10.108
0/07370008.1985.9649008
Driver, R. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Driver, R., Rushworth, P., Squires, A., & Wood-Robinson, V. (Eds.). (2005). Making sense of secondary science: Research into chil-
dren’s ideas. Routledge.
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent sci-
ence students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267808559857
565
(pp. 551-568) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’ conceptual
frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268308559904
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change. A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning.
International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016
Dukes, R. J., & Strauch, K. (1984). Trends in physics teaching. The Physics Teacher, 22(7), 446–448. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2341613
Duschl, R. A., & Hamilton, R. J. (1992). Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice. State
University of New York Press.
Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in
Science Education, 47(2), 123-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.604476
Dybowski, T. P., & Adämmer, P. (2018). The economic effects of US presidential tax communication. Evidence from a correlated
topic model. European Journal of Political Economy, 55, 511–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2018.05.001
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., Neuhaus, B., Dorner, B., Pankofer, S., Fischer, M., & Strijbos, J. W.
(2014). Scientific reasoning and argumentation. Advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline
Learning Research, 2(3), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v2i2.96
Gallegos, L., Jerezano, M. E., & Flores, F. (1994). Preconceptions and relations used by children in the construction of food
chains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310306
Geese, L. (2019). Immigration-related speechmaking in a party-constrained parliament: Evidence from the “refugee crisis”
of the 18th German Bundestag (2013–2017). German Politics, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2019.1566458
Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education,
66(4), 623–633. https://doi.org/10.1002/SCE.3730660412
Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science
education. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 61–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268308559905
Gilbert, J. K., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2011). Concept development and transfer in context-based science education. Inter-
national Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 817–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.493185
Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political
texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mps028
Ha, M., Haury, D. L., & Nehm, R. H. (2012). Feeling of certainty: Uncovering a missing link between knowledge and acceptance
of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 95–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20449
Hewson, M. G., & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students’ prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies
on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 731–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200804
Hewson, P. W., & Thorley, N. R. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom. International Journal of Science
Education, 11(5), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069890110506
de Jong, O. (2007). Trends in western science curricula and science education research: A bird’s eye view. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 6(1), 15–22.
Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Research
in Science Education, 34(1), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000021001.77568.B3
Klopfer, L. E. (1983). Editorial: Research and the crisis in science education. Science Education, 67(3), 283–284. https://doi.
org/10.1002/sce.3730670302
Lavoie, D. R. (1999). Effects of emphasizing hypothetico-predictive reasoning within the science learning cycle on high
school students’ process skills and conceptual understandings in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10),
1127–1147. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1127::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-4
Lawson, A. E. (1985). A review of research on formal reasoning and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
22(7), 569–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220702
Lawson, A. E., & Worsnop, W. A. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation. Effects of reflective
reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2),
143–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/TEA.3660290205
Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science
teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052117
Lee, M.-H., Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C-C (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007. A content analysis
of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 1999–2020. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09500690802314876
Lin, J.-Y. (2007). Responses to anomalous data obtained from repeatable experiments in the laboratory. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 44(3), 506–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/TEA.20125
Lin, T.-C., Lin, T.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Research trends in science education from 2008 to 2012. A systematic content analysis
of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1346–1372. https://doi.org/10.10
80/09500693.2013.864428
Lin, T., Lin, T., Potvin, P., & Tsai, C. (2019). Research trends in science education from 2013 to 2017: A systematic content analysis
of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 367–387. https://doi.org/10.1080
/09500693.2018.1550274
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Academies Press.
Niaz, M. (1988). Manipulation of M demand of chemistry problems and its effect on student performance: A neo-piagetian
study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 643–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660250804
566
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 551-568)
Niaz, M. (1995). Cognitive conflict as a teaching strategy in solving chemistry problems: A dialectic–constructivist perspective.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(9), 959–970. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320907
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B.. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press.
Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students’ conceptual
understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sce.20463
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science (New York, N.Y.), 328(5977),
463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science. The implications of children’s science: ERIC.
Park, J. (2006). Modelling Analysis of Students’ Processes of Generating Scientific Explanatory Hypotheses. International Journal
of Science Education, 28(5), 469–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500404540
Peel, A., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2019a). Learning natural selection through computational thinking: Unplugged design
of algorithmic explanations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(7), 983–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/TEA.21545
Peel, A., Zangori, L., Friedrichsen, P., Hayes, E., Sadler, T. (2019b). Students’ model-based explanations about natural selection
and antibiotic resistance through socio-scientific issues-based learning. International Journal of Science Education, 41(4),
510–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1564084
Pines, A. L., & West, L. H. T. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning: An interpretation of research within a
sources-of-knowledge framework. Science Education, 70(5), 583–604. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730700510
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom
contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543063002167
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of
conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/SCE.3730660207
Reich, J., Tingley, D., Leder-Luis, J., Roberts, M. E., & Stewart, B. (2015). Computer-assisted reading and discovery for student
generated text in massive open online courses. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(1), 156–184. https://doi.org/10.18608/
jla.2015.21.8
Reif, F. (1995). Millikan Lecture 1994. Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes. American Journal
of Physics, 63(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17764
Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Tingley, D., (2014a). STM: R package for structural topic models. Journal of Statistical Software,
10(2), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v091.i02
Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Lucas, C., Leder-Luis, J., Gadarian, S. K., Albertson, B. & Rand, D. G. (2014b). Structural
topic models for open-ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1064–1082. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ajps.12103
Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Tingley, D. (2018). STM: R package for structural topic models. http://www.structuraltopicmodel.
com
Romine, W. L., Walter, E. M., Bosse, E., & Todd, A. N. (2017). Understanding patterns of evolution acceptance: A new implemen-
tation of the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) with Midwestern university students. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 54(5), 642–671. https://doi.org/10.1002/TEA.21380
Salinas, I. (2009). Learning progressions in science education: Two approaches for development. In Learning Progressions in
Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
Shirokanova, A., & Silyutina, O. (2018) Internet regulation: A text-based approach to media coverage. In: Alexandrov, D.,
Boukhanovsky, A., Chugunov, A., Kabanov, Y., & Koltsova, O. (Eds), Digital transformation and global society. DTGS 2018.
Communications in computer and information science (Vol. 858). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02843-5_15
Simpson, W. D., & Marek, E. A. (1988). Understandings and misconceptions of biology concepts held by students attending
small high schools and students attending large high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(5), 361–374.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660250504
Stavy, R. (1991). Using analogy to overcome misconceptions about conservation of matter. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 28(4), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280404
Taber, K. S. (2001). Shifting sands: A case study of conceptual development as competition between alternative conceptions.
International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), 731–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010006572
Taber, K. S. (2014). Student thinking and learning in science: Perspectives on the nature and development of learners’ ideas.
Routledge.
Taber, K. S. (2015a). Alternative conceptions/frameworks/misconceptions. In: Gunstone, R. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science educa-
tion. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_88
Taber, K. S. (2015b). Prior knowledge. In: Gunstone, R. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education. Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0_483
Tsai, C.-C., & Chang, C.-Y. (2005). Lasting effects of instruction guided by the conflict map. Experimental study of learning
about the causes of the seasons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1089–1111. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20089
Tsai, C.-C., & Lydia Wen, M. (2005). Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002. A content analysis of publication
in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000243727
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3
567
(pp. 551-568) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psy-
chology, 24(4), 535–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90018-W
White, R. (1997). Trends in research in science education. Research in Science Education, 27(2), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02461317
Zangori, L., Peel, A., Kinslow, A., Friedrichsen, P., & Sadler, T. D. (2017). Student development of model-based reasoning about
carbon cycling and climate change in a socio-scientific issues unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(10),
1249–1273. https://doi.org/10.1002/TEA.21404
Zhang, W., Zhang, W., Yu, B., & Zhao, L. (2015). Knowledge map of creativity research based on keywords network and co-word
analysis, 1992–2011. Quality & Quantity, 49(3), 1023–1038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0032-9
Received: April 04, 2020 Accepted: July 29, 2020
Cite as: Mi, S., Lu, S., & Bi, H. (2020). Trends and foundations in research on students’ conceptual understanding in
science education: A method based on the structural topic model. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4), 551-568.
Shuaishuai Mi PhD Student, College of Chemistry, Chemical Engineering and

Materials Science, Shandong Normal University, Ji’nan, Shandong
250014, China.
E-mail: mishuaishuai@stu.sdnu.edu.cn
Shanshan Lu Doctor of Education, Associate Professor, College of Chemistry,
Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Shandong Normal
University, Ji’nan, Shandong 250014, China.
E-mail: 615046@sdnu.edu.cn
Hualin Bi Doctor of Education, Professor, College of Chemistry, Chemical
(Corresponding author) Engineering and Materials Science, Shandong Normal University,
Ji’nan, Shandong 250014, China.
E-mail: bihl@qfnu.edu.cn
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2244-4839
568
PHYSICS TEACHERS’
PERCEPTIONS ON
SUSTAINABLE PHYSICS ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
EDUCATION ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
Abstract. The United Nation 2030 Agenda

Nurfaradilla Mohamad Nasri,
for Sustainable Development advocates
Nurfarahin Nasri, teachers as the key in, and for, sustainable
Mohamad Asyraf Abd Talib development. Surprisingly, while physics
teachers have long been recognized as im-
portant agents in equipping students with
necessary physics knowledge and scientific
inquiry skills, nonetheless less attention is
Introduction paid to explore physics teachers’ percep-
tions on sustainable physics education
Education is the key element to realizing one of the most aspiring (SPE). The absence of robust research that
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) vision primarily SDG 4 agenda on explores physics teachers’ perceptions to
establishing inclusive and equitable quality education for all learners. One of SPE has informed this research. A total
the 10 targets of SDG 4 outlines the educational objectives of strengthening of 248 Malaysian physics teachers were
learners’ knowledge and skills required for sustainable development. In this involved in a survey consisting of both
regard, physics education (PE) bears great potential in providing an excel- close and open-ended questions to capture
lent opportunity to drive and shape sustainable development for the future their perceptions of SPE. In examining the
world. According to Bao and Koenig (2019), PE not only fosters high-end differences in physics teachers’ perceptions
reasoning skills and improves students’ scientific literacy competencies, but of SPE, with regards to teaching experiences
also produces technically literate, skilled workforce to support sustainable and educational background, the one-way
development. ANOVA was utilized. Whereas thematic
PE inherently is deployed to excite students’ interest, curiosity and analysis was used to analyze responses
initiative for learning science as well as boost students’ enrolment in science- from the open-ended questions. The main
related courses towards achieving Malaysia global goals in becoming fully finding of this research is the novice physics
developed country. Supporting this vision, Malaysian physics teachers are teachers expressed more positive views of
committed to educate the younger generations to become responsible citi- SPE, where they posed better understand-
zens who practice sustainable lifestyles. In that account, Malaysian physics ing and greatly valued physics competen-
teachers have utilized a variety of physics hands-on activities, inquiry-based cies when compared to the other teaching
experiments, and simulation-based learning to promote more students’ par- experiences groups. The understandings of
ticipation by nurturing a deep and meaningful physics learning (Saleh, 2014). sustainability among physics teachers were
Literature has argued that physics teachers play significant roles in largely dominated by environmental foci.
ensuring quality PE in meeting the SDG 4 targets (e.g. Thi To Khuyen et al., This research provides vital information to
2020; Wang et al., 2011). However, teaching practices among physics teach- design effective teacher professional devel-
ers are strongly affected by their perceptions (Thibaut et al., 2018). Teachers opment targeting novice physics teachers
who have positive views in sustainable development have greater inclination in order to implement SPE effectively.
and aptitude for sustainable physics education (SPE) (Jauhariyah et al., 2019). Keywords: physics education, educa-
Previous researchers have also indicated that experienced physics teachers tion for sustainable development, physics
express more positive views to integrate sustainable notion in physics teach- teacher, teachers’ perception.
ing than novice physics teachers (Bao & Koening, 2019). Reflecting on similar
idea, many researchers have further analyzed physics teachers’ difficulties
in implementing pedagogical and curriculum practices (Bess, 2018; Henke Nurfaradilla Mohamad Nasri,
& Höttecke, 2015; Krzywacki et al., 2017). Based on previous argument, it is Nurfarahin Nasri,
therefore important to explore physics teachers’ perceptions of sustainability Mohamad Asyraf Abd Talib
National University of Malaysia, Malaysia
from various contexts related to teaching in order to promote SPE.
569
Physics teachers’ perceptions on sustainable physics education
(pp. 569-582)
However, review of literature on physics teachers’ perceptions on SPE has revealed a shortfall in this particu-
lar area of research. Furthermore, inconsistencies in physics teachers’ perceptions from demographic standpoint
deserves more investigation (Mansour, 2013). Driven by these identified gaps, this research categorized physics
teachers based on their teaching experiences and educational background to examine if there is any difference
among them in terms of perceptions towards PE. The key research questions which guided this research are: 1)
What are physics teachers’ perceptions of PE, 2) Is there any difference in physics teachers’ perceptions between
different teaching experiences groups, and 3) Is there any difference in physics teachers’ perceptions between
different educational background groups?
The Relation Between PE and Sustainable Development Goal
The terms “sustainable” or “sustainability” are widely defined as the ability of a system to sustain and be in
balance. On the other hand, the term “sustainable development” has been popularized by the World Commission
on Environment and Development in 1987 where the idea of sustainable development has its root way back at
the late 1960s and early 1970s. Through its report entitled Our Common Future, the term “sustainable develop-
ment” has been defined as the capacity or ability of a society to meet the present needs of all citizens, without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland Report, WCED 1987). Despite
scientific and technological expansion, the unprecedented industrial growth has caused extensive damage to the
global environment endangering the survival of human race and the planet. The anxiety caused by the negative
consequences observed on environment has received massive media publicity which has given rise to various
green movements led by environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In the struggle to find the best
solution to address the issues, education has been recognized as the key in achieving most if not all 17 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). The fundamental role of education is brought to attention particularly at the United
Nation World Summit in Johannesburg in 2002 as greater emphasis is given to reorient current education system
towards achieving SDG 4: Quality Education.
One of the important targets of SDG 4 is to promote the mastery of sufficient knowledge and skills among
students to support sustainable development (Greig & Priddle, 2019). PE inherently advocates multiple SDGs that
focus on inclusive and smart lifestyle through the creation of sustainable technological innovation for example,
SDG 4: Quality education, SDG 7: Renewable energy, SDG 9: Innovation and Infrastructure, and SDG 13: Climate
change. The role of PE in ensuring the achievement of sustainable development goals are preliminarily sketched
along with an extended overview on improving the quality of physics teachers. The sustainable development of
PE has the potential to equip students with necessary physics knowledge and scientific skills that allow students to
be responsible citizens in promoting sustainable development (Talisayon, 2015). In agreement with this statement,
Dou et al. (2018) argued that effective and successful implementation of PE should also be able to increase students’
interests in making discoveries related to physical world and pursue long-term careers in physics related field.
As one of the components of SDG 4, quality teachers are essential in advancing education to achieve sustain-
able development goals (Odell et al., 2020). Likewise, a continuous supply of qualified physics teachers is vital to
sustain quality PE. Quality physics teachers depend on their teaching qualifications which refer to the measures
of teachers’ competencies in relation to their subject-matter knowledge, as well as pedagogical skills attained
from both academic and continuous professional development training (e.g. Keller et al., 2017; Kumar, 2013).
Therefore, it can be understood that teaching profession requires quality teachers who can continuously upgrade
their knowledge, skills, and strategies in order to stay relevant (Ng, 2019). In other words, effective professional
development should be necessitated to continuously support the teachers in transforming their teaching practices
to benefit the students.
The Current Status of PE in Malaysia
Malaysia’s educational achievement in physics subject at both international and national level is very concern-
ing. Despite increasing percentage of students who pass Physics paper in the Malaysian Certificate of Education
(MCE) examinations, equivalent to the British O-Levels, this trend of academic record is far from satisfactory. The
2019 MCE examination data reveals a consistent run over several years in terms of percentage of students (Min-
istry of Education, 2019) who have achieved excellent results in physics paper. Such level of achievement may be
explained by the students’ lack of interest towards learning physics (Ibrahim et al., 2019). Additionally, students
570
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ Physics teachers’ perceptions on sustainable physics education
(pp. 569-582)
usually describe physics as a complex and dull subject (Archer et al., 2020). These students’ perspectives are ho-
mogenous across all levels of education where increasing number of students at higher educational institutions
avoid pursuing any physics-related courses (Stiles-Clarke & MacLeod, 2017).
The objective of the Malaysian physics curriculum is to produce citizens who are creative, critical, inquisitive,
open-minded, and possess problem solving and decision-making skills in the context of science and technology.
In accordance to this vision, physics curriculum in Malaysia has included various teaching and learning strategies
to specifically emphasize on students’ acquisition and mastery of physics knowledge and scientific skills. Some
instances of teaching approach used are inquiry-discovery, constructivism, science, technology, and society
(STS), contextual learning, and mastery learning. Despite great emphasis, physics instruction in Malaysia often
occurs deductively as the national textbooks present limited opportunity for experiment and demonstration
practices (Effendi & Zanaton, 2007; Salmiza & Afik, 2012; Sulaiman et al., 1996; Syarifah Maimunah, 2003). Phys-
ics teachers should also develop a wide range of competencies in order to keep physics’ teaching and learning
process interesting and relevant (Soko et al., 2017). Moreover, physics teachers’ preference for traditional way
of teaching combined with students’ attentiveness to the teachers’ explanation has been coined as the main
factor that contributes to low achievement and shallow curiosity in learning physics (Demirci, 2015; Mulhall &
Gunstone, 2008; Schank et al., 1999). As a result, students often perceive physics as a difficult and unexciting
subject (Guido, 2018; Lumintac, 2014) causing severe lack of interest and motivation to learn physics. As teach-
ers’ teaching practices could potentially mediate the impact on students’ achievement in physics, it is crucial
for teachers to demonstrate good understanding of the PE, expand their physics competencies and recognize
problems related to physics teaching.
Physics Teachers’ Perceptions of PE
The diversity of pedagogical innovations has been widened to ensure quality PE. Although physics teaching
strategies in Malaysia remain didactic, current teaching approaches are slowly transforming to foster student-
oriented learning by providing meaningful learning experiences in physics (Goldstein, 2016). This transformation,
however, greatly depends on the teachers’ preferred instructional design or pedagogical approach that is directly
linked to their perceptions towards PE (Denisova, 2019).
Anyolo et al. (2018) found that teachers’ perceptions vary according to teachers’ educational background and
teaching experiences on sustainable education resulting in various teaching practices (Anyolo et al., 2018). Other
research studies have identified various influential factors such as understanding, attitudes, beliefs, emotional
obstruction, perceived challenges, obstacles experienced and self-efficacy on teachers’ perceptions of PE (e.g. Ates
& Coban, 2018; Canbay & Berecen, 2012; Munby et al., 2000; Qhobela & Kolitsoe Moru, 2014; Tobin & Mcrobbie,
1996). Due to the scarcity of literature reporting on SPE, this research constructed physics teachers’ perceptions of
SPE from three components namely, knowledge and understanding of PE, physics competencies, and difficulties
in teaching physics.
Physics Teachers’ Knowledge and Understanding of PE
There is rich evidence indicating teacher pedagogical content knowledge as a major predictor to achieve
quality education (Gess-Newsome et al., 2019). Within Shulman’s landscape of teacher knowledge (Shulman, 1987),
pedagogical content knowledge serves a prominent role in connecting teachers’ knowledge of subject matter
and teachers’ understanding on teaching the contents. This shows the importance of integrating content knowl-
edge and pedagogy on teachers’ professional understanding. Although extensive research has been conducted
to determine the impact of teachers’ knowledge and motivation on students’ achievement, literature related to
multi-dimensional teacher expertise that extends beyond formal physics learning to career-oriented perspectives is
relatively exiguous (Tsang, 2018). It may appear that the progress of PE in SDG is relatively slow, yet the implemen-
tation of SPE should be cautiously addressed as teachers’ perceptions of knowledge and understanding on PE can
directly influence their teaching approaches. Consequently, this research explored this dimension through 1) the
concept of PE in terms of teaching practices of the PE knowledge and skills demanded by careers in physics field,
2) primary instructional approaches in PE that focus on scientific inquiry, constructivism, and contextual learning,
and 3) the reference of the term ‘sustainability’ in PE to achieve sustainable development.
571
(pp. 569-582)
Physics Teachers’ Perceptions Towards Physics Competencies
Woolnough (2000) and Sheppard and Robbins (2009) attributed low students’ enrolment rate in physics to
their view on this subject as too extensive, mathematical, academic oriented and highly dependent on memoriz-
ing the physics concept in the textbooks. These perceptions are largely due to the teaching methods utilized by
physics teachers that practice rote learning with little opportunity for open inquiry learning activities (Constantinou
et al., 2018). This unconducive way of teaching and learning is worrying as physics requires more than superficial
understanding of concepts but also to apply the knowledge in solving community problems (e.g. Etkina, 2010;
Ince, 2018; Wiemen et al., 2008). Similarly, Tanenbaum (2016) suggested that a set of physics core knowledge, skills,
and thinking in solving complex interdisciplinary problems is highly recommended. Framed by various research
consensus regarding physics competencies, several interpersonal skills (e.g. communication, collaboration, problem
solving), and intrapersonal skills are recognized. For this research, five categories of physics competencies were
studied: 1) skills set relevant for physics careers, 2) critical and creative thinking, 3) decision making and problem-
solving skills, 4) ethical awareness, and 5) collaboration.
Difficulties Faced by Physics Teachers in Implementing Physics Teaching
A plethoric amount of literature has reassured that physics is commonly perceived as a difficult and de-
manding subject (Çetin, 2016; Kessels, et al., 2006; Veloo et al., 2015) among students. Along similar lines, physics
teachers report their problematic experiences to effectively implement physics teaching. Some of the problems
faced by these teachers are high work load (Buabeng et al., 2017), inadequate professional development training
on physics pedagogy, insufficient equipment and laboratory facilities, lack of additional teaching and learning
resources, incompetency in unconventional learning such as experimentation, demonstration, and group-work
problem based learning (Argaw et al., 2016; Becerra-Labra et al., 2012), as well as limited internet access (Chetty,
2015; Khairani, 2017; Suana et al., 2019). With this in mind, this research categorized the teaching difficulties faced
by physics teachers into five categories; namely 1) searching for interesting idea, 2) enhancing physics learning
beyond formal national curriculum, 3) judging, assessing and determining students’ physics achievement, 4) al-
locating time for physics learning, and 5) teaching and learning resources.
Factors Related to Physics Teachers’ Perceptions of PE
Previous researchers have described that people tend to hold widely differing perceptions due to the com-
plex interaction between personal factors such as the cognition, affect and biology (Siew et al., 2015). Pertinent
to this research context, personal factors were reflected upon teaching experiences and educational background.
Teaching Experiences
In general, mastery experiences are time-dependent and reinforce people’s belief on their abilities as well
as capacities in executing specific task successfully (de Boer et al., 2016). Teachers’ teaching experiences in regard
to how long they have been teaching will therefore influence their beliefs and perceptions towards the subject
(Caleon et al., 2018). Caleon (2018) calculated a relatively low efficacy scores among novice teachers compared to
teachers who have five-year teaching experiences. However, there are inconsistencies reported in terms of teachers’
perceptions and teaching years across previous research. For example, Park et al. (2016) found significant differ-
ences between teachers’ perceptions and teaching experiences, in contrary Margot and Kettler (2019) indicated no
differences. Accordingly, for this research, the years of teaching was utilized to explain the differences of teachers’
perceptions towards PE.
Educational Background
Teachers are usually influenced by what and how they are taught. Debreli (2016) reported that current
teaching approaches used by most teachers are strongly influenced by their experience as students during their
572
(pp. 569-582)
schooling years. Other than being a major contributor to improved students’ achievement (Shannag et al., 2013),
teachers’ educational background also has great influence on teachers’ teaching practices as a result of various
scholastic instructional models (Ye, 2016). Figure 1 depicts physics teachers’ perceptions of SPE and factors utilized
to categorize the participants.
Figure 1
Demographic data for categorizing subsamples
General Background
Survey research design was employed to measure Malaysia physics teachers’ perceptions of SPE based on three
components, knowledge and understanding of PE, physics competencies and difficulties in teaching physics. Data
were gathered for six months (January to June 2019) among physics teachers who were attending professional
development training at various teacher training institutions where the first author served as one of the speakers.
These training programs were annually organized by both government and private agencies gathering physics
teachers from all over Malaysia. The research survey was administered at the end of every training program and
consisted of both close and open-ended questions.
Sample Selection
A homogenous convenience sample of 248 physics teachers who voluntarily participated in this research
was selected. This sampling approach was adopted due to its easy access for data collection, time-saving quality
and cost-effectiveness. Apart from being a positive alternative to conventional convenience sampling, it could also
yield clearer and generalizable data for the targeted population (Jager et al., 2017).
Almost 46.2% of the total participants were from rural schools and 53.8% participants were from urban schools.
All participants had at least a bachelor’s degree (68.5%), while some of the participants (24.2%) had a master’s
degree and only 7.3% of participants had a doctoral degree. Over half of the participants had 10 years or more
in terms of physics teaching experiences. Table 1 illustrates the distribution of participants based on educational
background and teaching experiences.
573
(pp. 569-582)
Table 1
Distribution of participants based on educational background and teaching experiences
Variable N Percentage (%)
Educational background
Bachelor 170 68.5
Master 60 24.2
PhD 18 7.3
Physics teaching experiences
<5 years 35 14.1
5-10 years 55 22.2
>10 years 158 63.7
This research aimed to examine physics teachers’ perceptions of SPE in 1) knowledge and understanding of PE,
2) physics competence, and 3) difficulties in teaching physics. Physics teachers’ overall perceptions of the knowledge
and understanding of PE were gathered and interpreted following their responses to three different items: 1) the
concept of physics teaching related to physics career, 2) the primary instructional approaches of scientific inquiry,
constructivism, and contextual learning, and 3) the reference of ‘sustainability’ in PE to achieve SDGs. Each item
was rated on a 5-point Likert scale of ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’ in order to specify participants’ level of
agreement. An average score for each item was calculated to understand and describe physics teachers’ percep-
tions of PE. The range of item factor loadings for item 1-3 was from .64 to .78. Next, participants were required to
specify their value towards physics competencies based on a 5-point scale anchored with ‘no importance’ to ‘extreme
importance’. Five items on physics competencies were devised: 1) skills set relevant for physics careers, 2) critical
and creative thinking, 3) decision making and problem-solving skills, 4) ethical awareness, and 5) collaboration.
These items recorded factor loadings between .70 and .88. Finally, participants were instructed to provide their
responses on a 5-point Likert scale regarding five difficulties in implementing PE: 1) searching for interesting idea,
2) enhancing physics learning beyond formal national curriculum, 3) judging, assessing and determining students’
physics achievement, 4) allocating time for physics learning, and 5) teaching and learning resources. The factor
loadings across these items ranged from .58 to .73.
This research also presented the results of an open-ended question that required the participants to state
three words related to sustainability in order to capture their perceptions of SPE. The responses to this question
were anticipated to offer further insight into physics teachers’ perceptions of sustainability within PE.
The adequacy of the sampling was verified through the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphe-
ricity. The test score for KMO was at .786 suggesting highly factorable variables. Whereas, the Bartlett’s test value
indicating the correlation between the variables was statistically significant at p<.001. The total variance for the two
factors was about 68.4%. The principal component and Varimax with the Kaiser normalization methods identified
three components which were knowledge and understanding of PE (item 1-3), physics competence (item 4-8) as
well as difficulties in implementing PE (item 9-13).
Data Analysis
The first question was addressed through descriptive statistic data. In answering the last two research ques-
tions, one-way ANOVA was employed to compare whether there were differences between subsamples in terms
of teaching experiences and education qualification. Next, significant differences were identified through Tukey
honestly significant difference (HSD) tests for post hoc comparison. Finally, to determine the effect size of differ-
ences between groups, eta-squared value was calculated where as suggested by Lakens (2013) the value of .01
referred to a small effect, while .06 indicated a medium effect and .14 as a large effect.
574
(pp. 569-582)
The three words were coded manually by research team members to gain familiarity with the three words.
Subsequently, relevant literature was consulted to re-code the words according to the purpose of this research.
Data collected were analyzed using SPSS 23.
Research Results
Malaysian Physics Teachers’ Perceptions of SPE
The mean value for each component was calculated to understand and interpret the physics teachers’ per-
ceptions of SPE on knowledge and understanding of physics (M=3.98, SD=0.53), physics competence (M=4.23,
SD=0.62), and difficulties in teaching PE (M=3.78, SD=0.59). Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of each component.
For participants’ knowledge and understanding of PE, the first quartile (Q1) was 3.45, or more than 75% of physics
teachers had adequate perceptions and understandings in PE. Whereas for the second component, Q1 value was
3.89 where more than 75% of the physics teachers perceived physics competencies as important and the median
of 4.23 showed that majority participants recognized physics competencies as greatly important. Finally, the
interquartile range (IQR) for the difficulties in implementing physics teaching component fluctuated around 4.00
suggesting that most teachers believed the implementation of effective physics teaching was difficult. In overall,
Malaysian physics teachers had sufficient knowledge and understanding on PE and highly regarded physics com-
petencies as important. Nevertheless, they faced difficulties to teach physics effectively.
Figure 2
Distribution of each component in the survey instrument
There were five physics competencies and five difficulties in implementing physics teaching. Table 2 outlines
the mean, the standard deviation, and the 95% confident interval (CI) for each item in physics competency and dif-
ficulties in the implementation of physics teaching. The decision making and problem-solving skills were selected
as the most important physics competencies while skills relevant for physics careers (e.g. specific communication
skills) were advocated as the least important. Finally, time allocation was regarded as the primary issue in imple-
menting PE and sources for physics teaching and learning materials were assessed as the least difficult.
575
(pp. 569-582)
Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and the 95% CI level of the importance for physics competence and difficulty in the implementa-
tion of PE
95% CI
Variable M SD
LL UL
Physics competence
(1) skills set relevant for physics careers 3.83 0.76 3.72 4.04
(2) critical and creative thinking 4.42 0.79 4.23 4.53
(3) decision making and problem-solving skills 4.62 0.81 4.45 4.82
(4) ethical awareness 4.15 0.74 3.98 4.27
(5) collaboration 4.00 0.74 3.91 4.18
Physics teaching difficulties
(1) Searching for interesting idea 3.68 0.79 3.49 4.16
(2) enhancing physics learning beyond formal national curriculum 3.73 0.82 3.65 4.04
(3) judging, assessing and determining students’ physics achievement 3.88 0.82 3.58 3.99
(4) time allocation for physics learning 4.22 0.88 3.98 4.37
(5) teaching and learning resources for physics teaching and learning 3.43 0.99 3.26 3.64
Note: CI refers to confident interval, LL refers to lower limit, UL refers to upper limit
Differences in Physics Teachers’ Perceptions of SPE Based on Teaching Experiences
One-way ANOVA was employed to examine any difference from subsamples’ perceptions of PE. Table 3 il-
lustrates the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of each group.
Table 3
The mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of each group
Knowledge and
Variable n Physics competence Difficulty in teaching physics
understanding of PE
M SD p ղ2 M SD p ղ2 M SD p ղ2
Physics Teaching Experience .043* .03 .002** .05 .936 <.01

<5 years 35 3.98 .79 4.28 .56 3.86 .62
5-10 years 55 3.99 .63 4.05 .62 3.84 .68
.10 years 158 3.54 .68 3.87 .71 3.81 .61
Highest education qualification .001** .68 *** .19 .021* .06
Bachelor 170 3.26 .52 3.78 .72 3.65 .86
Master 60 3.65 .83 3.96 .70 3.45 .64
Doctorate 18 4.10 .62 4.32 .53 3.98 .52
Note: ղ2 >.06 are in boldface while * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
Based on the data analysis, physics teachers with teaching experience of more than 10 years obtained the
lowest score advocating physics competency as the least important and faced least difficulties in teaching phys-
ics. In order to explore whether there was any difference in physics teachers’ perception of SPE based on teaching
experience, a one-way ANOVA between groups was employed. There were statistically significant differences in
knowledge and understanding of PE scores (p =.043) and in physics competency scores (p =.002) for all physics
576
(pp. 569-582)
teaching experience groups. Nonetheless, there were no statistically significant differences in difficulties to physics
teaching (p =.936). The calculated score for eta-squared which referred to the actual differences in mean scores
between groups was very small in understanding of PE (ղ2=.03) and difficulty in teaching physics (ղ2=<.01). Mean-
while, for physics competencies, the actual differences in mean scores between groups were medium (ղ2=0.05).
The Tukey HSD test score for the post hoc comparisons showed no statistical significance from the mean scores of
three physics teaching experience groups in knowledge and understanding of PE and difficulty in implementing
physics teaching. However, for physics competency, the mean scores of physics teachers who had less than five
years of teaching experiences were significantly higher than the two other groups.
Table 4
Post hoc comparisons in physics teachers’ perceptions of SPE
Knowledge and understanding Difficulty in physics

Demographic Category Physics competency
of PE teaching
Mean Mean Mean

(I) (J) Difference SE Difference SE Difference SE
(I-J) (I-J) (I-J)
Physics teaching experience

<5 years 5-10 years -.19 .16 .38 .15 .02 .14
<5 years >10 years .26 .14 .51 .14 .04 .13
5-10 years >10 years .27 .12 .10 .11 .02 .11
Highest education qualification
Bachelor Master -.31 .19 -.26 .18 -.38 .17
Bachelor Doctorate -.68 .33 -.83 .21 -.59 .19
Master Doctorate -.38 .14 -.62 .11 -.21 .12
Differences in Physics Teachers’ Perceptions of SPE Based on Educational Background
Physics teachers who had doctoral degrees achieved the highest mean scores, whereas physics teachers with
bachelor’s degrees scored the lowest mean values across all components. Therefore, it was reasonable to conclude
that physics teachers with higher education qualification had good knowledge and understanding in physics, ad-
vocated physics competency as more important and faced more difficulties in teaching physics. A one-way ANOVA
was conducted to determine the influence of physics teachers’ educational background on their perceptions of
SPE. The results indicated that there were statistically significant differences in PE and difficulty in physics teaching
(ρ<.05), and at ρ<.001 in physics competency for all groups. Based on the calculated eta-squared, the actual mean
scores differences between groups were moderate in knowledge and understanding of PE (ղ2=0.68) and larger in
physics competency (ղ2=.19). Despite obtaining statistical significance, the actual differences in the mean scores
of difficulty in physics teaching between groups were relatively small (ղ2=.06). Post hoc comparisons revealed
significantly higher mean scores for doctoral group of physics teachers and physics competency compared to the
bachelor and master’s degree groups. The bachelor group had mean scores in PE and physics competency that
had no statistically significant difference from the master’s degree group. Employing similar methodology, this
research concluded significantly lower mean scores in difficulty to physics teaching of the bachelor group than
the master and doctoral degree groups. The mean scores in difficulty to teach physics for the master and doctoral
groups revealed no statistical difference.
3 Words Analysis
To further explore physics teachers’ perception of SPE, participants had responded to “List three words you
think of when you consider the word sustainability”. As presented in Table 5, the majority of participants had writ-
ten environmental-related words (n=756, 67.3% of all words) and some of the examples of words that were coded
577
(pp. 569-582)
under the “environmental” theme such as ‘nature’, ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, ‘environment’, ‘habitat’. The “future-
oriented” theme was the second most common words reported (n=187, 16.6% of all words) that included words
such as ‘future’, ‘upcoming’, ‘lasting’, ‘enduring’, ‘lifelong’. Other small representations of the remaining themes were
less than 6% of the total findings.
Table 5
Physics teachers’ perceptions of sustainability as represented by the three words related to sustainability
Theme Count % of total Explanation Illustrative word
Economic 47 4.2 Dimension of sustainable development goals Economy

Education 39 3.5 Education for Sustainable principles Education
Critical thinking 65 5.8 Education for Sustainable principles Informed judgment
Environment 756 67.3 Dimension of sustainable development goals Environment
Future-oriented 187 16.6 Education for Sustainable principles Future
Social 26 2.3 Dimension of sustainable development goals Community
Political 4 .4 Dimension of sustainable development goals Governmental effort
Discussion
The findings revealed statistical differences between teaching experience groups, in terms of knowledge,
understanding of PE and physics competencies. However, there was no statistical difference among teaching
experience groups and difficulties to teach physics. In overall, this research found that most Malaysian physics
teachers considered physics competency as being the most valuable. Nevertheless, a comparison between the
more experienced teachers and the novice physics teachers (less than five years of teaching) revealed that the latter
group’s knowledge and understanding of PE were sufficiently better and perceived physics competency as more
valuable reaffirming previous research (Caleon et al., 2018). Reiterating Caleon et al.’s (2018) research that reported
physics teachers’ experiences and their responses on the importance for innovative pedagogical approaches were
related negatively, this research also found that physics teachers who accumulated more experience developed
less enthusiasm to adopt innovative and new physics pedagogical approaches. Thus, novice physics teachers are
commonly viewed to be more optimistic and positive towards improving pedagogical approaches than experi-
enced physics teachers. According to Shahali et al. (2015), teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about the effectiveness
of particular instructional methods could greatly influence teachers’ classroom teaching practices. In accordance
to this statement, this research suggests that within the Malaysia education context, novice physics teachers are
potentially advantageous in sustaining PE.
Physics teachers with master’s or doctoral degree pose more extensive in knowledge as well as understand-
ing in PE and tend to advocate physic competency as more important. The argument that supports this finding is
reinforced by the nature of postgraduate studies that largely provide wider exposure and specific learning with
regards to the pedagogical innovations and educational change. Therefore, it can be concluded that physics
teachers who undertake or continue their studies at higher level such as at master and doctorate level have posi-
tive gain on both their professional as well as personal growth (Makovec, 2020). Some teachers report that their
ability and competency as teachers are enhanced after pursuing master’s degree programs as they are exposed
to various pedagogic innovations during their postgraduate studies (Burroughs, 2019). Surprisingly, despite pos-
sessing higher educational qualifications, these groups of teachers report higher difficulties to teach physics.
However, Sun (2019) convincingly argued that teachers’ perceptions on difficulties to effectively teach and desire
to engage in new pedagogical practices were irrelevant if teachers put more value on PE. Therefore, this research
suggests qualified physics teachers should be viewed from the academic and training qualifications standpoints
to guarantee quality PE and SPE.
The qualitative analysis shredded further insights in revealing physics teachers’ understanding on sustainability
which was mostly dominated by environmental foci. More than half of the ‘3 words’ data were related to the ‘envi-
ronmental’ themes (69.1%) suggesting that physics teachers’ understandings were constricted to environmental
578
(pp. 569-582)
notions of sustainability, with notable lack of reference to other dimensions of sustainability (e.g. economic, social,
and politic). This way of understanding related to sustainability is unsurprising as the concept of ‘environment to
sustainability’ has been aggressively popularized and widely promoted around the globe. Moreover, the vague
definition of sustainability may also contribute to their understanding of sustainability which influences the con-
struct of sustainability image that often portrays environmental components (Salas-Zapata, 2019). Furthermore,
scaling down to a school context, the sustainability notion is primarily embedded in environmental school pro-
gram with discrete attention on school gardens, recycling and tree-planting programs (Emas, 2015). Therefore, it
is comprehensible that physics teachers’ understandings are positioned in the environmental foci of sustainability.
This research interprets physics teachers’ perceptions of SPE, including knowledge and understanding of PE,
physics competence, and difficulties faced when teaching physics. Most participants offer positive views on PE.
These findings reflect part of the favorability to sustain PE in Malaysia. To better facilitate the aspiration of PE for
sustainable development goals, it is essential to: 1) guarantee a steady supply of qualified physics teachers in both
academic and training qualifications in all schools, and 2) meticulously design and meet the professional devel-
opment needs of physics teachers with greater emphasis on physics thinking and awareness of physics careers.
Some key findings of this research include novice physics teachers have more positive views of PE; perhaps,
their access to various sources of advanced knowledge seeking skills through internet has exposed them to informal
learning about PE. Secondly, the findings indicate that teachers with higher education qualification pose exhaustive
view on PE and report more difficulties in conducting physics teaching. Novice teachers are therefore suggested
as a prospective and sustainable resource to implement SPE in Malaysia and further research has to be done to
explore the effective ways of supporting both professional and personal growth of the novice physics teachers.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia under Grant No. GG-2019-039.
References
Anyolo, E. O., Kärkkäinen, S., & Keinonen, T. (2018). Implementing education for sustainable development in Namibia:
School teachers’ perceptions and teaching practices. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 20(1), 64-81.
https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2018-0004
Archer, L., Moote, J., & MacLeod, E. (2020). Learning that physics is ‘not for me’: Pedagogic work and the cultivation of habitus among
advanced level physics students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1707679
Argaw, A. S., Haile, B. B., Ayalew, B. T., & Kuma, S. G. (2016). The effect of problem-based learning (PBL) instruction on students’
motivation and problem-solving skills of physics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(3),
857-871. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00647a
Ates, O., & Coban, U. (2018). Consistency between constructivist profiles and instructional practices of prospective physics teach-
ers. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 359-372. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.2.359
Bao, L., & Koenig, K. (2019). Physics education research for 21 st century learning. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Educa-
tion Research, 1(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0007-8
Becerra-Labra, C., Gras-Martí, A., & Torregrosa, J. M. (2012). Effects of a problem-based structure of physics contents on
conceptual learning and the ability to solve problems. International Journal of Science Education, 34(8), 1235-1253.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.619210
Bess, N. E. (2018). Learning to teach Physics: Exploring teacher knowledge, practice, and identity. [Doctoral dissertation, Montclair
State University]. Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects. https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd/162
Buabeng, I., Conner, L., & Winter, D. (2017). High school physics teachers’ conceptions about teaching: the ideal versus enacted. [Paper
presentation]. American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, USA
Burroughs, N. A., Gardner, J., Lee, Y., Guo, S., Touitou, I., Jansen, K., & Schmidt, W. (2019). A Review of the Literature on Teacher
Effectiveness and Student Outcomes. In N.A. Burroughs, J. Gardner, Y. Lee, S. Guo, I. Touitou, K. Jansen, & W. Schmidt (Eds.),
Teaching for Excellence and Equity (Vol.6, pp. 7-17). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Caleon, I. S., Tan, Y. S. M., & Cho, Y. H. (2018). Does teaching experience matter? The beliefs and practices of beginning and
experienced physics teachers. Research in Science Education, 48(1), 117-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9562-6
Canbay, O., & Beceren, S. (2012). Conceptions of teaching held by the instructors in English language teaching departments. Turk-
ish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.52100
579
(pp. 569-582)
Çetin, A. (2016). An analysis of metaphors used by high school students to describe physics, physics lesson and physics teacher.
European Journal of Physics Education, 7(2),1309-7202. https://doi.org/10.20308/ejpe.35860
Chetty, N. (2015). Teaching teachers to teach physics to high school learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1886-
1899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.852
Constantinou, C. P., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Rybska, E. (2018). What Is Inquiry-Based Science Teaching and Learning?. In Tsivitanidou,
O.E., Gray, P., Rybska, E., Louca, L., Constantinou, C.P. (Eds.), Professional development for inquiry-based science teaching and
learning (Vol.5, pp. 1-23). Springer, Cham.
de Boer, E., Janssen, F. J., & van Driel, J. H. (2016). Using an attribution support tool to enhance the teacher efficacy of student
science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(3), 303-324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9461-8
Debreli, E. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ belief sources about learning and teaching: An exploration with the consideration of the
educational programme nature. Higher Education Studies, 6(1), 116-127. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v6n1p116
Demirci, N. (2015). Prospective high school physics teachers’ beliefs about teaching practices: From traditionalist to constructivist.
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(3), 693-711. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1332a
Denisova, E. K., Bell, C., & Covaleskie, K. (2019). Evolving the Physics mindset: Changing perceptions and attitudes toward the
teaching and learning of physical science. Science and Children, 56(7), 74.
Dou, R., Brewe, E., Potvin, G., Zwolak, J. P., & Hazari, Z. (2018). Understanding the development of interest and self-efficacy
in active-learning undergraduate physics courses. International Journal of Science Education, 40(13), 1587-1605.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1488088
Effendi, Z., & Zanaton, I. (2007). Promoting cooperative learning in science and mathematics education: A Malaysian perspec-
tive. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 35-39. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75372
Emas, R. (2015). The concept of sustainable development: Definition and defining principles. Brief for GSDR, 1–3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.019
Etkina, E. (2010). Pedagogical content knowledge and preparation of high school physics teachers. Physical Review Special Topics-
Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020110. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020110
Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. (2019). Teacher pedagogical
content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 944-963.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1265158
Goldstein, O. (2016). A project-based learning approach to teaching physics for pre-service elementary school teacher education
students. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1200833. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1200833
Greig, A., & Priddle, J. (2019). Mapping students’ development in response to sustainability education: A conceptual model. Sus-
tainability, 11(16), 4324. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164324
Guido, R. M. D. (2018). Attitude and motivation towards learning physics. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technol-
ogy, 2(11), 2087-2093. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1805/1805.02293.pdf
Henke, A., & Höttecke, D. (2015). Physics teachers’ challenges in using history and philosophy of science in teaching. Science &
Education, 24(4), 349-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9737-3
Ibrahim, N., Zakiang, M. A. A., & Damio, S. M. (2019). Attitude in learning Physics among form four students. Social and Manage-
ment Research Journal, 16(2), 19-40. https://doi.org/10.24191/smrj.v16i2.7060
Ince, E. (2018). An overview of problem solving studies in physics education. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(4), 191-200.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n4p191
Jaker, J., Patrick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2017). More than just convenient: The scientific merits of homogenous convenience
samples. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82(2), 13-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12296
Jauhariyah, M. N. R., Hariyono, E., Abidin, E. N., & Prahani, B. K. (2019). Fostering prospective physics teachers’ creativity in analys-
ing education for sustainable development based curricula. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series Vol. 1417 (pp. 012086).
IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1417/1/012086
Keller, M. M., Neumann, K., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and motivation on
students’ achievement and interest. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(5), 586-614. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21378
Kessels, U., Rau, M., & Hannover, B. (2006). What goes well with physics? Measuring and altering the image of science. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 761-780. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X59961
Khairani, A. Z. (2017). Assessing urban and rural teachers’ competencies in STEM integrated education in Malaysia. In MATEC Web
of Conferences Vol. 87 (pp. 04004). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20178704004
Krzywacki, H., Kim, B. C., & Lavonen, J. (2016). Physics teacher knowledge aimed in pedagogical studies in Fin-
land and in South Korea. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(1), 201-222.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00612a
Kumar, M. V. (2013). The influence of teacher’s professional competence on students’ achievement. IOSR Journal of Engineer-
ing, 3(11), 12-18. https://doi.org/10.9790/3021-031121218
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANO-
VAs. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
Lumintac, M. T. Q. (2014). Students’ negative attitude to Physics influences low academic achievement. IAMURE International
Journal of Education, 12(1), 1-1. https://doi.org/10.7718/iamure.ije.v12i1.942
Makovec, D. (2018). The teacher’s role and professional development. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science,
Engineering and Education, 6(2), 33. https://doi.org/10.5937/ijcrsee1802033M
Mansour, N. (2013). Consistencies and inconsistencies between science teachers’ beliefs and practices. International Journal of
Science Education, 35(7), 1230-1275. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.743196
580
(pp. 569-582)
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. Inter-
national Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
Ministry of Education (2019) Laporan Analisis Keputusan Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) Tahun 2019 [2019 SPM Result Analysis
Report] https://www.moe.gov.my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/lp/3324-laporan-analisis-keputusan-spm-2019/file
Mulhall, P., & Gunstone, R. (2008). Views about physics held by physics teachers with differing approaches to teaching phys-
ics. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 435-462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9291-2
Munby, H., Cunningham, M., & Lock, C. (2000). School science culture: A case study of barriers to developing professional knowl-
edge. Science Education, 84, 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:2<193:AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-K
Ng, C. (2019). Teachers’ professional selves and motivation for continuous professional learning amid education reforms. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47(2), 118-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2018.1504278
Odell, V., Molthan-Hill, P., Martin, S., & Sterling, S. (2020). Transformative education to address all sustainable development goals. In:
W. Leal Filho, A.M. Azul, L. Brandli, P.G. Özuyar & T. Wall (Eds.), Quality education (pp. 905-916). Springer International https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95870-5_106
Park, H., Byun, S. Y., Sim, J., Han, H., & Baek, Y. S. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions and practices of STEAM education in South Korea. Eur-
asia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(7), 1739-1753. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1531a
Qhobela, M., & Kolitsoe Moru, E. (2014). Examining secondary school physics teachers’ beliefs about teaching and classroom
practices in Lesotho as a foundation for professional development. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Educa-
tion, 12(6), 1367–1392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9445-5
Salas-Zapata, W. A., & Ortiz-Muñoz, S. M. (2019). Analysis of meanings of the concept of sustainability. Sustainable Develop-
ment, 27(1), 153-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1885
Saleh, S. (2014). Malaysian students’ motivation towards Physics learning. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Educa-
tion, 2(4), 223-232. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1107653.pdf
Salmiza, S. & Afik, A. (2012). Teaching practices among secondary school teachers in Malaysia. International Proceedings of Eco-
nomics Development and Research, 47(14), 63-67. https://doi.org/10.7763/IPEDR
Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macperson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories
and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (Vol. II) (pp. 161-181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shahali, E. H. M., Halim, L., Rasul, S., Osman, K., Ikhsan, Z., & Rahim, F. (2015). BITARA-STEMTM training of trainers’ programme:
Impact on trainers’ knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and efficacy towards integrated STEM teaching. Journal of Baltic Science
Education, 14(1), 85-95.
Shannag, Q. A., Tairab, H., Dodeen, H., & Abdel-Fattah, F. (2013). Linking teacher quality and students’ achievements in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Singapore: The impact of teachers’ background variables on student achievement. Journal
of Baltic Science Education, 12(5), 652-665.
Sheppard, K., & Robbins, D. M. (2009). The “first physics first” movement, 1880–1920. The Physics Teacher, 47(1), 46-50.
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3049881
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Siew, N. M., Amir, N., & Chong, C. L. (2015). The perceptions of pre-service and in-service teachers regarding a project-based STEM
approach to teaching science. SpringerPlus, 4(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-4-8
Soko, I. P., Setiawan, A., & Widodo, A. (2017). Development of a cultural-based physics learning module for teacher education
and training program to enhance teacher pedagogical content knowledge. In Proceeding of 4th International Conference
on Research, Implementation and Education of Mathematics and Science (ICRIEMS) (Vol. 15) (pp. 29-36). Yogyakarta State
University. http://seminar.uny.ac.id/icriems/sites/seminar.uny.ac.id.icriems/files/prosiding2017/PE05_imelda.pdf
Stiles-Clarke, L., & MacLeod, K. (2017). Choosing to major in Physics, or not: Factors affecting undergraduate decision making. Eu-
ropean Journal of Physics Education, 7(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.20308/ejpe.95844
Suana, W., Riyanda, A. R., & Putri, N. M. A. A. (2019). Internet access and Internet self-efficacy of high school students. Journal of
Educational Science and Technology (EST), 5(2), 110-117. https://doi.org/10.26858/est.v5i2.8397
Sulaiman, N.R., H.L, Siow, H.H. Wong, M.M. Lim, T.S. Lew, V.M. Lee, L.F. Lim & E. Daniel. (1996). Menilai pencapaian, minat dan
kreativiti pelajar. [Evaluating Students’ achievement, interest and creativity.] In Pendidikan Sains di Malaysia Fakulti Pendi-
dikan [Faculty of Education], Universiti Malaya.
Sun, H. (2019). Teacher knowledge structure of Physics teachers. International Journal of Engineering Applied Sciences and Technol-
ogy, 4(3), 55-61. http://www.ijeast.com/papers/55-61,Tesma403,IJEAST.pdf
Syarifah Maimunah. S. Z. (2003). Reforming the science and technology curriculum: The Smart School initiative in Malaysia. Pros-
pects, 33(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022608230500
Talisayon, V. M. (2015). Development of scientific skills and values in physics education. https://web.phys.ksu.edu/icpe/publica-
tions/teach2/Talisayon.pdf
Tanenbaum, C. (2016). STEM 2026: A vision for innovation in STEM education. US Department of Education.
Thi To Khuyen, N. G. U. Y. E. N., Van Bien, N. G. U. Y. E. N., Lin, P. L., Lin, J., & Chang, C. Y. (2020). Measuring teachers’ perceptions to
sustain STEM education development. Sustainability, 12(4), 1531. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041531
Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018). The influence of teachers’ attitudes and school context on instructional
practices in integrated STEM education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 190-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.014
Tobin, K., & Mcrobbie, C. J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum. Science Education, 80(2),
223–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199604)80:2<223:AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-I
581
(pp. 569-582)
Tsang, K. K. (2018). Teachers’ work and emotions: A sociological analysis. Routledge.

Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-
College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
Wieman, C. E., Perkins, K. K., & Adams, W. K. (2008). Oersted Medal Lecture 2007: Interactive simulations for teaching physics:
What works, what doesn’t, and why. American Journal of Physics, 76(4&5), 393-399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2815365
Woolnough, B. E. (2000). Authentic science in schools?-an evidence-based rationale. Physics Education, 35(4), 293.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/35/4/14
Ye, Y. (2016). The effect of working conditions on teacher effectiveness: Value-added scores and student perception of teach-
ing [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University]. Virginia Tech. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/
handle/10919/71655
Received: May 10, 2020 Accepted: August 02, 2020
Cite as: Mohamad Nasri, N., Nasri, N., & Abd Talib, A. A. (2020). Physics teachers’ perceptions on sustainable physics education.
Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4), 569-582. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.569
Nurfaradilla Mohamad Nasri PhD, Assistant Dean, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education,
(Corresponding author) National University of Malaysia (UKM), 43600 Bangi, Selangor,
Malaysia.
E-mail: nurfaradilla@ukm.edu.my
Nurfarahin Nasri MD, Postgraduate Student, Faculty of Education, National
University of Malaysia (UKM), 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
E-mail: nurfarahinnasri@yahoo.com
Mohamad Asyraf Abd Talib Bachelor (TESL), Postgraduate Student, Faculty of Education,
National University of Malaysia (UKM), 43600 Bangi, Selangor,
Malaysia.
E-mail: asyraf_717@yahoo.com
582
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS
OF USING THE BLENDED
LEARNING APPROACH FOR ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
STEM-RELATED SUBJECTS ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
WITHIN THE FOURTH

INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
Abstract. Globally, as society enters the
Fourth Industrial Revolution, we require
a transformation in pedagogy. Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
(STEM) related subjects are vital to succeed-
Jayaluxmi Naidoo, ing within the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
To provide quality STEM education, teach-
Asheena Singh-Pillay ers’ perceptions related to the teaching and
learning of STEM-related subjects is essen-
tial to understand. This qualitative research
took place at one university in KwaZulu-
Natal, South Africa and explored teachers’
perceptions of using blended learning for
Introduction STEM-related subjects. Wenger’s Com-
munities of Practice Theory framed this
As teachers embrace the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) to promote research. Data were generated from
effective teaching and learning, teachers need to be exposed to and be workshops and semi-structured interviews.
well acquainted with using technology-enabled pedagogy. Technology- The results of this research indicated that
enabled learning refers to the effective incorporation of technology-based blended learning is impeded by the lack of
tools within educational milieus to scaffold students’ learning (Ertmer & technology-based tools; is hampered by
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2012). Research (Borko, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2017) teacher professional development; offered
have maintained that professional development for teachers is essential for the use of virtual hours for consultation
transforming pedagogy, advancing educational milieus, using innovative and feedback and increased engagement
tools and improving learning outcomes. and collaboration within STEM-related
Professional learning may take place in formal settings (Timperley, milieus. These results provide a glimpse of
2011) or via collaboration and mentoring between colleagues (Little, 2012). what teachers perceive regarding the use
However, for productive and successful teacher professional development, of blended learning for secondary school
professional development must be rooted within the teachers’ teaching mathematics and technology. Globally,
subject (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). these results have relevance when consider-
The teachers/participants within this research were invited to attend ing the importance of teachers’ perceptions
informative workshops focusing on using the blended learning approach of using blended learning for STEM-related
within their teaching subjects, i.e. mathematics and technology (STEM-related subjects, as society embraces the Fourth
subjects). This research reports on an exploration of STEM teachers’ percep- Industrial Revolution.
tions of using the blended learning approach for STEM-related subjects Keywords: blended learning, communi-
within the 4IR. ties, practice, fourth industrial revolution,
mathematics teaching, qualitative, STEM-
Science, Technology, Mathematics and Engineering related subjects, STEM teachers, technology
teaching, technology-enabled learning.
Research (Büyükdede & Tanel, 2019) proposed that an essential factor for
countries to contemplate to improve their economy and become indepen-
dent economically is the production of technology. Technology production is
Jayaluxmi Naidoo,
a multifaceted pursuit (Seck, 2015) and is initiated by encouraging and sup- Asheena Singh-Pillay
porting students to pursue careers within Science, Technology, Mathemat- University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
ics and Engineering (STEM) related fields. However, in most countries, the
number of students registering in STEM-related disciplines have decreased at
583
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF USING THE BLENDED LEARNING APPROACH FOR STEM-
RELATED SUBJECTS WITHIN THE FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
(pp. 583-593) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
the secondary and tertiary education level (Fadzil et al., 2019). This is discouraging since STEM education is known
to advance characteristics that are considered within education to be 21st -century skills (Timms et al., 2018).
A possible reason for the decline in interest in STEM-related subjects could be because students find STEM-
related subjects challenging to understand or due to ineffective pedagogies for teaching and learning, shortage
of academic support or out-dated and monotonous teaching practices (Hains-Wesson & Tytler, 2015; Fadzil et al.,
2019). Nevertheless, technological changes have transformed the workplace, and STEM knowledge and skills are
needed for employment and professions as we embrace the 4IR (Makgato, 2019).
Fourth Industrial Revolution
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is described as the merging of the physical and virtual world, creating a more
globally connected society which has transformed society and the way we live (Schwab, 2016). As novel technolo-
gies emanate virtually and current occupations are replaced, society will need to modify and acquire different
skills (Makgato, 2019). Knowledge and skills acquired during STEM education would be of benefit within the 4IR.
The ability to address challenges within the 4IR such as climate change, poverty, technology development,
overpopulation and food security will depend on how enlightened society is in STEM-related subjects (Fadzil et
al., 2019). For teachers of STEM-related subjects, knowledge of content is not the only requirement for developing
well-qualified students as teachers ought to have the essential abilities to ensure effective teaching and learning
of STEM-related subjects (Büyükdede & Tanel, 2019). Additionally, to be successful within the 4IR, a necessary
approach for progression would be technology development (Seck, 2015). Students would need to be exposed
to and encouraged to learn by using technology-enabled pedagogy to enhance the development of technology
within educational milieus.
Teachers would also need to be proficient in using technology-enabled pedagogy. One innovative technology-
enabled pedagogy that teachers may promote within contemporary educational milieus is the blended learning
approach.
Blended Learning Approach
Blended learning is a new model that incorporates the benefits of conventional teaching and the use of Infor-
mation and Communications Technology (ICT) within educational milieus (Lalima & Dangwal, 2017). The blended
learning approach encompasses learning via online devices as well as conventional contact mode of teaching and
learning (Jong, 2016). This type of pedagogy aims to initiate a mixture of online educational resources and prospects
for online interaction, together with traditional classroom methods (Lalima & Dangwal, 2017).
The role of the teacher is an important aspect to consider within the blended learning environment. The
teacher’s role ought to be that of a facilitator or guide focusing on using student-centered pedagogy to support
students as they reflect, learn, problem-solve and pose questions (Jong, 2016). Moreover, in this digital revolu-
tion where science and technology play an essential role in our lives, education in STEM-related subjects is facing
challenges (Fadzil et al., 2019). The swift development in teaching and learning using online platforms and the
necessity to improve the facilitation of STEM subjects motivates for the blended learning approach (Hains-Wesson
& Tytler, 2015). Thus, it is essential to explore teachers’ perceptions of using the blended learning approach for
STEM-related subjects within the 4IR.
Exploring the Theory of Communities of Practice
This research was framed within the ambits of Wenger’s (1998b) Communities of Practice theory. The Commu-
nities of Practice (CoP) theory is a social theory of learning that has its own set of assumptions and focus whereby
the central unit of analysis is the CoP (Graven & Lerman, 2003). A CoP advances around phenomena that are of
interest to individuals (Wenger, 1998a). Besides, a CoP tends to generate a milieu of reflection, understanding and
feedback that enhances the rapport between researchers and practitioners such that the knowledge created is
more valuable and significant (Hearn & White, 2009).
Wenger’s (1998b, p. 4) CoP theory is founded on four principles: people are social beings; knowledge concerns
584
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF USING THE BLENDED LEARNING APPROACH FOR STEM-
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 583-593)
‘valued enterprises’; knowing is about engaging in the world and meaning is what learning yields. This theory
maintains that CoP is formed by individuals who participate in the process of shared learning within a public
domain of human effort. Thus, CoP comprises groups of individuals who share an interest in something they take
on and through collaboration, they learn how to improve what they undertake (Wenger & Wenger-Trayner, 2015).
Furthermore, within the CoP theory, four components of learning are identified, i.e., meaning, practice, community
and identity (Wenger, 1998b).
The link between the CoP theory and this research is explained as follows: CoP has a shared domain of interest;
within the scope of this research the shared field of interest was the blended learning approach for teaching STEM-
related subjects. Within the ambits of CoP, members of the community engage in shared activities and discussions.
Within the spheres of this research were the interactive workshops in which the teachers participated. Members of a
CoP are practitioners; within this research, the members of this community were teachers of STEM-related subjects.
Thus, this theoretical framework provided the framing for exploring the blended learning approach (Smith et al.,
2017) and was adequate to frame this research which focused on exploring mathematics and technology teachers’
perceptions of using the blended learning approach for STEM-related subjects within the 4IR.
Research Focus and Research Question
In the scope of this research, as society embraces the 4IR, we need to explore if STEM teachers are adequately
prepared to use technology-enabled pedagogy. The research aim was to explore teachers’ perceptions of using
the blended learning approach for STEM-related subjects. Two interactive workshops on exploring the blended
learning approach for STEM-related subjects within the 4IR were conducted with participants. Subsequently, semi-
structured interviews were conducted with the participants.
The purpose of the interactive workshops and the interviews was to respond to the main research question:
What are mathematics and technology teachers’ perceptions of using the blended learning approach for
STEM-related subjects within the 4IR?
General Background
This research explored teachers’ perceptions of using the blended learning approach for STEM-related subjects.
For this reason, an interpretive paradigm was adopted to carry out the research which employed a qualitative case
study design. Qualitative data were collected using reliable and valid research instruments. Researchers using the
interpretive paradigm, use qualitative approaches to explore practices, knowledge and perceptions of people to
reveal the reality of their data (Thanh & Thanh, 2015).
The research was conducted at one university in the first semester (15 weeks) of the 2019 academic year. The
research incorporated two interactive workshops and one semi-structured face to face individual interview with
postgraduate STEM students who were also teaching STEM-related subjects at secondary/high schools. This case
study comprised of a descriptive and probing analysis of the perceptions of the participants who taught STEM-
related subjects in secondary/high schools. The research was framed using the theory of Communities of Practice.
Population and Sampling
The population for the research were 139 Bachelor of Education postgraduate STEM education students regis-
tered at one participating university. These participants were registered for the Honors, Masters or Doctoral degree
in Education. Every student that was enrolled for a postgraduate degree in STEM education at the participating
university was offered the chance to participate in this research. Participation in the data generation process was
voluntary (Šorgo & Špernjak, 2020). Thus, participants who did not volunteer to participate were omitted in the
selection for the pilot and main research. All participants were teaching mathematics and technology at second-
ary/high school level; these participants were the cases under study.
The research was a small scale in-depth qualitative study, and a total of 47 postgraduate students agreed
to participate in the research. Besides, the number of participants who participated in the research represented
585
(pp. 583-593) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
approximately one-third of the total population. Therefore, the sample size was sufficient to represent the total
population. A random sample of ten participants was selected to participate in the pilot research. Data were gener-
ated through two interactive workshops and face to face individual semi-structured interviews.
Pilot Research
Pilot research was conducted to ensure the dependability and validity of the research process and the re-
search instruments. Through this process, the research instruments were modified. For example, through the pilot
research, it was observed that there was an error during the first workshop presentation, which led to an adjustment
to this presentation. Also, some participants in the pilot research were uncertain of what was required in specific
questions on the interview schedule.
Subsequently, questions were rephrased to eliminate ambiguity and to ensure that each item was appar-
ent. Moreover, the language used during the workshops and on the interview schedule was precise and straight
forward to increase the reliability.
Interactive Workshops
Two workshops for the main research were conducted with 37 participants. These workshops were facilitated
by the researchers and held on two Saturdays during the first semester of the 2019 academic year. The workshops
lasted approximately 5 hours per Saturday with two breaks (one 30- minute tea break and a 1-hour lunch break)
scheduled in between the workshop activities. The workshops were focused on exploring the blended learning
approach for STEM-related subjects within the 4IR. Activities were based on teaching and learning financial math-
ematics and teaching and learning hydraulics and pneumatics.
The learning outcomes for the mathematics activities included the students’ ability to solve problems in con-
texts that may be used to build awareness of other learning areas concerning profit and loss, budgets, hire purchase,
exchange rates and banking. The learning outcomes for the technology activities included the students’ ability to
apply technological processes and skills ethically and sensibly using suitable information and communication tech-
nologies to demonstrate an understanding of the link between science, technology, society and the environment.
At each workshop, participants were provided with PowerPoint presentations focusing on teaching notes,
examples of lesson plans, examples of assessments and demonstrations of how technology-enabled pedagogy
could be embedded effectively within STEM-related classrooms. Subsequently, participants were invited to par-
ticipate in an individual interview towards the end of the 2019 academic year. This meant that each participant
would have the opportunity of reflecting on what they had learned from the workshops. Their learnings would
possibly advance their practice and thereby promote their professional development.
Semi-Structured Interviews
Although 37 teachers participated in the two interactive workshops, due to work, study, family or other com-
mitments, only 23 participants were available to be interviewed. The number of participants who participated in the
interviews represented approximately 62% of the total population who participated in the workshops. Therefore,
the sample size for the interviews was sufficient to represent the total population. The semi-structured face to face
individual interview was audiotaped and then transcribed. The reason for selecting semi-structured interviews was
so that responses for each interview item could be probed further to obtain clarity of responses. The reason for
choosing face to face individual interviews was that this type of interview minimized non-response and maximized
the quality of the data collected. Also, face to face one-on-one interviews appeared to make the participants feel
at ease; it seemed as if the personal contact with the researcher was a source of motivation for the participants.
Participants could also openly ask for questions to be explained in further detail. This type of interview also enabled
the researchers to ask for clarification of responses.
The interviews were semi-structured and focused on the following key questions:
•• What were the participant’s perceptions of the blended learning approach?
•• What were examples of blending learning used by each participant in their classroom?
•• What were the strengths/challenges of using the blended learning approach within the classroom
context?
586
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 583-593)
•• Were the two workshops of any benefit to the participants while planning on integrating blended
learning within lessons?
Since the interviews were semi-structured, further questions were included as each interview progressed,
to probe each participant’s responses. Transcripts were sent to participants to ensure the accuracy and validity of
what was stated during the interview. The purpose of the interview was to gain more clarity on each participant’s
perception of the blended learning approach for STEM-related subjects within the 4IR. The interviews were con-
ducted at the participating university at a convenient time for each participant.
Data Analysis
Data analysis which encompassed coding and categorizing of themes was based on the conceptual framework
of the research, i.e. Communities of Practice. The data analysis process resulted in generating codes for describ-
ing participants’ responses to the interview questions. All data generated were analyzed qualitatively, and all
transcribed interview data were read and reread line by line in-order for the researchers to become familiar with
the data. After the transcriptions of each interview were completed, the interview data were inspected, and data
were segmented into meaningful codes. The purpose of this type of coding was to reveal teachers’ perceptions of
using the blended learning approach for STEM-related subjects within the 4IR.
These codes were carefully reviewed and captured as themes. Thus, thematic coding was inductively used
to generate themes. The themes that were identified provided a clear picture of teachers’ perceptions on the use
of the blended learning approach for STEM-related subjects within the 4IR. Four main themes were identified
from the qualitative content analysis of the interview transcripts. Teachers’ perceptions on the use of the blended
learning approach were: it is impeded by the lack of technology-based tools; it is hampered by limited teacher
professional development; it offered the use of virtual hours for consultation and feedback within STEM-related
milieus, it increased engagement and collaboration within STEM-related milieus.
Ethical Issues
Gatekeeper access and ethical clearance were obtained from the research office of the participating univer-
sity. Participants were provided with an information sheet outlining the purpose and process of the research. This
informed consent sheet also included the participants’ right to withdraw from the research. Also, the participants
provided permission for the audiotaping of the individual face to face semi-structured interviews.
Furthermore, the anonymity and confidentiality of participants were assured by using codes. Numbers were
assigned in the order that each participant was interviewed. For example, Participant 5 refers to a participant that
was interviewed fifth, and Participant 21 refers to a participant that was number 21 on the interview timetable.
Research Results
While in general, the participating teachers valued the use of the blended learning approach within STEM
classrooms, they did indicate that they had uncertainties and experienced challenges when trying to imitate what
they had learnt during the two interactive workshops. The participants’ responses are described in the results that
follow.
The Blended Learning Approach is Impeded by the Lack of Technology-Based Tools
Based on the interview responses, it was apparent that the participants had tried to replicate the demonstra-
tions and their experiences from the workshop. Some of the participants had challenges due to the shortage of
technology-based tools within their educational milieus. This view is supported by excerpts from the interview
transcripts that follow.
Participant 1: …I want to try blended learning in my technology class…we can share ideas and talk about creating
practical examples of pulleys…they [the learners]1 may not be able to view the video about mechanic control sys-
tems to prepare…my learners come from different backgrounds and may not have access to the internet at home…
1
Words in square brackets within the transcripts have been added by the researcher to support the reader’s understanding.
587
(pp. 583-593) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Participant 7: …it looks so interesting to try…we can discuss these examples for financial math in class…I don’t
have access … PowerPoints and videos…
Participant 10: …this will help my class…we can use realistic examples of hydraulics in everyday life…they [the
learners] will not be able to view the videos to prepare for the class…they don’t have the necessary tools…
Participant 13: …I only have the computer at school…do not have my computer…it will be difficult to try blended
learning…
Participant 21: …we have load shedding2 quite often…my class may not have electricity to view the lessons online…
Participant 23: …this would be an excellent idea for my class…I do not have access to these videos … I have limited
internet access…even worse for my class…they need to go to the municipal library or internet café to get access…
this is not something we can try daily…
It is evident from the preceding transcripts that the participants embraced the notions of CoP by focusing on
sharing ideas and discussing realistic examples. However, the lack of material resources hampered teachers while
they attempted to incorporate aspects of the blended learning approach within their classrooms. The preceding
transcript excerpts indicate that teachers embraced the Fourth Industrial Revolution and integrated the notions
of blended learning within their STEM classrooms.
However, the limited access to the internet and technology-based resources affected the teachers’ capabilities
and motivation for integrating technology-based learning within their classrooms. Role-players within education
sectors need to collaborate to ensure that classrooms related to STEM subjects are sufficiently equipped with the
essential resources necessary to embrace the 4IR.
The Blended Learning Approach is Hampered by Limited Teacher Professional Development
To successfully create a blended learning environment, teachers need to have the necessary skills and knowl-
edge. This implies that teachers require adequate professional development to use technology-based resources
effectively. In this research, some participants indicated that they lacked sufficient pedagogical content knowledge
to use technology-based resources effectively. This notion is exemplified in the transcript excerpts that follow.
Participant 2: …I can see my myself trying blended learning…I need to learn how to…I can use PowerPoints…the
podcasts and selecting and uploading videos is a bit of a problem…
Participant 4: …it seems easy enough…but I don’t think I know how to record my voice for each slide in the Power-
Point…I also do not know how to create the videos…
Participant 6: …this is so useful…I know my class will understand since they work with apps…but I need more
training with this…
Participant 9: …I made contact with other teachers from the workshop…discussed ways of using blended learning…
the department needs to provide us with more workshops…
Participant 13: …I only have access to the school computer…need training on how to create these podcasts and
videos…
Participant 15: …I taught my lesson online, but I had a problem with the large size of the files…did not know how
to make the recordings smaller…I need help with things like that…
As is evident, teacher professional development workshops focused on the effective use of technology-based
resources for teaching are crucial. If teachers participated in teacher professional development workshops related
to teaching STEM subjects within the domains of blended learning, this would assist with embracing the notions
of the 4IR.
Load shedding refers to the interruption of electricity supply to avoid excessive overload. Load shedding is active when there is a high
2
demand for electricity. Load shedding is a planned interruption in electricity supply by the Department of Electricity in South Africa. All
consumers are informed in advance of load shedding times within their areas through the use of a comprehensive schedule.
588
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 583-593)
The Blended Learning Approach Offered the use of Virtual Hours for Consultation and Feedback within
STEM-Related Milieus
The participating teachers indicated that often they did not have enough time in class to complete meaningful
discussions and clarify concepts. Consequently, the use of the blended learning environment provided them with
another way of completing discussions, explaining concepts and submitting much-needed feedback, virtually.
The participants were of the view that the blended learning approach allowed them to transform their identity as
they were shifting how they taught and how they viewed teaching. These notions are exhibited in the transcript
excerpts that follow.
Participant 1: …they [the learners] can ask questions at any time…I can provide feedback at any time…this is
something that can work…but my entire class can’t participate because they don’t all have access to the internet…
Participant 4: …it seems beneficial, especially for my shy learners…they now can chat with me without having to
ask questions in front of the rest of the class…they can do this at any time…but we are all learning how to use the
different technology…I am not an expert…I try my best…I find myself changing how I do things…
Participant 14: …this is exciting…the blending learning allows my class to try the exercise on Profit and Loss at
home…then we can discuss online or in class…I feel that I am different as a teacher…I am not so stressed since there
seems to be more time for us to discuss…the learners become more attentive…
Participant 17: …we work online at any time…the class has more time to think about and discuss their problems
regarding the section on gears…especially for those who are reserved and don’t like speaking in class…this provides
a good opportunity to clarify and interact with each other…
Participant 20: …I feel as if the blended learning brings something new for me as a teacher…I am changing how
I teach…I am enjoying it…I am enjoying consulting with my students online…I am more like a guide…the class is
more involved…
Participant 21: …this is a good idea…it gives the class more time and more ways to solve problems on finance…
discussing problems online seems better for the class, especially when they are shy in the class…but issues with
electricity an internet causes problems…
Participant 22: …sometime we run out of time in class…blended learning allows me to share with my class important
information online…they can then look at this at their own time and we can talk about problems virtually…this is a
good idea if we all have the necessary tools…the class becomes more lively in this process…
Some students are often reluctant to ask questions during lesson time, especially if they think their problem
is not important. If the teacher allowed students to engage with the teacher and class virtually, this would alleviate
some of these issues. The blended learning environment could be used for organizing virtual consultation hours.
Students could be invited to discuss with the teacher during virtual consultation times. Based on the preceding
transcripts, it was evident that students welcomed the opportunity to discuss queries virtually, and teachers en-
sured that misunderstandings were addressed swiftly.
The use of the blended learning approach created a transformation in traditional teaching and learning,
which brought about a change in the identity of both the teacher and students. Within the domains of CoP, the
notion of identity is valued and is fixated on how learning transformed who the individuals are. In this research
it was evident that the blended learning approach changed the status of both the teachers and students with
the STEM classrooms; teachers became the facilitators, and the learners became more active within the learn-
ing process.
The Blended Learning Approach Increased Engagement and Collaboration within STEM-Related Milieus
The participants indicated that the blended learning approach increased engagement and collaboration
within STEM-related classrooms. The participants employed the use of a blended learning approach within their
classes after being exposed to this type of strategy during the workshops. They combined the use of technology
and the traditional ‘chalk and talk’ method within their STEM classrooms. Based on the results of this research, this
type of approach exhibited interaction and collaboration within the STEM classroom. This is supported by the
transcript excerpts that follow.
589
(pp. 583-593) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Participant 1: …I know many of my class don’t have access to the internet at home…class time we started using a
WhatsApp group to discuss some ideas around our topic on hydraulics…this created interaction, discussion and they
[the learners] were working together and helping each other…the school has internet so the class could download
some information to look at later when they were at home…
Participant 2: …it seems that my class is better at using technology…helped me to download information…this
created a change in the roles…this created teamwork and discussion…the class were more involved…creating a
PowerPoint worked well, to sum up, all the important ideas…
Participant 8: …I found that blended learning creates a buzz of activity and discussion in the class…we were talking
about Finances and Small Businesses. They just came alive…they were very interested in a short clip from a Netflix3
video I shared with them regarding financial swindles…
Participant 10: …I found this works in my technology class…view videos on making pulleys etc. and then we can
discuss the process in class…they are more talkative since they know what is being taught…it is relevant and real-
world examples are used…
Participant 11: …my class were absorbed in the lesson…they could discuss more because they viewed the video
beforehand…the asked refreshing questions…they had more time to think about the content being taught…
Participant 19: …I moved from the board to the video…it was exciting…they [the learners] wanted to know more…
this was a good idea…
To achieve engagement, the blended approach encompassed a variety of resources. Videos, PowerPoint
presentations and visually enriched demonstrations were integrated within the blended learning environment to
include learners and to ensure that content was comprehensible.
As was evident, through the use of the blended learning approach, the participants made the learners re-
sponsible for their learning. This notion was supported by the use of WhatsApp before the lesson commenced, as
was evident in the response provided by Participant 1.
Discussion
The qualitative results provide evidence on the participants’ perceptions of using the blended learning
approach for STEM-related subjects. The participants indicated that the blended learning approach was
impeded by the lack of technology-based tools. The participants could not repeat all activities that were
discussed during the workshop since they did not have access to all the necessary technology-based re-
sources. However, they embraced the notions of CoP by focusing on sharing ideas and discussing realistic
examples. Similarly, Evans et al., (2014) proposed using conversations for practical learning activities which
provide a clear indication of how technology may be used for creating shared knowledge and resources.
In this research, it was evident that limited access to the internet and technology-based resources also
influenced the participants’ capabilities and motivation for integrating technology-based learning within
their classrooms (Klopfer et al., 2006).
The participants indicated that the blended learning approach was hampered by limited teacher profes-
sional development. This result is supported by Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2012). They have maintained
that to successfully create a blended learning environment, teachers require adequate professional develop-
ment to use technology-based resources effectively. As is evident in this research, there is a need for teacher
professional development workshops focusing on the effective use of technology-based resources for teaching
(Dlamini & Mbatha, 2018). While blended learning may be used to transform teaching and learning activities
(Hains-Wesson & Tytler, 2015), teachers require professional development to become innovative and at ease
with the use of technology to integrate blended learning within their classroom contexts (Scott & Scott, 2010).
Thus, teachers need to organize a CoP (Wenger & Wenger-Trayner, 2015), so that they may collaborate around
ideas related to the teaching of STEM-related subjects. Teachers are required to network with each other to
learn together. Thus, if teachers participate in teacher professional development workshops related to teaching
STEM subjects within the domains of blended learning, this would assist in embracing the notions of the 4IR.
Moreover, the participants indicated that the blended learning approach offered the use of virtual hours
Netflix allows individuals who pay for this streaming service to watch movies, television shows and documentaries using devices connected
3
to the internet.
590
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 583-593)
for consultation and feedback within STEM-related classrooms. Similarly, research (Jeffrey et al., 2014) have
maintained that blended learning may be defined as an approach to teaching that disregards time, place, and
contextual barriers while empowering robust collaborations between teachers and students. Additionally,
within the domains of CoP, the notion of identity is valued. It is fixated on how learning changes who we are,
since individuals participating within a community, attain new knowledge, and concurrently their identities,
transform (Wenger, 1998b; Wenger & Wenger-Trayner, 2015).
Furthermore, the participants indicated that the blended learning approach encouraged engagement
through the use of various technology-based resources. This result resonates with research (Jeffrey et al.,
2014), which maintained that teachers need to be encouraged to reflect on and restructure their lessons so
that students are provided with diverse learning experiences and resources. As was evident in this research,
through the use of the blended learning approach, the teachers encouraged learners to become responsible
for their learning. Similarly, linking learners and resources online does not necessarily take place in the class-
room; this is ubiquitous due to our access to the internet (Bell, 2011). Within the ambits of CoP, collaboration
is supported whereby student learning is enriched by sharing and cooperation (Wenger, 1998a; Wenger &
Wenger-Trayner, 2015). As was evident, in this research, through the blended learning approach, the learners
collaborated and discussed solutions in the STEM classrooms while the teacher facilitated.
Conclusions
This research aimed to explore teachers’ perceptions of the blended learning approach for STEM-related
subjects within the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This qualitative, interpretive research was conducted at one
university in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Participants were invited to two interactive workshops and were
consequently interviewed. Four main themes were identified from the qualitative analysis of the interview
transcripts. Teachers’ perceptions on the use of the blended learning approach are: it is impeded by the lack
of technology-based tools; it is hampered by limited teacher professional development; it offers the use of
virtual hours for consultation and feedback within STEM-related milieus, it increases engagement and col-
laboration within STEM-related milieus.
This research has provided interesting perceptions regarding the blended learning approach for STEM-
related subjects within the 4IR. Moreover, based on the results of this research it is apparent that within the
contemporary STEM classroom, as technology becomes more available and if Communities of Practice are
embraced as a useful framework, teachers will seek to engage in supportive pedagogy to amplify the benefits
to student learning. However, for the successful integration of blended learning within the contemporary
STEM classroom, there is a need for technology-based resources and for teachers to be involved in profes-
sional development workshops focusing on how to enhance student learning within the blended learning
environment. These professional development workshops would be of benefit to teachers of STEM-related
subjects globally as we embrace the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Further studies on a larger scale for exploring teachers’ perceptions of using the blended learning ap-
proach for STEM-related subjects are needed. Opportunities for future research could include qualitative
studies conducted at several universities within different provinces in South Africa. Similar studies could also
be done at universities internationally. Large scale data may provide greater reliability and opportunities for
further qualitative analysis and interpretation. Further quantitative studies could also be conducted nation-
ally and globally to explore teachers’ perceptions of using the blended learning approach when teaching
STEM-related subjects. This would be beneficial for increasing the knowledge base in the field within South
Africa and globally.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the National Research Foundation (NRF) who partially funded this research. NRF
Grant Number: TTK170408226284, UID: 113952.
591
(pp. 583-593) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
References
Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. The Interna-
tional Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 98-118. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.902
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X033008003
Büyükdede, M., & Tanel, R. (2019). Effect of the STEM activities related to work-energy topics on academic achievement and
prospective teachers’ opinions on STEM activities. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(4), 507-518. http://oaji.net/arti-
cles/2019/987-1564685800.pdf
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., Chung, R. W., Andree, A., & Richardson, N. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status
report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development Council.
Dlamini, R., & Mbatha, K. (2018). The discourse on ICT teacher professional development needs: The case of a South African
teachers’ union. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology,
14(2), 17-37. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1190045.pdf
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of au-
thentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64(1), 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008
Evans, C., Yeung, E., Markoulakis, R., & Guilcher, S. (2014). An online community of practice to support evidence-based
physiotherapy practice in manual therapy. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 34(4), 215-223.
https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.21253
Fadzil, H. M., Saat, R. M., Awang, K., & Adli, D. S. H. (2019). Students’ perception of learning STEM-related subjects through
scientist-teacher-student partnership (STSP). Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(4), 537-548. http://oaji.net/arti-
cles/2019/987-1564685988.pdf
Graven, M., & Lerman, S. (2003). Book Review: Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(1), 185-194. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1023947624004
Hains-Wesson, R., & Tytler, R. (2015). A perspective on supporting STEM academics with blended learning at an Australian uni-
versity. Issues in Educational Research, 25(4), 460-479. http://www.iier.org.au/iier25/hains-wesson.pdf
Hearn, S., & White, N. (2009). Communities of practice: Linking knowledge, policy and practice. Background Note (pp. 1-4).
Overseas Development Institute.
Jeffrey, L. M., Milne, J., Suddaby, G., & Higgins, A. (2014). Blended learning: How teachers balance the blend of online and class-
room components. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13(1), 121-140. http://www.jite.org/documents/
Vol13/JITEv13ResearchP121-140Jeffrey0460.pdf
Jong, J. P. (2016). The effect of a blended collaborative learning environment in a small private online course (SPOC): A compari-
son with a lecture course. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(2), 194-203. http://journals.indexcopernicus.com/abstract.
php?icid=1202146
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Groff, J., & Haas, J. (2006). Using the technology of today, in the classroom today. The instructional
power of digital games, social networking simulations and how teachers can leverage them. The Educational Arcade, 4(2),
1-23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263125941_Using_the_Technology_of_Today_in_the_Classroom_To-
day_The_Instructional_Power_of_Digital_Gaming_and_Social_Networking_and_How_Teachers_Can_Leverage_It/
stats#fullTextFileContent
Lalima, D., & Dangwal, K. L. (2017). Blended learning: An innovative approach. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(1),
129-136. http://www.hrpub.org/journals/article_info.php?aid=5495
Little, J. W. (2012). Professional community and professional development in the learning-centred school. In M. Kooy & K. van
Veen (Eds.), Teaching-learning that matters: International perspectives (pp. 22-46). Routledge.
Makgato, M. (2019). STEM for Sustainable Skills for the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Snapshot at Some TVET Colleges in South
Africa. In K. G. Fomunyam (Ed.), Theorizing STEM education in the 21st century (pp. 144-159). InTechOpen Limited.
Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution (pp. 172). World Economic Forum.
Scott, D. E., & Scott, S. (2010). Innovations in the use of technology and teacher professional development. In J. O. Lindberg &
A. D. Olofsson (Eds.), Online learning communities and teacher professional development: Methods for improved education
delivery (pp. 169-189). IGI Global.
Seck, A. (2015). Technology production: A challenge for economic growth and development in Africa. Journal of African Studies
and Development, 7(8), 207-214. https://academicjournals.org/journal/JASD/article-abstract/C9FB40C54220
Smith, S. U., Hayes, S., & Shea, P. (2017). A critical review of the use of Wenger’s Community of Practice (COP) theoretical framework
in online and blended learning research, 2000-2014. Online Learning, 21(1), 209-237. https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.
org/index.php/olj/article/view/963
Šorgo, A., & Špernjak, A. (2020). Biology content and classroom experience as predictors of career aspirations. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 19(2), 317-332. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.317
Thanh, N. C., & Thanh, T. T. L. (2015). The interconnection between the interpretive paradigm and qualitative methods in educa-
tion. American Journal of Educational Science, 1(2), 24-27. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/79e6/888e672cf2acf8afe2ec2
1fd42a29b2cbd90.pdf
592
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 583-593)
Timms, M., Moyle, K., Weldon, P., & Mitchell, P. (2018). Challenges in stem learning in Australian schools. Literature and Policy Review.
https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=policy_analysis_misc
Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the power of professional learning. McGraw-Hill Education.
Wenger, E. (1998a). Communities of practice. Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 1-10.
Wenger, E. (1998b). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. https://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-
to-communities-of-practice/
Cite as: Naidoo, J., & Singh-Pillay, A. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of using the blended learning approach for
stem-related subjects within the fourth industrial revolution. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4), 583-593.
Jayaluxmi Naidoo PhD, Associate Professor, Academic Leader: Postgraduate Certificate

(Corresponding author) in Education (PGCE), Mathematics and Computer Science Education,
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Main Tutorial Building, Room CU 118,
Edgewood Campus, Durban, South Africa.
E-mail: naidooj2@ukzn.ac.za
Asheena Singh-Pillay PhD, Senior Lecturer, Academic Leader: Bachelor of Education
(B.Ed. Programmes), Science and Technology Education, University
of KwaZulu-Natal, Main Tutorial Building, Room A147, Edgewood
Campus, Durban, South Africa.
E-mail: Pillaya5@ukzn.ac.za
593
THE IMPACT OF PHYSICAL
MOLECULAR MODELS ON
STUDENTS’ VISUO-SEMIOTIC
REASONING SKILLS RELATED
TO THE LEWIS STRUCTURE
AND BALL & STICK MODEL OF
AMMONIA
Abstract. Visuo-semiotic models, such as
Lewis structures and ball & stick models, are
widely used to enhance students’ learning.
However, there is limited research about the
impact of these models on specific visuo- Thobile Nkosi,
semiotic reasoning skills. In the current Lindelani Mnguni
research, we aimed to determine the extent
to which physical molecular models could
enhance specific visuo-semiotic reason-
ing skills among students. The research
question that we explored was, “what is the
impact of physical molecular models on
Grade 11 students’ visuo-semiotic reason- Introduction
ing skills related to Lewis structures and ball
& stick models of ammonia?” In this mixed- Research in science education attempts to ensure that teaching and
methods research, we collected data from learning are regularly revised through reflective practice. This reflection is
purposively selected Grade 11 chemistry driven by various theoretical, philosophical, and practical questions that in-
students aged between 15 and 18 from an form research. Schunk (2012) suggested that there are some critical questions
under-resourced school in South Africa. about learning that must be asked by teachers, curriculum, and instructional
Through a quasi-experimental design, designers for teaching and learning to be effective. Among these, two ques-
participants in the experimental group (n tions that are relevant to the current paper are, “how does learning occur,
= 101) used physical molecular models to and what factors influence learning” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 53). While
learn about Lewis structure and ball & stick Schunk first raised these questions almost three decades ago (in Schunk,
models of ammonia while participants in 1991), their relevance to curriculum and instructional design is still essential.
the control group (n = 100) did not. We sub- For example, the rise of technology-enhanced classrooms means researchers
sequently tested students’ visuo-semiotic in the 21st century must revisit these questions to ensure that technology
reasoning skills. Results show that using supports teaching and learning rather than impede it. Ertmer and Newby
physical molecular models significantly (1993, p. 53) suggested that based on answers to the above questions, an
improved students’ visuo-semiotic reason- added question must be asked, i.e., “how should instruction be structured
ing skills and reduced associated learning in order to effectively facilitate learning”? Considering the poor student
difficulties. We, therefore, recommend that performance in science subjects in countries such as South Africa, one won-
these models should be used as an instruc- ders whether these questions have been answered to inform instructional
tional tool to enhance learning. design. For example, South Africa continues to be ranked low compared to
Keywords: ball & stick models, Lewis other countries on education and skills, quality of primary education, and the
structures, physical models, visuo-semiotic quality of mathematics and science education (Mnguni et al., 2019; Schwab,
reasoning. 2016). In this regard, researchers have explored factors that affect student
performance extensively (e.g., Jama et al., 2019). However, not much has been
done to interrogate teaching methods and tools used by teachers concerning
Thobile Nkosi, modern theories of teaching and learning. We, therefore, explored the use
Lindelani Mnguni of physical molecular models in teaching within the context of cognitivism.
University of South Africa, South Africa The findings of this research could expand our understanding of learning
and factors that affect it.
594
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ THE IMPACT OF PHYSICAL MOLECULAR MODELS ON STUDENTS’ VISUO-SEMIOTIC
REASONING SKILLS RELATED TO THE LEWIS STRUCTURE AND BALL & STICK MODEL OF
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ AMMONIA
(pp. 594-604)
Learning as a Cognitive Phenomenon
Learning in science education, including chemistry education, could be understood through several theoreti-
cal perspectives, including cognitivism. According to cognitivism, learning involves cognitive processes through
which knowledge is transformed into discrete forms (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). Such learning involves transformation,
rehearsing, storage, and retrieval of information, which leads to changes in the state of knowledge as it is being
coded and decoded in the cognitive structures. Cognitivism attempts to explain what students do during learning
in addition to what they can do because of learning and the learning environment in which learning takes place.
In this instance, the learning environment, which also facilitates learning, includes the “instructional explanations,
demonstrations, illustrative examples and matched non-examples which are all considered to be instrumental in
guiding student learning” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 58). Teaching and learning models, such as physical molecular
models, therefore, form part of the learning environment.
The significance of physical molecular models in science education can be understood through embodied
cognitivism. According to embodied cognitivism, learning occurs in the cognitive structures, including various parts
of the body, such as the integrated motor and perceptual systems, which are intricately connected to the matrix
of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains (Thelen et al., 2001). It follows that effective learning should
involve various parts of the body both for assimilation and dissemination of information. For example, Sternberg
(2003) suggested that information is cognitively coded in at least two forms, namely, as analogue and symbolic
codes. The analogue codes are used to process and store information as mental representations of images, while
the symbolic codes are used to store information as mental representations of words (Sternberg, 2003). Related
to this, Clark and Paivio (1991) suggested that learning is the process of creating associative networks of verbal
(analogue) and imaginal (symbolic) representations. Learning in this regard leads to the creation of links between
verbal and imaginal mental representations as well as within these representations to create and continuously
develop a complex network of verbal and imaginal mental representations. The effectiveness of learning can be
determined through the assessment of the extent to which students can construct and express these networks of
verbal and imaginal mental representations.
The Role of Visuo-Semiotic Models in Learning
To facilitate the creation and development of verbal and imaginal mental representations, researchers (e.g.,
Mayer & Mayer, 2005) recommend the use of multimedia learning resources for teaching and learning. These
resources could include visuo-semiotic models, which are defined “as visual models that use discipline-specific
semiotics to represent scientific phenomena for research, teaching, and learning” (Mnguni, 2019, p. 1). They include
a wide variety of models, such as physical models, paper-based 2D models, printed 3D models, or computer and
virtual models. By nature, some of these are static, while others are dynamic, such as computer animations and
simulations. These models could be used to represent phenomena that exist at multiple macroscopic levels (e.g.,
the universe), microscopic level (e.g., bacteria), or molecular level (e.g., genetic materials).
Recent research has shown that visuo-semiotic models, such as physical molecular models, can enhance
learning. For example, Newman et al. (2018) showed that physical molecular models could improve student learn-
ing because they engage various receptor sense organs through which information is internalized. This includes
internalizing information through visual perception, aural perception, as well as haptic perception. Terrell et al.
(2019), also suggested that physical molecular models, such as 3D printed models, could enhance students’ abil-
ity to construct mental models as well as their conceptual and visual development. Bareither et al. (2013) showed
that using physical models, such as clay models, could enhance learning as it accommodates students with learn-
ing styles that may not be accommodated through traditional teaching methods such as paper-based teaching
methods. They argue that “multiple teaching modalities may accommodate learning preferences and improve
understanding” (Bareither et al., 2013, p. 170). This research supports earlier research, which showed that pedagogi-
cal strategies that involve “active-engagement learning strategies result in higher learning gains and reduce the
chance of failure compared with lecture-only approaches” (Newman et al., 2018, p. 436).
Multiple teaching modalities, however, bring about the challenge of representational competence, which may
be deficient in some students. Representational competence refers to the ability to understand and use diverse
representations of a scientific concept (Hinze et al., 2013; Kozma & Russell, 1997). “Representational competence
requires, among other skills, the ability to differentiate the purposes of different representations and to understand
595
THE IMPACT OF PHYSICAL MOLECULAR MODELS ON STUDENTS’ VISUO-SEMIOTIC
AMMONIA ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
(pp. 594-604)
when and why to use one representation over another” (Hinze et al., 2013, p. 13). Students’ visuo-semiotic reason-
ing, as a form of representational competence related to multiple representations, therefore, is a critical part of
cognitive learning which students must have to learn with visuo-semiotic models effectively.
Research Problem
While research shows that physical molecular models improve learning, as discussed above, based on the
overall student performance in related assessment tests, there is a dearth of knowledge about the impact of these
models on specific reasoning skills. For example, within the context of the dual coding theory, there is limited
research to explain the extent to which physical molecular models could facilitate the development of “networks
of verbal and imaginal representations” (Clark & Paivio, 1991, p. 151). Clark and Paivio (1991) argued, for example,
that effective learning involves the creation of referential connections between visual symbolic imagery and verbal
analogue codes, as well as associative connections between and within the verbal and nonverbal systems. There
is also limited research to explain the extent to which physical molecular models could enhance students’ visuo-
semiotic reasoning. Mnguni (2019, p. 4) defined visuo-semiotic reasoning as the “ability to internalize, conceptualize,
and externalize scientific knowledge through the use of visuo-semiotic models and discipline-specific semiotics
representing” discipline-specific content (Mnguni, 2019, p. 4). It includes various cognitive skills, such as analyzing,
interpreting, and generating visuo-semiotic models. Research is, therefore, necessary to determine the impact of
learning models, such as physical molecular models, on specific aspects of reasoning skills. Such research could
help teachers in developing learning environments that could enhance cognitive development among students.
Research Aim and Research Question
In the current research, we aimed to determine the extent to which the use of physical molecular models
could impact specific visuo-semiotic reasoning skills among students. In this instance, we were not concerned
with the overall performance of students in a content knowledge test, but we were interested in their ability to
perform specific visuo-semiotic skills. These skills were interpreting and drawing Lewis structure as well as ball
& stick structure of ammonia. These structures are used as a teaching aid as they represent atoms, bonds, lone
pairs, unpaired electrons, and a formal charge of molecules that would otherwise be difficult to visualize with an
unaided eye (Cooper et al., 2010). In the current research, we explored the visuo-semiotic reasoning skills (drawing
and interpreting visuo-semiotic models) as a preliminary effort to understanding the impact of physical molecular
models on visuo-semiotic reasoning, as findings would inform future research in this context. The research question
framing the current research asked, “what is the impact of physical molecular models on Grade 11 students’ visuo-
semiotic reasoning skills related to Lewis structure and ball & stick model of ammonia?”
Theoretical Framework
Mnguni’s (2019) framework for the development of a visuo-semiotic reasoning test instrument framed the
current research. Mnguni (2014) suggested that learning from visuo-semiotic models occurs in three interrelated
stages, which may occur simultaneously. The first stage is concerned with the “inputting of information from the
external world into the cognitive structures.” The internalization of visuo-semiotic information is characterized by
feature extraction, target detection, region tracking, and counting, which could require minimal cognitive effort.
Some researchers suggest that the internalization of visuo-semiotic information requires first-order stimuli and
second-order stimuli (e.g., Baloch et al., 1999). In the first-order stimuli, feature extraction is based on luminance,
while contrast and texture characterize feature extraction. This suggests that less cognitive resources may be used
to process visuo-semiotic models in the case of first-order stimuli. Second-order stimuli play a significant role in
the processing of 2D and 3D models where the relative depth of overlapping surfaces is essential to determine
the position of objects, such as when a model depicts different molecular geometry of molecules. Mnguni (2014)
defines the second stage as the conceptualization of visuo-semiotic information, where students make sense of
visuo-semiotic information. In the conceptualization stage, cognitive effort and cognitive resources are used to
interpret the external stimuli as the information pass through the sensory memory into the working memory (van
Schoren, 2005). At this stage, information extracted from the visuo-semiotic model is selected and organized into
mental representations (Chalmers et al., 1992). The third stage is the externalization of visuo-semiotic information.
596
(pp. 594-604)
Here information stored in the long-term memory is retrieved and externally expressed as external visuo-semiotic
models verbally or visually. In this instance, students may use spoken and written words, or produce graphical
representation to express information stored in the memory.
Other researchers (e.g., Mnguni et al., 2016; Schönborn & Anderson, 2010) have found various skills that may
be used in the distinct stages of visuo-semiotic reasoning. For example, Schönborn and Anderson (2010) showed
various broad visualization skills that are used by students in molecular biology. These include decoding the sym-
bolic language composing a representation, interpreting, and using a representation to solve a problem, spatially
manipulating a representation to interpret and explain a concept, constructing a representation to explain a concept
or solve a problem, and, translating across multiple representations of a concept (Schönborn & Anderson, 2010).
Mnguni (2018) identified individual skills that may be used by students when learning biological concepts. These
include analyzing, interpreting, and drawing visuo-semiotic models.
In the current research, our focus was on assessing students visuo-semiotic reasoning with specific reference
to two visuo-semiotic reasoning skills, namely, interpreting and drawing visuo-semiotic models. Using Mnguni’s
(2018) definitions, ‘interpreting visuo-semiotic models’ was defined as systematically breaking down a visuo-semiotic
model into its essential features to translate its discipline-specific visual cues and make sense of its characteristics.
‘Drawing visuo-semiotic models’ was defined as generating visuo-semiotic illustrations that correctly depict scientific
concepts using discipline-specific semiotics. Within the current research, the focus was on Lewis structures as well
as ball & stick models of ammonia. We wanted the students to either interpret or draw these visuo-semiotic models.
General Background
Creswell (2014) suggested that research methodology refers to the philosophical and theoretical perspectives
that frame research methods, techniques, paradigms, approaches, and design of a research study. This view is sup-
ported by Somekh and Lewin (2005, p. 346) who stated that research methodology is “the collection of methods
or rules by which a particular piece of research is undertaken” as well as the “principles, theories, and values that
underpin a particular approach to research.” Similarly, Mackenzie and Knipe (2006, p. 5), posited that research
“methodology is the overall approach to research linked to the paradigm or theoretical framework while the method
refers to systematic modes, procedures or tools used for collection and analysis of data.” The current researchers
followed the research design described below and were guided by the theoretical framework described above.
Research Design
The current researchers adopted a realism research paradigm described by Creswell (2014), where knowledge
is generated through mixed methods to enhance the validity and reliability of the research findings. With regards
to the quantitative methods aspect of the research, phenomena are described within a sampled population from
which inferences to a larger population are made. In this instance, we used a quasi-experimental research design
that utilized a content knowledge test as an instrument for data collection from a purposively selected sample of
participants. Data analysis was guided by the classical test theory, which suggests that a respondents’ observed
score on a test is equal to the sum of their true score and error score. It, therefore, relies on the measure of reli-
ability and validity to generate logical findings. Qualitative data, from the interviews, were not used to confirm
quantitative data, but to explain them through an explanatory mixed method format. In this instance, the items
in the interview protocol asked participants to explain their responses to the quantitative responses concerning
learning difficulties associated with visuo-semiotic reasoning.
Research Context and Sampling
Data were collected from a purposively selected group of Grade 11 chemistry students from two township
schools in Witbank, South Africa, in 2019. The schools were purposively selected because they are under-resourced
government township schools that did not have teaching resources such as science laboratories, smart boards, or
mobile computers for teaching and learning. The underlying assumption, therefore, was that, within the context
of formal education, students from these schools had not been exposed to teaching and learning aids such as
597
(pp. 594-604)
computer-based models or physical molecular models. Participants were all aged between 15 and 18. The partici-
pants were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n = 101) and the control group (n = 100). The sample
sizes reflect the total number of learners who were doing chemistry in Grade 11 in the selected school and thus
purposively selected. However, we considered Gogtay’s (2010, p. 518) formula (n = [(Z⍶ + Zβ)2 x σ2]/d2) for estimating
the minimum sample size required for two means in quantitative data in determining the suitable minimum sample
size. In this regard, we wanted to determine the number of students required at 80% power and 5% significance
with an effect size of 0.2, to detect an average difference with a standard deviation of 30%. Using Gogtay’s (2010)
formula, we calculated the minimum sample size required to be 24. Therefore, the sampled sizes of 100 and 101
were considered adequate. The 100 and 101 participants responded to the quantitative content knowledge test.
Of these, we randomly selected 10% from either group to take part in the interviews.
Data Collection and Analysis
During the research, the two groups of students were taught the characteristics of molecules, and chemical
bonds related to geometric shapes by the same teacher, who was not a researcher in the current research. Am-
monia was used as an example, specifically, the Lewis structure and ball & stick model of ammonia. In the control
group, students were taught using summary notes, a textbook, and worksheets accredited by the Department of
Basic Education. These resources had written text, pictures, and diagrams that were used to explain and describe
concepts. In the experimental group, students were taught using physical molecular models as an added teaching
resource. These models depicted both the three-dimensional position of the atoms and the bonds between them.
They used distinct colors to depict different atoms and bonds. Students who worked with these models worked in
pairs, with each pair having its own set of models. The same teacher taught in both groups.
After the lessons, students in both groups were given a content knowledge test assessing their ability to in-
terpret and draw a Lewis structure and ball & stick model of ammonia. The teacher administered the test. However,
we developed and validated it through a panel of experts and a pilot group. The purpose here was to enhance the
face, content, and criterion-related validity of the instrument. From the nine experts who validated the instruments,
a content validity index of 87% was obtained, which suggested that the instrument was ‘fit for purpose.’ The pilot
group was also able to complete the test within 30 minutes, and no technical or content related concerns were
raised. Given the content validity index from the panel of experts and the fact that the students in the pilot group
were able to complete the tests, the researchers were, therefore, satisfied that the instrument was valid. We used
the pilot data to calculate the reliability coefficient. Here a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .782 was obtained, sug-
gesting that the instrument was statistically reliable. All data were then analyzed quantitatively using SPSS and
qualitatively to determine the impact of the physical molecular models on students’ visuo-semiotic reasoning skills
related to the Lewis structure and ball & stick model of ammonia. After the analysis of the data from the test, an
interview protocol was developed through which participants would explain their responses in the test and discuss
learning challenges related to interpreting and drawing a Lewis structure and ball & stick model of ammonia. We
validated the interview protocol in the same way as the test.
Research Results
Impact of the Physical Model on Visuo-Semiotic Reasoning Skills
Results showed that in the control group, students performed poorly in all items (Table 1). The average visuo-
semiotic reasoning score in this test was 27.44 (SD = 21.42). Students scored the lowest on the items asking them
to interpret Lewis structures (M = 16.5, SD = 15.73) as well as ball & stick structures (M = 19.75, SD = 26.42). The
performance was best on items that asked students to draw a Lewis structure of ammonia. In the experimental
group, the students’ average visuo-semiotic reasoning score was 61.51 (SD = 23.83). Here the performance was
highest in the items that asked the students to interpret a Lewis structure of ammonia.
598
(pp. 594-604)
Table 1
Summary of scores obtained by students
Group n M SD SEM
Control group 100 40.00 45.51 4.55

Drawing a Lewis structure of
ammonia
Experimental group 101 62.87 43.39 4.32
Control group 100 33.50 43.84 4.38

Drawing a Ball & stick structure of
ammonia
Control group 100 19.75 26.42 2.64

Interpreting Ball & stick structure of
ammonia Experimental group 101 58.91 29.07 2.89
Control group 100 16.50 15.74 1.57

Interpreting the Lewis structure of
ammonia
Control group 100 27.44 21.42 2.14

Average visuo-semiotic reasoning
Results of a t-test analysis of the students’ performance showed that there was a significant difference in the
students’ average visuo-semiotic reasoning scores when comparing the control group and experimental group
scores (t(199) = -11.439, p < .001) (Table 2). Cohen’s d in this regard was -1.6145, and the effect size r was -0.6281,
confirming that the difference between the means was statistically significant. A similar observation was made in
all the variables tested in the present research. However, the Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances showed that
the difference between the variances was not significant (p > .05). Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances, however,
showed that the difference between the variances was significant on the items that asked students to interpret
Lewis structures (p > .001).
Table 2
A comparison of students’ performance on their visuo-semiotic reasoning related to structures of ammonia
Levene’s Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances
95% Confidence Inter-
Mean Std. Error val of the Difference
F p t df p
Difference Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
Drawing a 1.341 .248 -3.647 199 < .001 -22.871 6.271 -35.23794 -10.50464
assumed
Lewis structure
of ammonia Equal variances
-3.646 198.343 < .001 -22.871 6.273 -35.24113 -10.50144
not assumed
Drawing a Equal variances

3.116 .079 -4.287 199 < .001 -27.391 6.390 -39.99180 -14.79038
Ball & stick assumed
structure of Equal variances
ammonia -4.288 198.443 < .001 -27.391 6.388 -39.98805 -14.79413
not assumed
Interpreting Equal variances

.028 .867 -9.992 199 < .001 -39.161 3.919 -46.88952 -31.43227
Ball & stick assumed
structure of Equal variances
ammonia -9.997 197.570 < .001 -39.161 3.917 -46.88619 -31.43560
not assumed
599
(pp. 594-604)
Levene’s Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances
95% Confidence Inter-
Mean Std. Error val of the Difference
F p t df p
Difference Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
Interpreting the 77.070 < .001 -15.682 199 < .001 -46.866 3.626 -64.01687 -49.71580
assumed
Lewis structure
of ammonia Equal variances
-15.731 144.284 < .001 -46.866 3.615 -64.01118 -49.72149
not assumed
Equal variances
Average 1.644 .201 -11.439 199 < .001 -36.572 3.197 -42.87682 -30.26799
assumed
visuo-semiotic
reasoning Equal variances
-11.446 197,179 < .001 -36.572 3.195 -42.87383 -30.27097
not assumed
The results also showed that in both the control group and the experimental group, students’ ability to draw
Lewis structures correlated significantly with their ability to draw geometric structures of ammonia (Table 3). In
the control group, there was a significant correlation between drawing geometric shapes of ammonia and inter-
preting ball & stick structure of ammonia. However, there was no significant correlation between drawing a Lewis
structure of ammonia and Interpreting the Ball & stick structure of ammonia or Interpreting the Lewis structure
of ammonia. The correlation between Interpreting Ball & stick structure of ammonia and Interpreting the Lewis
structure of ammonia was also significant.
Table 3
Correlation between different visuo-semiotic reasoning skills
Drawing a Lewis Interpreting Ball Interpreting Ball &

Group structure of & stick structure stick structure of
ammonia of ammonia ammonia
Drawing a Ball & stick Pearson Correlation .359**

structure of ammonia Sig. (2-tailed) < .001
Interpreting Ball & stick Pearson Correlation - .065 .241*

Control group
structure of ammonia Sig. (2-tailed) .520 .016
Interpreting the Lewis Pearson Correlation .092 .175 .235*

structure of ammonia Sig. (2-tailed) .364 .081 .019
Drawing a Ball & stick Pearson Correlation .424**

structure of ammonia Sig. (2-tailed) < .001
Interpreting Ball & stick Pearson Correlation .126 .315**

Experimental group
structure of ammonia Sig. (2-tailed) .209 .001
Interpreting the Lewis Pearson Correlation - .158 .117 .163

structure of ammonia Sig. (2-tailed) .115 .246 .104
In the experimental group, we observed a significant correlation between Drawing a Lewis structure of am-
monia and Drawing a geometric shape of ammonia. Interpreting Ball & stick structure of ammonia and correlated
significantly with Drawing a geometric shape of ammonia. Interpreting the Lewis structure of ammonia did not
correlate significantly with any other abilities.
600
(pp. 594-604)
Learning Difficulties Associated with Geometric Shapes
Based on the results, a sample of participants from both groups was asked, in an interview, to explain factors
that affect their learning of geometric shapes. Students were, however, allowed to present ideas on other topics in
chemistry should they wished to. The significant factor related to the abstractness of chemistry concepts. Students
suggested that conceptualizing chemistry concepts is a difficulty as they cannot see these concepts and must rely
on imagination. For example, participants said the following:
•• Tebogo: “We have problems with the chapter on VSEPR and struggles to see the shape of the molecule.”
•• Nonhlanhla: “I understand electronegativity and the periodic table trends because I cannot see these
elements.”
•• Linda: “Teaching polar and non-polar bonds intermolecular forces is important when having to draw the
shapes, and that is not emphasized. Being able to watch a video on how electronegativity attracts the
elements leaving one more positive and the other one more negative can help. As a result, we imagine
these things. However, if we can see it happen, we can have a better understanding of this chapter.”
•• Mbali: “In grade 10, we are taught that when we move to the right towards Helium, atoms get smaller.
We understand why and so forth, but it would be good to get to make these atoms and their shapes
or watch videos because now we are working on imagination.”
•• Participant 14: “In grade 11, we are told to apply those concepts, meaning we continue applying im-
agination.”
•• Lerato: “the challenge is having to imagine that one of the other bonds is actually at the back. In an
exam when you have to draw methane or prove why it is tetrahedral, we cram it from textbooks that
the one bond is in actual fact at the back and not on the right of the carbon atom.”
To resolve the issue of abstractness, the participants suggested the use of visuo-semiotic models. These could
include physical molecular models and computer-based models. For example, the participants said the following:
•• John: “We could make atoms out of clay or jelly tots before learning about them.”
•• Zipho: “Before every lesson, it would make things easier if we could watch a video on the topic.”
•• Lerato: “actually making and creating the atoms can assist us to remember when writing exams.”
•• Nonhlanhla: “We went to Sci-Bono last year, and it was fun having to see real dry ice; it made it exciting
to see something they have learned about.”
•• Mbali: “If we could get the opportunity to go to real science labs and do experiments with all these
elements. Because when we do experiments, our teacher allows us to help and take part but not with
sulfuric acid, all she says is ‘it is dangerous.’ But we need a platform that allows us to see how danger-
ous it is. In exams, we need to state it corrosive and eats through flesh, but we have never seen that.
Watching a video where we see sulphuric acid eats through flesh can help. If we could get to see and
feel the molecules and their shapes, it can assist us when answering questions.”
•• Ntando: I wish we could do practicals for every topic because I would perform better. Chemistry has a
lot of theory that requires realistic practicals.”
•• Tebogo: “Watching videos can help with the naming of molecules as much as it can help with the
understanding of the geometric shapes because it falls under the same topic.”
•• Amahle: “I wish we had our own box of molecules and not have to share with others.”
Discussion
Earlier research found that students could have learning difficulties associated with the use of visuo-semiotic
models, including ball & stick models (e.g., Masonjones et al., 2014), as well as Lewis structures (e.g., Cooper et al.,
2010). However, the nature of these learning difficulties within the context of visuo-semiotic reasoning has not
been reported widely. In the current research, we, therefore, attempted to determine the extent to which the use
of physical molecular models could enhance specific visuo-semiotic reasoning skills among students.
The current research has shown that students may have difficulties with the visuo-semiotic reasoning skills
601
(pp. 594-604)
such as drawing and interpreting both Lewis structures and ball and still structures of ammonia. Cooper et al. (2010,
p. 869) suggested that ordinarily, students could have difficulties performing these skills because they “require a
complex interplay between prior knowledge and previously worked examples.” For example, assigning scientific
meaning to the semiotic models and symbols used in Lewis structures and ball & stick models without any prior
knowledge is unlikely to be successful unless students have relevant prior knowledge (Cooper et al., 2010). Taber
(2001, p. 125) suggested that learning chemistry without any prior knowledge is a form of “‘bootstrapping’ (a term
borrowed from the paradoxical image of having to ‘pull oneself up by one’s own boot-laces’: intended to imply a
ridiculous plan or fantastic achievement).” Even with some prior knowledge, Taber (2001) argued that it would still
be difficult for students to learn chemistry knowledge. This is because even though chemistry may be a “logical
subject, many chemical concepts cannot be learned in an entirely logical manner, at least not in terms of clearly
following deductively from previously accepted ideas and/or interpretation of empirical evidence” (Taber, 2001,
p. 125). Taber’s (2001) argument in this regard was corroborated by our findings in the current research as the
participating students found it challenging to interpret or draw chemical models unless they had prior knowledge
and relevant experience.
The current research has also revealed that students may have learning difficulties associated with visuo-
semiotic reasoning if they lack prior knowledge and adequate experience. Experience in this regard refers to
representational competence, which is the ability to derive meaning from visuo-semiotic models based on the
previous encounter with them (Daniel et al., 2018). We found that without prior knowledge and representational
competence, students may not be able to learn effectively from visuo-semiotic models. For example, participants
in the current research said that they could not “see” chemical phenomena and therefore had to rely on “imagina-
tion” to visualize them. Imagining chemical phenomena that you have not previously encountered could be a form
of ‘bootstrapping’ described by Taber (2001). We argue that ‘bootstrapping’ during visuo-semiotic reasoning may
compromise learning. For example, the dual coding theory describes learning as a creation of “networks of verbal
and imaginal representations” (Clark & Paivio, 1991, p. 151). Likewise, the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning
describes how new knowledge is integrated with prior knowledge (Mayer & Mayer, 2005). These theories, how-
ever, do not explain the phenomena mentioned by students in the current research of how they could “imagine”
knowledge of phenomena they have not previously “seen.” The findings in the current research, therefore, suggest
that visuo-semiotic reasoning may require students to first internalize knowledge to be able to conceptualize and
externalize it, as suggested in Mnguni’s (2014) theoretical cognitive process of visualization. Alternatively, students
may need to have prior knowledge and representational competence to reason with visuo-semiotic models ef-
fectively without bootstrapping.
Results in the experimental group suggest that interacting with physical molecular models could enhance
students’ ability to interpret and draw related visuo-semiotic models, as this enhances their representational
competence. Essentially, interacting with these physical molecular models is a form of internalization, in which
knowledge is assimilated through visual perception and haptic perception. As suggested by Terrell et al. (2019),
this enhances students’ ability to construct mental models. A critical finding in the current research in this regard
is that physical molecular models were internalized through visual perception and haptic perception in addition
to the aural perception of knowledge, which was presented by the teacher through narrated summary notes, a
textbook, and worksheets. This finding is related to Newman et al.’s (2018) claim that physical molecular models
improve student learning because they engage various receptor sense organs. The findings in the current research
suggest that increasing modes of perception may enhance students’ visuo-semiotic reasoning in molecular sci-
ences. This may be because using haptic models in addition to the aural and visual perception increases the form
and number of referential and associative connections that students can construct. It is for this reason that par-
ticipants in the current research recommended more visual models (e.g., videos) and haptic models (e.g., clay and
jelly tots) as learning tools. Consequently, findings in the current research show that moderately increasing forms
of perception may improve visuo-semiotic reasoning among students.
Conclusions
The current research has shown that physical molecular models as an added learning tool enhanced students’
visuo-semiotic reasoning related to interpreting and drawing physical molecular models. Based on our findings,
this may be attributed to haptic perception through which knowledge is internalized. This haptic perception was
afforded by interacting with physical models. The research has also shown that increasing modes of internalization
602
(pp. 594-604)
of knowledge, including haptic perception, enhances visuo-semiotic reasoning in molecular sciences and overall
students’ understanding of scientific phenomena. This finding also proves that cognitive learning is not limited to
dual processing of information, which is limited to sight and hearing. Instead, our research has shown that cogni-
tive learning is embodied to include various perceptual systems through which information can be internalized.
When these perceptual systems are used, learning is enhanced, as found in the current research.
The current researcher, however, recommend further research to determine the cognitive effect of physical
molecular models on learning. Researchers in this regard may consider exploring the role of haptic internalization
of scientific knowledge, particularly given the increasing use of smart devices in science teaching and learning.
Researchers may also explore the nature and significance of other internalization modes in science education,
including olfactory perception, and how these could aid teaching and learning. While further research is needed
in this field, we conclude, in response to the research question, that physical molecular models have a positive
impact on Grade 11 students’ visuo-semiotic reasoning skills related to Lewis structure and ball & stick model of
ammonia when used as we described in the current research.
References
Baloch, A. A., Grossberg, S., Mingolla, E., & Nogueira, C. A. M. (1999). Neural model of first-order and second-order motion percep-
tion and magnocellular dynamics. JOSA A, 16(5), 953-978. http://hdl.handle.net/2144/2329
Bareither, M. L., Arbel, V., Growe, M., Muszczynski, E., Rudd, A., & Marone, J. R. (2013). Clay modeling versus written mod-
ules as effective interventions in understanding human anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 6(3), 170-176.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1321
Chalmers, D. J., French, R. M., & Hofstadter, D. R. (1992). High-level perception, representation, and analogy: A critique
of artificial intelligence methodology. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 4(3), 185-211.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09528139208953747
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149-210.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076
Cooper, M. M., Grove, N., Underwood, S. M., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2010). Lost in Lewis structures: An investigation of
student difficulties in developing representational competence. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(8), 869-874.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ed900004y
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage publications.
Daniel, K. L., Bucklin, C. J., Leone, E. A., & Idema, J. (2018). Towards a Definition of Representational Competence. In Towards a
framework for representational competence in science education (pp. 3-11). Springer, Cham.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional
design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x
Gogtay, N. J. (2010). Principles of sample size calculation. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 58(6), 517.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.71692
Hinze, S. R., Rapp, D. N., Williamson, V. M., Shultz, M. J., Deslongchamps, G., & Williamson, K. C. (2013). Beyond ball-and-stick: Students’
processing of novel STEM visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 26, 12-21 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.12.002
Jama, M. P., Mapesela, M. L., & Beylefeld, A. A. (2008). Theoretical perspectives on factors affecting the academic performance of
students. South African Journal of Higher Education, 22(5), 992-1005.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of
chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, 34(9), 949-968. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199711)34:9<949::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-U
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2),
193-205.
Masonjones, S. R., Masonjones, H. D., Malone, M. C., Williams, A. H., Beemer, M. M., & Waggett, R. J. (2014). Styrofoam-
and-Velcro: An Alternative to Ball-and-Stick Models. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 15(2), 295.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.651
Mayer, R., & Mayer, R. E. (Eds.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
Mnguni, L. (2018). A description of visual literacy among third-year biochemistry students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(3),
486-495. http://oaji.net/articles/2017/987-1529509197.pdf
Mnguni, L. (2019). The Development of an Instrument to Assess Visuo-Semiotic Reasoning in Biology. Eurasian Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 19(82), 121-136. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2019.82.7
Mnguni, L. E. (2014). The theoretical cognitive process of visualization for science education. SpringerPlus, 3(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-184
Mnguni, L., El Islami, R. A. Z., Hebe, H., Sari, I. J., & Nestiadi, A. (2020). A comparison of the South African and Indonesian teachers
preferred curriculum ideology for school science. Curriculum Perspectives, 40(1), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-019-00089-x
Mnguni, L., Schönborn, K., & Anderson, T. (2016). Assessment of visualization skills in biochemistry students. South African Journal
of Science, 112(9-10), 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150412
603
(pp. 594-604)
Newman, D. L., Stefkovich, M., Clasen, C., Franzen, M. A., & Wright, L. K. (2018). Physical models can provide superior learning
opportunities beyond the benefits of active engagements. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 46(5), 435-444.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21159
Schönborn, K. J., & Anderson, T. R. (2009). A Model of Factors Determining Students’ Ability to Interpret External Representations
in Biochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 193–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701670535
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories an educational perspective (1st ed.). Pearson.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories an educational perspective (6th ed.). Pearson.
Schwab, K. (2016). The global competitiveness report 2016–2017. Geneva: World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/
docs/GCR2017-2018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2017–2018.pdf
Sikhwari, T. D., Ravhuhali, F., Lavhelani, N. P., & Pataka, F. H. (2019). Students’ perceptions of some factors influencing
academic achievement at a rural South African university. South African Journal of Higher Education, 33(4), 291-306.
http://dx.doi.org/10.20853/33-4-2937
Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. Sage.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Cognitive theory (3rd ed.). Thomson Wadsworth.
Taber, K. S. (2001). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, 2(2), 123-158. https://doi.org/10.1039/B1RP90014E
Terrell, C. R., Franzen, M. A., Herman, T., Malapati, S., Newman, D. L., & Wright, L. K. (2019). Physical models support active learn-
ing as effective thinking tools. In Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice (pp. 43-62). American Chemical Society.
Thelen, E., Schöner, G., Scheier, C., & Smith, L. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative
reaching. Behavioural and brain sciences, 24(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003910
Van Schoren, J. (2005). Levels of perception. http://www.cs.kuleuven.be/~joaquin/zsp/fluidconcepts/node14.html
Received: February 15, 2020 Accepted: July 15, 2020
Cite as: Nkosi, T., & Mnguni, L. (2020). The impact of physical molecular models on students’ visuo-semiotic reasoning
skills related to the Lewis structure and ball & stick model of ammonia. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4), 594-604.
Thobile Nkosi MEd, Graduate Student, University of South Africa, 1 Preller Street,
Muckleneuk, Pretoria, South Africa.
Lindelani Mnguni PhD, Associate Professor, University of South Africa, South Africa
(Corresponding author) E-mail: mngunle@unisa.ac.za
604
THE SCIENCE LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT PRIMARY
SCHOOL STUDENTS’ IMAGINE ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
Demet Şahin Kalyon Abstract. This research explored dream

science classrooms of primary school third-
and fourth-grade students. Research is
designed as a case study. The students were
first asked to illustrate their dream science
classroom and produce a short descrip-
tion of their drawings. Second, they were
asked to write their expectations of their
Introduction teachers, their classmates, and themselves
in their science classes. Three hundred and
In recent years, it has attracted pretty much attention on how to teach twelve participants were identified using
science to students. The well-accepted view is not only to provide students the convenience sampling method. The
with scientific concepts, but also to grow scientific literate individuals by research evaluated the students’ drawings
engaging them in scientific inquiry process because science learning is and descriptions in the first step, and their
characterized by conceptual understanding, as well as granting purposeful expectations in the second step. Students,
participation and, therefore, a sense of belonging of children in scientific in their drawings, conveyed the following
practice (Caiman & Jakobson, 2019).In science classes, there is a need for prac- messages: Experiments (lab works) could
tices allowing students to discover science instead of teaching ready-made be used in science education, and different
scientific information. It is necessary to teach students how to do science. classroom activities and science courses
Science education is the teaching of science to non-scientists, including chil- could be done outside the classroom. In
dren, and it uses some attractive and surprising means around the children. addition, they expected their teachers to
It is the education of the food the children eat, the water they drink, the air have them perform more experiments in
they breathe, their bodies they are curious about, the animals they feed, the the classes, to offer them interesting and
cars they get on, the electricity they use, the light, and the sun they benefit. intriguing knowledge, to encourage them
With science education, students have the chance to know and interpret to conduct research and projects, and
scientific explanations of the natural world they live in. In this sense, science ask questions. Their expectations of their
education is a natural and concrete education that needs to be done through classmates to follow the classroom rules,
the appropriate methods, taking the children’s interests and needs, the level to work in collaboration, to share, and to
of their developments, their wishes, and their environmental potentials into appreciate them so that they can benefit
consideration (Balbag & Karaer, 2016). from science classes more efficiently. They
Science education at the primary schools provides the opportunity for expected themselves to be successful in
developing scientific ideas, challenging the nonscientific ideas that children science classes.
are likely to form with no guidance. It gives children experience of scientific Keywords: classroom environment, learn-
activity to inform the development of attitudes toward science (Harlen & ing environment, science class, science
Qualter, 2017). teaching, student drawings.
The subjects and concepts taught in science classes naturally exist in
our world. Science classes enable students to explore natural phenomena
surrounding them and construct concepts toward them. Briefly, science
Demet Şahin Kalyon
classes should attract students as the way nature attracts people through Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University, Turkey
different colors, sounds, flavors, smells, and textures. Science classes aim to
teach students how to discover and use information instead of memorizing
it. In addition, students should raise an idea about scientific methodology
605
THE SCIENCE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ IMAGINE
(pp. 605-627)
through science classes. The activities performed in these classes help students learn basic science concepts and
develop skills to adapt their knowledge to daily life by working on everyday problems. As a consequence of the
activities performed in the classrooms, students are expected to acquire the skills and to develop a positive attitude
toward science classes. In this case, the effectiveness of science classes is shaped by the classroom environment,
and attitudes of teachers and students toward the class. Therefore, the classroom environment, teacher practices,
and student characteristics have the capability to shape the class overall.
Several studies have claimed that the students do not like science classes very much, although these classes
have a robust relationship with daily life, and their interest in this class has been gradually decreasing (Murphy
& Beggs, 2003; Murphy et al., 2004; Osborne et al., 2003; Scamp & Logan, 2005; Potvin et al., 2014). Besides, it is
thought that one of the biggest challenges of this century is to inspire students for continuing their learning and
achievement in science education (Bal-Taştan et al., 2018). The problem of declining interest in school science is
international (not universal), and many reasons have been put forward to explain this, such as gender and grade
level (Alexander et al., 2012; Cavas, 2011; Guvercin et al., 2010), primary school teachers’ lack of confidence in teach-
ing science and their insufficient subject matter knowledge, (Murphy & Beggs, 2003).
Student attitudes toward school subjects are shaped by the interaction of three variables: teacher character-
istics, student characteristics, and the learning environment (Myers & Fouts, 1992). Therefore, the characteristics
of the learning environment affect the interests and attitudes of students because teachers can include different
activities in science classes as long as their knowledge and environmental conditions allow. Diverse activities de-
ployed in the learning environment affect students’ interests and attitudes toward the class positively.
What is a learning environment then? Imagine a traditional classroom. What are the class members doing?
What tools (physical and mental) are they using to learn? With whom are the participants doing their work? What is
the work like? What is the nature of communication among the participants? What purposes are you able to derive
for the activity of the group? These are just a few of the variables determining the nature of learning environment
(Magnusson & Sullivan-Palincsar, 1995).
A learning environment is characterized by a unique interactive combination of teacher activities, peer in-
teractions, and teacher-to-student interactions that evolve within the classroom setting (Myers & Fouts, 1992). It
has been found that the learning environment is reliably and strongly correlated with achievement and affective
outcomes (Fraser, 1999). The expectations of students about the science classroom environment were favorably
correlated with the student attitude toward science and the student’s academic achievement in science (Bas, 2012;
McRobbie & Fraser, 1993; Talton &Simpson, 1987).
The physical environment of the classroom, science classroom activities, and peer interactions are all significant
issues that need to be considered when analyzing how individuals think about the science class (Talton &Simpson,
1987). For this reason, this research explored what kind of environment and with whom (students’ expectations of
their teachers and classmates) students would like to be taught in science classes. To serve this purpose, students
were asked to draw a science class of their dreams, hence the data of the research were collected through these
drawings. Drawings are used as a data-collection tool such as questionnaires, scales, observations, and interviews
in educational research. Drawings were used as the data collection tool in educational research because they are
considered one of the fun activities of children. Furthermore, drawing is not only a tool through which children can
express themselves easily but also a process that can be combined with teaching areas such as science education
(Balliel-Unal, 2017; P. Hudson & Hudson, 2001).
Children inherently develop a specific language to communicate with their environments during their infancy,
which is how they communicate verbally. They are then taught to communicate through the written language.
Children also develop a visual language acting as a link between verbal language and written language. Children
from 12-18 months can realize that a pencil left marks and these marks can also be traced, which is considered a
great discovery for them. Afterward, children combine lines and create new designs. As they grow, they master in
drawing, and their shapes and signs can be used to portrait the world surrounding them. Their drawings develop
from simple to complex with natural and orderly steps. This process provides children with means for visual com-
munication (Nelson et al., 1998).
The study of Gomez-Arizaga et al. (2005) showed that the use of children’s drawings is a helpful tool for
researchers because drawings are one of the ways that children reveal their inner selves and worlds. The use of
drawing and writing is one of the effective ways of identifying students’ perception on an ideal classroom: role
definition of their teachers, their expectations of their classmates, and the actual classroom arrangement (traditional
versus nontraditional) (Ulker et al., 2013) inasmuch as even the most straightforward drawing extends exclusive
606
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ THE SCIENCE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ IMAGINE
(pp. 605-627)
opportunities for complementing expressions, and enable people to communicate what words cannot in many
cases (Malchiodi, 2003, p. 1). Students make representations in their drawings to express their thoughts, feelings,
and perceptions and show relationships and changes (Nelson & Chandler, 1999).
Drawings have been used as data collection tools in some studies in the field of science education; however,
the purpose of these studies is mostly to illustrate a scientist or a science teacher image of students and teacher
candidates (Akkus, 2013; Go & Kang, 2015; Oğuz-Ünver, 2010; Şahin, 2009; Thomas et al. 2001; Thomas & Peder-
sen, 2003; Yontar-Toğrol, 2000). The number of studies aiming to reveal thoughts about the learning environment
through drawings is very limited (Yılmaz et al., 2008). Besides, the data are generally obtained through scales in
studies to define the learning environment (Efe et al. 2007; den Brok et al. 2010; Welch et al. 2014). Such studies
generally examined middle and high school students. This research aimed to fill a gap in the science education
literature because thoughts of primary school students about their teachers, learning process, their classmates
were obtained through their drawings. The research makes an important contribution to the concept of a science
teacher and the science learning process.
In this research, primary school students were asked to depict their dream science classrooms. The research
aimed to reveal how students dreamed of learning environment in their science classes. The research results and
findings may be used as a guide for teachers and teacher candidates while conducting the science classes. While
organizing science classes, it is helpful for teachers and teacher candidates to know their students’ expectations to
perform the lessons more effectively because research on the learning environment provides a well-established
approach to explain and understand what is going on in classrooms.
Based on this idea, the research explored dream science classrooms of third- and fourth-grade students. The
research had the following research questions:
1. What kind of science classrooms do the third- and fourth-grade students dream of?
2. What are the expectations of primary school students of their teachers in their science classrooms?
3. What are the expectations of primary school students of their classmates in the science classrooms?
4. What are the expectations of primary school students of themselves in their science classrooms?
Research Design
In this research, third- and fourth-grade students illustrated their dream science classrooms through their
drawings. This research is designed as a case study. Case study is considered one of the most widely used research in
social sciences. It can explain phenomena that are difficult to understand through experimental studies and trying
to define cases where they emerge (Buyukozturk et al., 2010; Yin, 2003). Bogdan and Biklen (1992, p.62) define case
study as a detailed study of a subject, a formation, or a specific phenomenon through collected documents. The
“case” specified in this design can be a person, an event, a social activity, a group, or an institution (Jupp, 2006, p.
20). The case examined in the research is the learning environment in which students want to be in their science
classes. The students drew what kind of classroom they want to be in their science classes. In addition, they wrote
their expectations of their teachers, themselves, and their classmates. In this way, the students’ drawings about the
learning environment in the science classes and their expectations of their teachers and classmates were analyzed,
and multifaceted and in-depth implications were tried to be derived from their perceptions. To sum, the learning
environment was examined in the context of the physical environment, the teacher, the student itself, and its
classmates. Research data were collected in the first semester of the 2018-2019 academic year.
Participants
The convenience sampling method was used to select the study sample because it is a frequently used method
in qualitative research and includes available and ready-to-use groups of people (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990). In this
research, data collection took approximately 40 minutes, which corresponds to one class hour, so that administration
and teachers should voluntarily allocate 40 minutes to this research as an extracurricular activity. For this reason,
the schools with teachers and students who could voluntarily participate in this research were determined. The
reason for selecting these schools is that the researcher has had a close relationship with school administrators and
teachers for a long time because candidate teachers enrolled in the university where the researcher is employed
607
(pp. 605-627)
do their teaching practices in these schools. In addition, Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University, where the researcher is
employed, has a contract with these schools. Administrators and teachers in these schools are willing to contribute
to scientific studies. Finally, studies were conducted with third- and fourth-grade students enrolled in two primary
schools in Tokat, a city in Turkey. The number of students participating in the research is given in Table 1.
Table 1
Participants of the research
Grade Gender
School Total
3 4 F M
School A 98 117 93 122 215

School B 64 72 69 67 136
A total of 351 students participated in the research, but as a result of the preliminary examination of the
drawings, the drawings of 39 students were considered invalid.
Thus, the sample was composed of a total of 312 primary school students, of whom 156 were third graders,
156 were fourth graders. During the data collection process, the participants were told that their drawings and
written expressions would not be used for any other purpose. Rather than their drawings, only some demographic
information such as gender, school, and grade and the participants were not asked for further personal informa-
tion. The required permissions were obtained from administrators and teachers during the data collection process.
Measures
In this research, the students’ drawings and written expressions were used as data collection tools. In the
data-collection stage, the students were first asked to draw their dream science classrooms and write a short
description about what they drew. They were then asked to write down what they expected from their teachers,
their classmates, and themselves. All the data were collected on a single sheet of paper. They drew on the front
side of the paper and wrote the description of the drawing on the back side. Then, they were asked to answer the
questions “What are your expectations of your teacher in the science class?”, “What are your expectations of your
classmates in the science class?” and “What are your expectations of yourself in the science class?.” There was no
restriction on the use of the pencil while drawing. The students were instructed that they could use only pastel,
dry paint, or pencil. The students were given 40 minutes to draw, and there was no guidance on what to draw.
Data Analysis
A constant comparison procedure was utilized in this research. This procedure allows researchers to evaluate
themes obtained from interviews, field notes, and other sources and to compare them with the same or another
set of data (Merriam, 1998). The themes in this research were obtained from the analysis of the drawings and
written expressions. The analysis was conducted in two steps: analysis of the students’ drawings and analysis of
the students’ expectations. Drawings and their descriptions were evaluated in the first step, while the students’
expectations were evaluated in the second step.
First Step: Students’ Drawings
The content analysis method was utilized to examine the students’ drawings. For the analysis, themes were
identified and quantified by their frequencies (Figure 1). The drawings were evaluated only for the visual elements
they contained, and no psychological analysis was conducted. The Draw-a-Scientist Test (DAST-C) (Chambers,
1983) and the Draw-a-Science-Teacher Test Checklist (DASTT-C) (Thomas et al., 2001) have been used in studies
conducted on the data collected through drawings in the field of science. The DAST-C was not adopted by this
research because it is an assessment tool created to reveal a scientist’s image. The DASTT-C asks participants to
608
(pp. 605-627)
draw themselves as if they were a science teacher. Nevertheless, the purpose of this research was to reveal what
kind of learning environment students would like to be in. Although the DASTT-C does not serve the purpose of
the research, some headings in the DASTT-C score sheet still functioned as a source for the researcher in generat-
ing the main themes of this research.
Figure 1
Themes of the analysis
Student drawings were examined one by one, and all the drawing elements were transferred to the computer.
The main themes and sub-themes were identified in this process. Accordingly, the student drawings were evaluated
under the main themes of “environment, “ “materials,” “expressions,” and “people. “ Each theme consisted of some
sub-themes, which were determined based on the frequency of the elements that the students drew. For example,
there is the sub-theme titled “depicted environment” under the main theme of “ environment. “ It appeared that
they often drew classroom, laboratory, and out-of-classroom environments, therefore, the “depicted environment”
was identified as a sub-theme. Other sub-themes were similarly generated. After determining the main themes
and sub-themes, an expert opinion was taken. Following the interviews with the experts it was concluded that
this analysis framework was appropriate for the research.
Second Step: Students’ Expectations
Student’s expectations were analyzed in the same way. Themes were generated based on their expecta-
tions and identified and quantified by their frequencies. The main themes were identified as “ expectations of
teachers,” “expectations of classmates,” and “expectations of themselves. “ For example, there is the sub-theme of
“experimenting” under the main theme of “expectations of teachers.” It was seen that the students mostly asked
their teachers to have them do experiments. For this reason, the “experimenting” was identified as a sub-theme.
Other sub-themes were created in the same way. After determining the main themes and sub-themes, the expert
opinion was taken. Following the interviews with the experts it was concluded that this analysis framework was
appropriate for the research.
Research Results
Students’ Drawings
The drawings of the students were evaluated within four themes: environment, materials, expressions, and
people. Each theme consisted of some sub-themes.
609
(pp. 605-627)
Environment
Depicted Environment
As Table 1 illustrates, most of the students (n=112) drew themselves in a classroom or a laboratory setting. Fig-
ures 2 and 3 show an example drawing and its description depicting students in a classroom or a laboratory setting.
Figure 2 Figure 3
An example of a classroom An example of a laboratory
4G701: “Children open their books and 4G132: “I am explaining that I want to be
are being taught solid and liquid materials.” taught science in the laboratory.”
Table 2
The frequency distribution of environments in the students’ drawings
Grade
Environments
3 4 Total
Classroom 68 44 112
Laboratory 53 59 112
Outdoor 8 31 39
Exclusive classroom 13 7 20
Library - 1 1
Invalid 11 17 28
As Table 2 indicates, 39 students drew themselves in an out-of-classroom environment, while 20 of them drew
themselves in an exclusive classroom. Figures 4 and 5 provide two examples of such drawings.
4G70: Number and letter (4G) represent grade. The last two or three numbers (70) represent the number of the student participating in
1
the study.
610
(pp. 605-627)
Figure 4 Figure 5
An example of outdoor environment An example of an exclusive classroom
3G21: “We are learning our sense organs in a 4G20: “A smartboard for students to see better,
study rural area.” a place to understand what they see, a telescope
to see outside - space -, a library, a place to do
science to comprehend these potions, and a study
place for a group of four.”
Types of Activities in Students’ Drawings
Some of the participating students did not draw any activities even though they drew a classroom or a labora-
tory. Therefore, the number of activities in the drawings (n=109) was less than the environments drawn.
As Table 3 depicts, the majority of students drew the following science activities with a total of 127 activities:
experiment 74, observation 45, research 4, discussion 2, and problem-solving activities 2.
Figures 6 and 7 show some examples of such drawings.
Figure 6 Figure 7
An example of an experiment An example of an observation
4G5: ‘‘We are experimenting with our teacher.’’ 3G11: ‘‘We are observing beings in nature and
listening to our teacher.’’
611
(pp. 605-627)
Table 3
Frequencies of types of activities in the students’ drawings
Grade
Types of activities
3 4 Total
Experiment 37 37 74
Lecture 34 27 61
Observation 11 34 45
Research 2 2 4
Discussion 2 - 2
Problem-solving activities 2 - 2
Others Demonstration, reading, activity, interview, Demonstration (5), taking notes, explo- 15
drama, picnic, playing games sion, watching videos
Invalid or no activity 60 49 109
Some students (n=61) drew themselves as if they had been lectured (Table 3). Lecture means that the teacher
teaches the subject actively while students only sit at their desks and listen to the teacher passively. In such draw-
ings, the teacher was illustrated as being in front of the board and talking, and students just sat at their desks.
Figure 8 presents an example of such drawings.
Figure 8
An Example of a Lecture
4G15: “Teachers are explaining some facts about the world and students are listening to the lesson.”
Seating Arrangements in Students’ Drawings
Table 4 shows that the majority (n=95) of students drew themselves as sitting with a traditional-seating arrange-
ment. Students in Turkey usually sit at their desks arranged according to the traditional seating concept. Students
usually sit at their desks in pairs. Figure 9 presents an example of such a seating arrangement drawn by students.
Some students drew themselves in an individual (n=44) classroom-seating arrangement either in a lab or a
classroom. Figures 10 and 11 present some examples of such drawings.
The number of students drawing a laboratory-seating arrangement (n=42) was less than those drawing tra-
ditional seating. Figure 12 shows an example of a laboratory-seating arrangement drawn by the students. In this
arrangement, students work at the lab tables as groups.
612
(pp. 605-627)
Some students designed their exclusive classrooms. These classrooms have an exclusive-seating arrangement
(n=9). In the research, students were asked to draw their dream science classrooms. However, it is noteworthy that
the number of the students drawing an exclusive-seating arrangement, and the students drawing different seating
arrangements was low.
Table 4
The frequency of seating arrangements in students’ drawings
Grade
Seating Arrangements
3 4 Total
Traditional (pairs) 60 35 95
Individual 22 22 44
Laboratory seating 16 26 42
Exclusive 4 5 9
U shape 1 2 3
Square - 2 2
Others - Circle 1
No seating arrangement 46 70 116
Figure 9 Figure 10
An example of a traditional (pairs) seating An example of an individual seating in the class
3G38: “The teacher is talking about the 3G113: “The teacher is explaining the
layers of the Earth; all students are importance of the matter and asks
listening to the teacher.” us to prepare a project.”
613
(pp. 605-627)
Figure 11 Figure 12
An example of an individual seating An example of a laboratory
arrangement in the laboratory seating arrangement
3G105: “I have depicted that I want to 4G98: “We are doing experiments
do experiment in the lab.” in the laboratory.”
Materials
Real-life Items and Models
One-third of the participating students drew real-life items or models in their drawings. Models drawn by
children were generally related to a human body, the Earth, or the Universe (Figure 13). More than half of these
children drew a globe (n=45) (Table 5). Students drew rocks, mines, minerals, animals, and foods as real-life items.
Table 5
The Frequency of Real-life Items and Models in the Students’ Drawings
Grade
Real-life Items and models
3 4 Total
World globe 5 40 45
Human skeleton model 2 11 13
Other models 3 (Sense organs) The earth’s crust (2), planets (4), human body 12
(2), molecule (1)
Rocks-mines-minerals - 11 11
Fossil 1 6 7
Others Butterfly, water, leaf, powder, Animals, microbes (2), fruits (2), substances in 11
flower solid, liquid, and gas forms
614
(pp. 605-627)
Figure 13
An example of models and real-life items
Visual Aids
The students mostly drew a board in their drawings (n=149). It was followed by books, computers, and pictures.
Table 6
The frequency of visual aids in the students’ drawings
Grade
Visual aids
3 4 Total
Blackboard or interactive whiteboard 83 66 149

Book 50 48 98
Computer 2 21 23
Pictures 1 1
615
(pp. 605-627)
Figure 13
An example of visual aids
Laboratory Equipment
Students illustrated glassware more in their drawings (n = 92). In their drawings, thirty-six of them drew some
glass materials that contain chemicals. There were also glassware, microscopes, and telescopes in their drawings.
Figure 14 shows some examples of such drawings.
Table 7
The frequency of laboratory equipment in the students’ drawings
Grade
Laboratory equipment
3 4 Total
Lab glassware 41 51 92
Chemicals 16 20 36
Microscope 5 29 34
Telescope 1 27 28
Others Material storage cabinet, magnifier, lens, Magnifier, chemical storage cabinet, gloves, 14
battery glasses, lab coat, ruler, scissors, amperem-
eter, magnet, first aid kit
Expressions
Scripts on the Board
In the students’ drawings, it was found that there was some subject-related information on the boards that
were covered during the semester, in which this research was conducted (e.g., the earth’s features, sense organs,
states of matter, rocks, mines, and minerals). Only seven third graders wrote the steps of an experiment on the board
in their drawings. The number of students who wrote questions or formulas on the board in their drawings was 10.
616
(pp. 605-627)
Table 8
The frequency of scripts on the board in the students’ drawings
Grade
Scripts on the board
3 4 Total
Earth’s features 4 16 20
Class/subject 9 3 12
Making an experiment 7 - 7
A question 2 3 5
A formula 2 3 5
Sense organs 4 - 4
States of matter - 4 4
Rocks-mines-minerals 3 3
A chemical bond 1 - 1
Figure 14 Figure 15
An example of laboratory equipment An example of sense organs
Speech Bubbles
The findings show that 24 students added some speech bubbles to their drawings. These speech bubbles
usually contained speeches of teachers who were introducing lessons and subjects. Two students drew the mo-
ments when the teacher praised them (e.g., “you’re fine”. “don’t stop”…). Three students used the bubbles to ask
questions to the teacher.
617
(pp. 605-627)
Figure 16
An example of a speech bubble
People
People in the Students’ Drawings
The findings of the research revealed that teachers and students were usually illustrated with happy facial
expressions in the students’ dream science classrooms (Figures 10 and 14). Only one student drew scientists.
Table 9
People in the students’ drawings
Grade
People in the Students’ drawings
3. 4. Total
Teacher 49 48 97
Student 66 75 133
Happy facial expression 67 75 142
Unhappy facial expression 3 2 5
Others Al-Biruni, Galileo, Pythagoras, - 5
Magellan, Columbus
Students’ Expectation
Students’ Expectations of Their Teachers
Once students were asked what they expected from their teachers in science classes, they gave different an-
swers (Table 10). One of the most frequent expectations of the participants (n = 67) was that they wish their teacher
had them do experiments. Sample statements from the students for such an expectation are presented below:
3G105: ‘‘I want him/her to take us to the lab to do experiments.’’

4G109: ‘‘I want my teacher to have us do experiments and to teach how an experiment is done.’’
618
(pp. 605-627)
Table 10
Third and fourth graders’ expectations of their teachers in science classes
Grade
Students’ expectations of the teacher
3 4 Total
Experimenting 32 35 67
Sound knowledge on subject matter 28 25 53
Meets expectations / no expectations 7 20 27
Negative image 5 13 18
Positive image 12 5 17
Activities 5 12 17
Entertainment 8 8 16
Appreciation 9 2 11
Pedagogical content knowledge - 7 7
Asking questions 4 2 6
Utilizing materials 3 1 4
Others - Checking homework (2), conducting research (2), doing 12
observation (2), having students write down (2), teaching
with visual aids (2), supplying more materials, allowing
group works
Another frequent expectation of students (n= 53) was addressed under the theme of subject matter knowledge
of the teacher. In this sense, students generally expected their teachers to give them new and different scientific
knowledge and different examples. Sample statements from the students for such expectations are presented below:
3G15: ‘‘I expect my teacher to explain everything completely.’’
4G107: ‘‘Of course, I expect my teacher to teach us new things. For example, I think we could learn more about the Earth’s
crust and its movements if we could go out.’’
Some students stated that their teachers met their expectations in science classes (n=27).
3G94: ‘‘Our teacher has the traits I appreciate.’’
4G28: ‘‘Our teacher does everything we expect.’’
Some students expressed their expectations through the poor personality traits of their teachers (n=18). Such
statements were addressed within the theme of a negative image. In this regard, students often stated that they
expected their teachers not to be angry.
3G87: ‘’I expect our teacher to have eye contact with us and not to get angry.’’
4G5: ‘’I expect my science teacher not to be angry.’’
On the other hand, some students expressed their expectations through the positive personality traits of their
teachers (n=18). Such statements were addressed within the theme of a positive image. Therefore, students often
expressed that they expected their teachers to be good-humored and good-hearted.
3G17: ‘‘I expect my teacher to be happy and good-humored.’’
4G39: ‘‘I expect my teacher to be lovely.’’
Some students stated that they expected their teachers to have them do different activities (n=17). The state-
ments of the students addressed under this theme include only the word “activity, “ but it is not known what kind
of activities they were talking about. Only some students expressed their expectations using the words “activity”
and “game. “
3G77: ‘‘I expect my teacher to have us write down a lot and do many activities.’’
4G127: ‘‘I wish the lessons have some more activities.’’
The participating students wanted their teachers to add fun to science classes (n=16). These students often
desired the lessons to be fun through experiments.
619
(pp. 605-627)
3G65: ‘‘I want my teacher to have us do fun experiments.’’

4G101: ‘‘I expect my teacher to entertain us.’’
Some students stated that they wanted their teacher to appreciate them (n=11).
3G41: ‘‘When I give the correct answer to my teacher question, I expect him/her to tell me, “Well done!”
4G29: ‘‘I expect my teacher to warn me when I do it wrong and to appreciate me when I do it right.’’
A few students emphasized that they expected their teachers to teach exceptionally. These expectations were
addressed under the theme of pedagogical content knowledge (n=7).
3G8: ‘‘I expect my teacher to teach the science lesson very well.’’
4G78: ‘‘I would like him/her to teach us well.’’
Few students expressed that they expected their teachers to ask them questions (n=6).
3G5: ‘‘I expect my teacher to ask us questions and to teach something about science.’’
4G10: ‘‘I expect her/him to ask us questions.’’
Some students stated that they had expectations of their teachers, such as checking homework (2), conduct-
ing research (2), doing observation (2), having them write down (2), teaching with visual aids (2), supplying more
materials, and allowing group works. Examples of students’ expectations of their teachers are presented below.
3G47: ‘‘I would like him/her to have us write down a lot.’’
4G156: ‘‘I expect my teacher to allow us to go out to nature and study mines.’’
Students’ Expectations of Their Classmates
Students had different expectations of their classmates in their science classes. The findings of the research
revealed that these expectations were mostly related to classroom rules, such as following the rules and being
quiet in the classroom.
Table 11
Third and fourth graders’ expectations of their classmates in science classes
Grade
Students’ expectations of their classmates
3 4 Total
Silence 33 66 99
Following the rules 7 36 43
Effective listening 24 3 27
Cooperation 19 5 24
Success 11 12 23
Solidarity 15 6 21
Respect 8 8 16
Positive personality traits 6 5 11
Sharing 3 4 7
Appreciation 3 1 4
Active participation in class 1 2 3
Not teasing 2 - 2
No expectations - 10 10
As Table 11 indicates, students mostly expected their classmates to be quiet (n=99). Another expectation that
students frequently repeated was that their classmates to follow classroom rules (f=43).
3G7: ‘‘I expect my classmates to be quiet and listen to the lesson.’’
620
(pp. 605-627)
4G104: ‘‘I expect them to be quiet.’’

The expectations of the students for listening to the lessons were addressed within the theme of effective
listening (n=27). The findings, in this regard, revealed that students often expected their classmates to listen to
the lesson carefully and effectively.
3G29: ‘‘I expect my classmates to be quiet and listen to the lesson.’’
4G32: ‘‘I expect them to listen to the lesson quietly.’’
Some students stated that they wanted to do the activities in cooperation with their classmates (n=24).
3G60: ‘‘I would like to do experiments with my classmates.’’
4G144: ‘‘I expect to do teamwork to fulfill what the teacher wants.’’
Some students stated that they expected their classmates to be successful in science classes (n=23)
3G66: ‘‘I want my friends to be researchers, intelligent, and successful.’’
4G141: ‘‘I expect them to listen to the lesson well and succeed because their success affects class achievement.’’
The findings of the research depicted that some students asked their friends to help them with things they
did not know.
3G63: ‘‘I expect to help each other.’’
4G87: ‘‘What I expect from my classmates is to be supportive.’’
Some students stated that their classmates should respect each other.
3G4: ‘‘I would like him/her to be respectful, honest, helpful, and sensitive to me.’’
4G57: ‘‘I expect them to be respectful and not to be quarrelsome.’’
Using words such as “tolerant, “ “benevolent, “ “honest, “ and “sensitive,” students stated that they expected
their classmates to have positive personality traits.
3G25: ‘‘ I expect them to be kind, compassionate, and tolerant.’’
4G72: ‘‘They should allow me to participate in the games during breaks, and they should be generous, helpful, and good-
hearted.’’
A few students emphasized the word “sharing. “ These students expected their classmates to share knowledge
and possessions. In addition, some students expected to be appreciated by their classmates. Not being teased was
another expectation stated by the students.
3G61: ‘‘I would like my classmates to appreciate what I do.’’
4G46: ‘‘I would like them to share what they know.’’
Students’ Expectations of Themselves
Their expectations of themselves were to focus on increasing academic achievement only. The number of
students mentioning activities that support 21st-century skills, such as conducting research and designing a
project, was only 10.
Table 12
Third and fourth graders’ expectations of their themselves in the science class
Grade
Students’ expectations of themselves
3 4 Total
Studying hard 20 13 33
Being successful 48 61 109
Active participation 52 50 102
Others Invention, exploring a formula, conduct- Conducting a project, writing well, do- 10
ing research, writing well (2), generating ing experiments, conducting research
different ideas,
621
(pp. 605-627)
Students stated that they mostly wanted to be successful and to participate in science classes actively. Another
expectation was to study hard.
3G19: ‘‘I would like to study hard and to give correct answers to the questions.’’
3G53: ‘‘I always want to get the full mark from exams and to come in the first rank in the world.’’
3G48: ‘‘I would like to listen to the classes well and to be successful.’’
Discussion
This research explored third- and fourth-grade students’ dream science classrooms. The research revealed
the students’ expectations of their teachers, their classmates, and themselves. Besides, students’ dream science
classrooms were depicted based on the results obtained.
The findings of the research revealed that primary school students portrayed their dream science classrooms
as the classrooms with a traditional-seating arrangement or a laboratory. The reason why the number of students
who drew a classical classroom environment for science classes is high could be that the lessons are taught in
traditional classrooms instead of a laboratory setting. The study of Kaplan (2011) investigated the learning environ-
ment of the primary school students, asking them to draw their learning environment in science classes. The study
found that none of the fourth-grade students drew a laboratory. The purpose of the science curriculum is to raise
all individuals as science-literate; therefore, different methods and techniques have been adopted to achieve this
goal. Classroom/school and out-of-school learning environments were designed according to the research-inquiry
based learning strategy for students to acquire the knowledge meaningfully and permanently (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı
[MEB], 2018). Laboratory practices comply with the research-inquiry strategy. As a consequence of this fact, it is
expected the laboratory practices to be performed to reach the objectives set in the curriculum. Nevertheless,
some studies have claimed that there are negative situations regarding the use of laboratories in science classes
(Ayvaci & Kucuk, 2005; Boyuk et al., 2010; Demir et al., 2011; Gunes et al., 2013).
The students mostly drew an out-of-class environment after laboratory. They made beautiful drawings il-
lustrating how science subjects are taught in out-of-class environments. Outdoor education explains “ where, “
“ how, “ and “ why” education is given in out-of-school environments (Ford, 1986). Outdoor education covers all
activities outside the classroom in which all sense organs are used to enrich the educational content (Priest, 1986;
Lappin, 1997). Language, arts, social studies, mathematics, science, and music are among the curricular areas often
associated with outdoor education (Lappin, 1997). It is prudent to say that out-of-class environments are natural
laboratories for science classes. In this case, it would be safe to say that out-of-class learning environments should
be frequently applied within science classes. Students also reflected their dream science classes taught outside in
their drawings to support the above-mentioned idea.
The studies showed that out-of-class learning environments for science classes positively affect students’ learn-
ing levels, attitudes, and perspectives (Bowker & Tearle, 2007; Bozdogan & Yalcin, 2006; Kulaligil, 2016). Nevertheless,
primary school teachers and teacher candidates do not have positive attitudes toward out-of-class environments
(Bostan-Sarioglan & Kucukozer, 2017; Turkmen, 2015).
With parallels to the results of the studies of Gomez-Arizaga et al. (2015) and Balliel-Unal (2017), this research
also revealed that the students, in their drawings, illustrated students doing experiments the most. Participants
in both studies drew themselves, assuming that they were doing experiments. The number of students drawing
fundamental skills required for a science class, such as observation, research, discussion, problem-solving activities,
was less than the ones drawing experiments. Although the number of students drawing different activities was
low, the number of them drawing student-centered activities was more. Gomez-Arizaga et al. (2015) reported that
the children tended to draw pictures depicting themselves in student-centered activities.
Although the number of students who drew student-centered activities was high, there were also students
drawing teacher-centered activities such as a lecture. It is thought-provoking that the participants portrayed
students who carefully listen to a teacher standing in front of the board in their dream science classroom. This
result implies that teachers do not include different activities, especially experimental activities, in science classes.
Studies have argued that teachers do not prefer having their students do experiments due to teachers’ percep-
tion that doing experiments has little effect on permanent learning (Ulucinar et al., 2008), lack of laboratories
and equipment (Demir et al., 2011), teachers’ lack of knowledge about laboratory equipment, and the supply of
missing equipment (Taskin-Ekici et al., 2002). In a study examining the teachers’ perception, it was shown that all
622
(pp. 605-627)
participants emphasized that labwork was of critical importance in science education to understand theory and
stimulation (Ottander & Grelsson, 2006). Although the teachers thought it was important, they could not conceive
that the main purpose of the lab work was to make scientific inquiries. The findings of the same research, based on
the teachers’ interview, revealed that the main objective of lab work was to put the theory into practice, stimulate
students’ interests and enjoyment, and practice relevant skills and techniques (Ottander & Grelsson, 2006).
The fact that the students are seated in accordance with the teaching method, it can maintain educational
activities effectively and make the learning activity more efficient (Sahin, 2019) Some studies found a relationship
between seating arrangement in the classroom and various factors, such as achievement (Cinar, 2010; Perkins &
Wiema, 2005), asking questions (Marx, Fuhrer, & Hartig, 1999; Moore & Glynn, 1984), communicating with peers
during class (Granström, 1996), and learning motivation (Buyuksahin, 2019). The findings of this research revealed
that the traditional seating arrangement was portrayed in the students’ drawings more. The number of students who
drew different arrangements having some advantages over row (traditional) arrangement was smaller. Students in
Turkey usually sit at their desks in pairs with the traditional-seating arrangement. Such a fact might lead students
to prefer this arrangement in their drawings. Should motivation and success be aimed in science classes, changing
the seating arrangement can be useful. The fact that the students drew the row (traditional) arrangement in their
drawings too much may indicate that this arrangement is preferred in their classrooms more.
Science classes can be more meaningful and useful when real-life items are used in the classes. Moreover, they
are also suitable for the use of models. However, the findings of the research revealed that students include real-life
items and models in their drawings, but the number of these students is insignificant. Students, in their illustrations,
drew globes, human body models, skeletons, fossils, and rocks, mines, and minerals as real-life items and models.
Visual aids are teaching tools that are used to encourage students to learn and facilitate the learning process,
as well as to motivate students. That is why science classes use visual aids, such as drawings, posters, and charts.
Students, in their drawings, illustrated boards, interactive boards, books, and computers as visual aids. This may
prove that they have previously experienced or seen these kinds of materials only.
Most of the children depictured themselves and other people, their teachers and classmates, with a happy
face in their drawings. Studies have presented that children’s drawings reflect their emotions and inner worlds
(Golomb, 1994; Rosenblatt & Winner, 1988; Serin, 2003). Students’ depiction of themselves as happy implies that
they are happy in science classes. Gomez-Arizaga et al. (2016) examined the perceptions of third -grade students
about science classes through their drawings. Their studies depicted that a clear majority of the children (76%)
illustrated themselves with a happy face, while none of them illustrated themselves with an unhappy face.
The findings of the research showed that the participating students expected their teachers to have them
do more experiments. Students can acquire knowledge by reading textbooks and doing the activities in these
books. They stated that they wish their teachers to teach them what would attract their attention and raise their
curiosity. Moreover, they expressed that they wanted to do different activities that would make science classes fun.
Furthermore, it was noteworthy to emphasize that there were students expecting student-centered activities that
were suitable for science classes, such as research, group work, and observation. Students’ expectations of teachers
may affect their attitudes toward school, and possibly their motivation to learn. Besides, students stressed their
relationships with teachers more than do teachers. Students also academically invested in teachers when they
perceived that the teachers cared about their learning enough to make additional efforts to enhance achievement
(Rubie Davis et al., 2006). Moreover, the students expressed that they expected to be appreciated by their teachers.
Researchers claimed that students’ self-expectations, achievements, and behaviors change when they realize that
their teachers care about them (Muller et al., 1999).
The students stated that they expected their classmates mostly to be quiet and follow the rules. Another
expectation was that they expected from their classmates to listen to the lesson. They also expressed that they
expected from their classmates to cooperate with their classmates and expected them to succeed in science
classes, too. Moreover, they stated that they expected help from their classmates in subjects they were not good
at. Expressing that they want to be appreciated by their classmates, the students stated that they expected their
classmates to have positive personality traits by using words, such as tolerant, benevolent, honest, and sensitive.
The findings of the research revealed that academic achievement was what students expected most. As in
every class, it is aimed to raise science-literate individuals with 21st-century skills in science classes. It is an interest-
ing finding that students’ expectations related to such skills were rare. This may be because the teachers’ and even
parents’ expectations of students are directed toward academic achievement.
623
(pp. 605-627)
Conclusions
The classroom is an essential element of the Turkish education system. Therefore, this research suggests that
the physical environment of the classroom, science classroom activities and interactions with peers and teachers
are all significant issues that need to be considered when analyzing how individuals think about the science class.
This research reveals what kind of classroom the third- and fourth-grade students dream of in the science class,
and what are their expectations of their teachers and classmates in the classroom.
The research is in the field of science education, we have information about the interactions in the classroom.
As we improve our understanding of how students, teachers, and science function together in a learning environ-
ment, the quality of science education in Turkey will also increase. There is a need to create supportive, encourag-
ing, and interesting environments where science subjects can be learned, positive attitudes toward science can
be developed, and academic achievement is affected positively. It is thought that students should have a voice in
the creation of such environments, and students’ views on science classrooms are of importance.
Is there a science classroom that students prefer? The findings of the research reveal that the answer is “yes!”.
Briefly, science can be taught through experiments and different classroom activities. Classes can also be done
in out-of-classroom environments. Science classes can involve student-centered practices, such as experiments,
observation, research, and problem-solving activities. In addition, students expect their teachers to have them do
more experiments in their classes, to provide interesting and intriguing scientific information, to encourage them to
conduct research and projects, and ask questions, to be good-humored, and to appreciate them. Students expect
their classmates to follow the classroom rules, to work in collaboration, to share, and to appreciate them to benefit
from science classes more. Finally, they expect themselves to be successful in science classes.
This research examines the primary school students’ views on their dream science classrooms through their
drawings. Therefore, it serves as a guide in designing the learning environment for teachers and teacher candidates.
The findings of this research can provide recommendations to Turkish teachers who are interested in creating more
supportive and effective learning environments. This research is important because it was conducted with primary
school students with their drawings and expressions rather than any learning environment questionnaire. The
research can also be used as a guide for researchers who will conduct such a research at different grade levels. The
research determines what kind of environment students would like to be in their science classes. In this research,
certain control variables, such as gender and socioeconomic status, were not examined. Picking variables can be
a limitation of the research, and therefore, future studies may obtain different results when they select more dif-
ferent variables than the variables used in this research.
Note
This research was presented as an oral presentation at the 18th International Primary Teacher Education
Symposium.
References
Akkus, H. (2013). Pre-service secondary science teachers’ images about themselves as science teachers. Journal of Baltic Science
Education, 12(2), 249-260. http://oaji.net/articles/2015/987-1425758849.pdf
Alexander, J. M., Jonhson, K. E., & Kelley, K. (2012). Longitudinal analysis of the relations between opportunities to learn about
Science and the development of interests related to science. Sci Educ 96(5), 763–786. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21018
Ayvacı, M. Ş., & Küçük, M., (2005). İlköğretim okulu müdürlerinin fen bilgisi laboratuvarlarının kullanımı üzerindeki etkileri [The
effects of primary school principals on using science laboratories]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 165, 1–9.
Balbağ, Z., & Kararer, G., (2016). Fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin fen öğretiminde karşılaştıkları sorunlara yönelik öğretmen görüşleri
[The opinions of the science teachers towards science teaching problems]. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3),1-11.
http://www.jret.org/FileUpload/ks281142/File/01.m._zafer_balbag.pdf
Ballıel Ünal, B. (2017). İlkokul öğrencilerinin fen bilgisine yönelik algılarının çizdikleri resimlerle analizi. [Analysis of perceptions
of primary school students towards science using the pictures they draw]. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(3), 3031-3043.
https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v14i3.4623.
Bal-Taştan, S., Davoudi, S. M. M., Masalimova, A. R., Bersanov, A. S., Kurbanov, R. A., Boiarchuk, A. V., & Pavlushin, A. A. (2018).
The ımpacts of teacher’s efficacy and motivation on student’s academic achievement in science education among sec-
ondary and high school students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2353-2366.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89579
624
(pp. 605-627)
Bas, G. (2012). Investigating the correlation between students’ perceptions on the constructivist learning environment and their
academic success in science course with path analysis. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(4),367-378. http://oaji.net/
articles/2014/987-1419169197.pdf
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Allyn and Bacon.
Bostan Sarıoğlan, A., & Küçüközer, H. (2017). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının okul dışı öğrenme ortamları ile ilgili görüşlerinin
araştırılması [Investıgatıon of preservıce scıence teachers’ opınıons regarded to outdoor school learnıng envıronments].
İnformal Ortamlarda Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(1), 1-15.
Bowker, R., & Tearle, P. (2007). Gardening as a learning environment: A study of children’s perceptions and understanding of
school gardens as part of an international project. Learning Environments Research, 10(2), 83-100.
Bozdoğan, A. E., & Yalçın, N. (2006). Bilim merkezlerinin ilköğretim öğrencilerinin fene karşı ilgi düzeylerinin değişmesine ve
akademik başarılarına etkisi: enerji parkı [The effects of science centers on the change of “science interest” levels of pri-
mary education students and on their academic success: energy park]. Ege Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 95-113.
Böyük, U, Demir, S., & Erol, M. (2010). Fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretmenlerinin laboratuvar çalişmalarina yönelik yeterlik görüşlerinin
farkli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi [Analyzıng the profıcıency vıews of scıence and technology teachers on laboratory
studıes ın terms of dıfferent varrıables]. TÜBAV Bilim Dergisi, 3(4). https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tubav/issue/21519/615001
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, K. E., Akgün, E, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research
methods]. Pegem.
Büyükşahin, Y. (2019). Eğri oturalim; doğru öğrenelim: Esnek oturma düzeniyle hazirlanmiş sinif ergonomisinin öğretmen ve
öğrencilerin motivasyon düzeylerine etkisi [Let’s sit skew and learn right: Investigation the classroom ergonomics prepared
with flexible seating effects on the motivation levels of teacher and students]. Academy Journal of Educational Sciences,
3(2), 152-164. https://doi.org/10.31805/acjes.635136
Caiman, C., & Jakobson, B. (2019). The role of art practice in elementary school science. Science & Education, 28, 153–175.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00036-2
Cavas, P. (2011). Factors affecting the motivation of Turkish primary students for science learning. Science Educational Interna-
tional, 22(1), 31–42
Chambers, W. D. (1983). Stereotypic images of scientist: The draw-a scientist test. Science Education. 67(2), 255-265.
Çınar, İ. (2010). Sınıf coğrafyası: Geleneksel derslikte kim, nerede oturur? [Classroom geography: Who sit where in the traditional
classrooms?] The Journal of International Social Research, 3(10), 200-212. http://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/cilt3/sayi10pdf/
cinar_ikram.pdf
Demir, S., Böyük, U., & Koç, A. (2011). Fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretmenlerinin laboratuvar şartları ve kullanımına ilişkin görüşleri
ile teknolojik yenilikleri izleme eğilimleri [Views of science and technology teachers on laboratory conditions and use of
laboratory with their tendencies to follow technological innovations]. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 66-79.
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/160793
den Brok, P., Telli, S., Çakıroğlu, J., Taconis, R., & Tekkaya, C. (2010). Learning Environment Profiles of Turkish Secondary Biology
Classrooms. Learning Environment Research, 13, 187-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-010-9076-5
Dennis W. Moore (1984). Variation in question rate as a function of position in the classroom. Educational Psychology, 4(3), 233-
248. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341840040304
Efe, R., Hevedanlı, M., Ketani, Ş., İnce, H. H., & Aslan E. H. (2007). Nasıl bir öğrenme ortami? Biyoloji siniflarinda öğrenme or-
tami yapisinin belirlenmesi [What type of learning environment? Finding out the nature of learning environment in
biology classes]. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9, 69-83. file:///C:/Users/Lenova/Downloads/
Ayvaci_H._S._ve_kucuk_M._2005_._Ilkogret.pdf
Ford, P. (1986). Outdoor education: Definition and philosophy. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools Digest.
https://www.ericdigests.org/pre-923/outdoor.htm
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen N. E. (1990). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill
Fraser, B. J. (1999). Using learning environment assessment to improve classroom and school climates. In H.J. Freiberg (Eds.),
School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 65-83). Falmer Press.
Go, Y., & Kang, J. (2015). Early childhood pre-service teachers’ self-images of science teaching in constructivism science education
courses. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 16(2), 1–25.
Golomb, C. (1994). Drawing as representation: The child’s acquisition of a meaningful graphic language. Visual Arts Research,
20(2), 14-28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20715828.pdf
Gomez-Arizaga, M., Bahar, K. A., Maker, C. J., Zimmerman, R. H., & Pease, R. (2016). How does science learning occur in the
classroom? Students’ perceptions of science instruction during implementation of the REAPS model. Eurasian Journal of
Mathematics and Science Education, 12(2), 1-24. https://www.ejmste.com/article/how-does-science-learning-occur-in-the-
classroom-students-perceptions-of-science-instruction-during-4499
Granstrom, K. (1996). Private communication between students in a classroom in relation to different classroom features.
Educational Psychology, 16, 349-364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014434196016040
Guvercin O., Tekkaya C., & Sungur S. (2010). A cross age study of elementary students’ motivation towards science learning.
Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 39, 233–243.
Güneş, M., Dilek, N., Topal., N., & Can, N. (2013). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde laboratuar kullanimina yönelik öğretmen ve öğrenci
değerlendirmeleri [Teacher and student assessments regarding to use of science and technology laboratory]. Dicle
Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (20) , 1-11 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/zgefd/issue/47944/606567
Harlen, W., & Qualter, A. (2017). The teaching of science in primary schools. David Fulton Publishers.
625
(pp. 605-627)
Hudson, P., & Hudson, S. (2001). Linking visual arts with science and technology in the primary classroom. Investigating: Australian
Primary and Junior Science Journal, 17(4), 26-29.
Jupp, V. (2006). The sage dictionary of social resarch methods. Sage.
Kaplan, M . (2011). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin fen ve teknoloji dersi öğrenme ve öğretme ortamina yönelik düşünceleri [The
opinions of primary school students in terms of science and technology courser’s learning and teaching environments].
Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama, (4), 77-92. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eibd/issue/22682/242211
Kulalıgil, A. (2016). Sınıf dışı öğrenme ortamlarında gerçekleşen öğretim uygulamalarının 5. Sınıf fen bilimleri dersinde öğrencilerin
akademik başarı yaratıcılık ve motivasyonlarına etkisi [The effect of teaching practices occurring in out-of-class teaching
environments on academic success, creativity and motivation of fifth grade science class students] [Unpublished master’s
thesis]. Pamukkale University.
Lappin, E. (1997). Outdoor education for behavior disordered students. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools
Las Cruces NM. https://www.ericdigests.org/pre-922/outdoor.htm
Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (1995). Learning environments as a site of science education reform: An illustration using
interdisciplinary guided inquiry. Theory into Practice, 34(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543656
Malchiodi, C. A. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of art therapy. Guilford Press.
Marx, A., Fuhrer, U., & Hartig, T. (1999). Effects of classroom seating arrangements on children’s question-asking. Learning
Environments Research, 2(3), 249–263.
McRobbie, C. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1993). Associations between student outcomes and psychosocial science environment. Journal
of Educational Research, 87, 78-85. https://doi.org/10.1080./00220671.1993.994117
Merriam, S. (1998). Analytic techniques and data management. In S. Merriam (Eds). Qualitative research and case study applica-
tions in education (pp. 155-177). Jossey-Bass.
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim program [Primary Science Curriculum]. Ankara.
Muller, C., Katz, S. R., & Dance, J. (1999). Investing in teaching and learning: Dynamics of the teacher-student relationship from
each actor’s perspective. Urban Education, 34(3), 292–337.
Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2003). Children’s perceptions of school science. School Science Review, 84(308), 109-116.
Murphy, C., Beggs, J., Carlisle, K., & Greenwood, J. (2004). Students as catalysts in the classroom: The impact of co-teaching between
science student teachers and primary classroom teachers on children’s enjoyment and learning of science. International
Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 1023-1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/1468181032000158381
Myers, R. E., & Fouts, J. T. (1992). A cluster analysis of high school science classroom environments and attitudes towards science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 929-937.
Nelson, M., & Chandler, W. (1999). Some tools common to art and science. Art Education, 52(3), 41-47. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/3193803?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference
Nelson, P. L, Martin, S. S., & Baldwin, V. G. (1998). Drawing skills and science concepts in young children: A study of relationships.
Studies in Art Education, 39(3), 262-69.
Oğuz-Ünver, A. (2010). Perceptions of scientists: A comparative study of fifth graders and fourth year student teachers. Necatibey
Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 4(1), 11-28.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes toward science: A review of the literature and its implications. International
Journal of Science Education, 25 (9), 1049-1079. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0950069032000032199
Ottander, C., & Grelsson, G. (2006). Laboratory work: The teachers’ perspective. Journal of Biological Education, 40(3), 113-118.
Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. (2005). The surprising impact of seat location on student performance. The Physics Teacher, 43, 30-33.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1845987
Potvin, P., Hasni, A. (2014). Analysis of the decline in interest towards school science and technology from grades 5 through 11.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 784–802 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9512-x
Priest, S. (1986). Redefining outdoor education: A matter of many relationships. Journal of Environmental Education, 17(3), 13-15.
Rosenblatt, E., & Winner, E. (1988). The art of children’s drawing. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 22 (1), 3-15. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/3332960?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference
Rubie-Davies, C., Peterson, E., Irving, E., Widdowson, D., & Dixon, R. (2006). Expectations of achievement. Research in Education,
83, 36–53.
Scamp, K., & Logan, M. (2005). Students’ interest in science across the middle school years. Teaching Science, 51(3), 8-15.
Serin, A. Y ( 2003). Bir iletişim araci olarak çocuk resimleri [Children’s drawings as a communication tool]. Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi,
10 (302), 17-23.
Şahin, D. (2009). İlköğretim birinci kademe öğrencilerinin bilim insanına yönelik düşünceleri [Primary school students’ thoughts on
the scientist]. http://www.eab.org.tr/eab/2009/pdf/284.pdf
Talton, E. L., & Simpson, R. D. (1987). Relationships of attitude toward classroom environment with attitude toward and
achievement in science among tenth grade biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 507–525.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240602
Taşkın, Ekici., F., Ekici, E., & Taşkın S., (2002, Eylül). Fen laboratuvarlarının içinde bulunduğu durum. [The situation of science
laboratories]. V. Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, s.132, ODTÜ, Ankara.
Thomas, J. A., & Pedersen, J. E. (2003). Reforming elementary science teacher preparation: What about extant teaching beliefs?
School Science and Mathematics, 103(7), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.2003.103.issue-7
Thomas, J. A., Pedersen, J. E., & Finson, K. D. (2001). Validating the draw-a-science-teacher-test checklist: Exploring mental models
and teacher beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(4), 295-310.
626
(pp. 605-627)
Türkmen, H. (2015). İlkokul öğretmenlerin sınıf dışı ortamlardaki fen öğretimine bakış açıları [Primary teachers point of view
about science teaching in outdoor learning]. Environments Journal of European Education, 5(2), 47-55.
Ulker, R., Yilmaz, Z., Solak, A., & Erguder, L. (2013). Classroom environment: What does students’ drawings tell? Anthropologist,
16(1-2), 209-215.
Uluçınar, Ş., Doğan, A., & Kaya, O. N. (2008) Sınıf öğretmenlerinin fen öğretimi ve laboratuvar uygulamalarına ilişkin görüşleri
[Vıews of elementary teachers on scıence teachıng and laboratory]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 16(2), 485- 494.
Welch, A. G., Cakir, M., Peterson, C. M., & Ray, C. M. (2014). The relationship between gender and classroom environment in Turkish
science classrooms. Educational Research and Reviews, 9(20), 893-903.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. Sage Publications.
Yontar Toğrol, A. (2000). Öğrencilerin bilim insanı ile ilgili imgeleri [Students ımages of the scientist]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 25(118), 49-57.
Cite as: Sahin Kalyon, D. (2020). The science learning environment primary school students’ imagine. Journal of Baltic Science
Education, 19(4), 605-627. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.605
Demet Şahin Kalyon PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Primary Education, Tokat
Gaziosmanpasa University Faculty of Education, Tokat Gaziosmanpasa
University, 60250, Tokat, Turkey.
E-mail: demet.sahin@gop.edu.tr
Website: https://www.gop.edu.tr/AkademikOzgecmis/100/demet-sahin-kalyon
627
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC
INQUIRY SKILLS OF SCIENCE
TEACHING THROUGH
ARGUMENT-FOCUSED VIRTUAL
LABORATORY APPLICATIONS
Abstract. This research designed within
the scope of a TUBITAK 4005 project
aimed to give science teachers training on
argumentation-based learning, to provide
them with scientific inquiry experience, Aysegul Kınık Topalsan
to ensure that they gain skills to develop
argumentation-based experimental learn-
ing methods. Throughout the research, 100
science teachers were given a four-day (28
hours in total) training program in virtual
labs that would enable them to make
scientific inquiries through argumentation- Introduction
based experimental activities developed
in accordance with the science curriculum. The rapid change in science and technology, changing needs of indi-
The “Opinion Scale for the Virtual Lab” viduals and society, and innovations and developments in learning-teaching
and the “Principles of Scientific Inquiry- theories and approaches have direct effects on the roles expected from indi-
Teacher” were applied to the participants viduals. Hence, education systems now aim to raise risk-taking, determined,
as a pre-test and post-test. Following the communicative individuals, who can produce information, use it functionally,
implementation phase, the “Assessing solve problems, think critically, empathize, and contribute to society and cul-
Argumentation-based Science Learning ture (MoNE [Ministry of National Education], 2018). The updated curriculum
Activities- Scale” was applied to the partici- seeks to offer a teaching method that promotes the use of metacognitive
pating students and teachers. In addition, skills and provides meaningful and permanent learning that is connected
semi-structured interviews were conducted with prior learning experience and is integrated with other disciplines and
with randomly selected 15 teachers and 15 everyday life in terms of values, skills, and competencies (MoNE, 2018).
students. When all the obtained data were In this regard, closed-ended questions and instructions that tell students
evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively, about every step they should take in laboratory environments and that
a statistically moderate effect was deter- allows no space for autonomy seem to be insufficient to achieve the afore-
mined on the teachers’ post-test scores mentioned goals (Topalsan, 2018). Science textbooks, which are designed
from the “Opinion Scale for the Virtual Lab” based on the curriculum, do not contain very clear descriptions about which
and the “Principles of Scientific Inquiry- skills the theoretical knowledge provided in the textbooks aims at develop-
Teacher.” Also, the participating students ing. Moreover, there is not much room in the textbooks for open-ended
and teachers mostly expressed positive experimental environments where students can form their own questions
views in the “Assessing Argumentation- about scientific phenomena or find answers to the questions posed by the
based Science Learning Activities- Scale” teacher. Also, there are very few experimental activities that allow students to
applied after the implementation phase. perform experiments. In contrast, science classes held in labs help students
Keywords: argumentation-based experi- to understand the nature of science and learn ways to produce knowledge,
mental learning methods, mixed-method, ensure that they understand learning contents more easily, and improve
scientific inquiry, semi-structured inter- students’ reasoning and critical thinking skills by providing them with ex-
views, virtual laboratory. perience to use knowledge (Akdeniz et al., 1999; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004).
The active participation of students in this process improves them in many
areas and increase awareness in terms of the desired skills. Setting up experi-
ments that allow students to test their hypotheses is one of the educational
Aysegul Kınık Topalsan requirements of our age. Creating learning environments where students are
Istanbul Aydin University, Turkey
responsible for their own learning and where they can test their scientific
hypotheses through empirical or theoretical evidence, interact with each
628
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ Development of scientific inquiry skills of science teaching through argument-focused
virtual laboratory applications
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 628-646)
other, and do scientific inquiry naturally lead to more effective learning outcomes. The search for such learning
environments has led to the development of virtual laboratory environments that can be used as an alternative
to real laboratory environments. Designing and using virtual laboratories for educational purposes is one of the
computer-assisted learning methods. According to Prieto-Blázquez et al. (2009) who introduced a new definition
of virtual labs by examining those given in many studies, a virtual laboratory is an interactive virtual learning en-
vironment that encompasses all technological, pedagogical, and human-specific resources adapted to the needs
of students and teachers in order to carry out experiments. To make a general definition of the virtual laboratory,
it is a computer technology-based interactive learning environment, where learners play an active role, that can
be used in place of traditional laboratory environments and provide learners with the opportunity to conduct
experiments. Virtual laboratories are very practical for pre-experiment preparation and post-experiment analysis
and calculations (Gershenson et al., 2000).
Learners who get prepared for experiments in a practical way save time by using virtual laboratory environ-
ments for calculations for similar experiments. In particular, argumentation-based experimental activities allow
students to conduct a large number of experiments, thereby helping them put forward their evidence and rationale
more easily. In addition, students who obtain the necessary data with the help of virtual laboratories can easily
prepare experiment reports (Morozov et al., 2004). Virtual laboratories increase learners’ motivation by offering
them the opportunity to learn from their mistakes (Subramanian, 2002). Through simulations, virtual laboratory
environments also offer the opportunity to observe experiments that are impossible to observe in real life (Dalgarno,
2002). For virtual laboratory environments to be able to increase students’ higher-order thinking skills, scientific
skills, and scientific inquiry skills, the activity forms to be used by students should contain open-ended questions
and instructions rather than closed-ended questions and instructions. In this regard, argumentation-based learn-
ing environments and scientific arguments can be useful.
Role of Argumentation in Science Education
According to relevant studies, the use of scientific arguments brings about many benefits in science teaching
(Driver et al., 2000; Erduran et al., 2006; Yerrick, 2000; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). The data and information used to sup-
port hypotheses in scientific arguments allow concepts to be learned more effectively and permanently. Scientific
arguments also improve students’ reasoning skills as well as their ability to express their thoughts more effectively
(Erduran et al., 2006). Besides, scientists combine their knowledge with data to advocate the scientific claims they
put forward (Toulmin, 2003). Argumentation-based learning environments where students can communicate with
each other improve students’ scientific and social skills, as well as facilitate their adaptation to society. In addition,
such learning environments enable students to improve their communication skills (Erduran et al., 2006; Topalsan,
2015; Ulucinar Sagir, 2008). However, scientific arguments may not directly provide students with new information.
Instead, they can improve students’ thinking skills and ensure that they develop new thoughts and opinions. They
also enable students to further enhance their existing knowledge (Aufschnaiter et al., 2008).
Since scientific arguments allow students to use the methods used by scientists (collecting data, providing
rationale, considering alternative opinions, using the inductive method), they increase students’ scientific inquiry
skills (Driver et al., 2000). Numerous studies have been conducted to examine the effects of scientific arguments
on students’ inquiry skills (Driver et al., 2000; Yerrick, 2000). These studies have found evidence that scientific
arguments help students understand cause-effect relationships better, set up experiments, develop solutions to
real-life situations, and develop scientific inquiry skills. In addition, the group work enabled by scientific arguments
promotes collaboration among students. Also, testing and disproving ideas in scientific arguments have an impact
on conceptual change. In terms of conceptual change, the scientific argument method is also closely related to
revealing students’ ideas and eliminating mislearned conceptions (Topalsan, 2015; Ulucinar Sagir, 2008). In addition,
students question alternative opinions and become aware of opposing scientific views during scientific arguments,
which accelerates the conceptual change process (Niaz et al., 2002). Science education should include different
scientific methods and activities, epistemological view, the history of science, contemporary scientific approaches
as well as scientific concepts and principles. The role of scientific arguments in developing students’ scientific skills
should be considered. In conclusion, scientific arguments are important in helping students develop an insight
into scientific methods (Driver et al., 2000).
Arguments also lead to cognitive outcomes in science education. From a cognitive perspective, scientific
arguments involve the use of reasoning skills, and in classrooms that promote scientific arguments, students find
629
Development of scientific inquiry skills of science teaching through argument-focused
(pp. 628-646) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
a chance to express, prove, or even disprove their views about scientific phenomena. Expression of ideas enables
the student to move from the internal psychological field (mind) and rhetorical discussions to the external psy-
chological field (class) and dialogical discussions. If students believe in the advantages of arguments, they engage
in quality arguments and improve both themselves and their friends; their interactions with peers enable them
to develop common knowledge, values, and beliefs. Moreover, since understanding the relationship between a
scientific claim and evidence means understanding the scientific claim and justification, their critical thinking skills
improve, as well (Erduran et al., 2004).
Scientific arguments in science classes offer at least five important interconnected contributions (Aufschnaiter
et al., 2008; Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Erduran, et al., 2006; Jimenez & Erduran, 2008; Karamustafaoglu & Yaman,
2006; Simon et al., 2006):
1. Supports cognitive and metacognitive processes,
2. Supports critical thinking,
3. Improves scientific literacy,
4. Supports scientific culture and epistemic criteria for the evaluation of knowledge,
5. Supports reasoning skills.
Table 1 summarizes the contributions mentioned above and the dimensions affected by these contributions
(Jimenez & Erduran, 2008).
Table 1
Contributions of scientific arguments and the dimensions influenced by these contributions
Potential benefits of scientific arguments Dimensions
Modeling and revealing cognitive processes. Cognition, learners

Critical thinking. Sociocultural dimension
Scientific literacy. Language, social symbols
Getting familiar with scientific culture, developing epistemic Science studies, epistemology
criteria.
Improves reasoning skills Development of philosophy and psychology
If it is desired to engage students in scientific arguments to help them develop positive attitudes towards
science classes, it is necessary to create learning environments where they can exchange their views. Some of the
scientific argument activities that can be used in classes are as follows (Erduran et al., 2004):
Table of Statements: Students are given a table with expressions developed with a particular subject.
Students are asked to state if they agree or disagree with the statement and to state the reasons for their choices
(Erduran et al., 2004).
Concept Map of Student Ideas: Students are given a concept map of expressions derived from student
conceptions. All concepts and links in the concept map are examined one by one. They then decide whether these
statements are scientifically correct or false. Students are asked to state the reasons for their choices (Osborne, 1997).
A Report of a Science Experiment Undertaken by Students: Students are given an experiment report. The
report is deliberately prepared to contain information that is lacking. Students are to provide answers to how they
think the experiment could be improved, and why (Goldsworthy et al., 2000).
Competing Theories – Cartoons: Students are presented with cartoons on two topics that contain two or
more different theories. Students are asked to choose one that they believe in. Students are asked to think about
why the ideas they believe are correct and discuss their correctness. This activity is an excellent stimulus to encour-
age students to think scientifically (Keogh & Naylor, 1999; Naylor & Keogh, 2000).
Competing Theories –Story: Students are given a story that advocates different views on a topic. There are
different theories in this story. They are then asked to provide evidence for which theory they believe in and why
they believe it is correct (Erduran et al., 2004).
Competing Theories –Ideas and Evidence: Students are told about two different explanations. Afterwards,
some statements about or not related to these explanations are given. It is provided to discuss which of these
statements they can use as evidence for the explanations or not (Solomon, 1991; Solomon et al., 1996).
630
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 628-646)
Constructing an Argument: Students are given an interpretation and a number of data statements about a
physical phenomenon. They are then asked to discuss which data statements provide the strongest interpretation
for the phenomenon and provide an argument why (Garratt et al., 1999).
Predicting, Observing, and Explaining: Students are given a phenomenon without demonstrating it. They
are then asked to discuss this phenomenon in small groups, to think about it and to predict the outcome. The
phenomenon is then demonstrated. Students are asked to compare their results with their first estimates and to
reconsider and re-evaluate their initial arguments (White & Gunstone,1992).
Designing an Experiment: In order to test a hypothesis, students are expected to design one experiment by
working in groups. In this approach, along with the variables to be measured, the order of operations should also
be known. The students come together in groups to discuss about their ideas. The purpose of this application is
to discuss alternative and relative values.
Lab Report: Students are given a record of another student’s experiment and their findings. The report is
written in a way to intentionally include unscientific information. Students are asked to state the lacking or unsci-
entific information in the report and argue how its conclusions could be improved.
Evidence Cards: In this approach, students are introduced to two or more competing explanations about a
physical phenomenon. Students are then given evidence cards that may support these explanations. Students
are asked to consider the evidence cards and use them to argue for one idea or another. Students work in small
groups and reach an agreement about the explanation provided to them (Osborne et al., 2004).
Discussing with Models: Students are asked to create a model about a physical phenomenon or concept.
They are then asked to decide whether the models they created are scientifically correct or false. The students
with different opinions about the same concept are expected to create different models and provide reasons and
arguments advocating their models and disproving others’ models (Osborne et al., 2004).
To be able to create argumentation-based learning environments that promote students’ scientific inquiry
skills, it is first necessary to provide teachers with relevant skills and have them experience the process from the
first hand. Claiming that investing in teachers in Turkey is impossible due to the lack of necessary (financial) re-
sources is a failure to see in which economic conditions countries such as South Korea and Finland have prioritized
teachers since the 1970s. Teachers make a difference. Effective teaching processes depend on teachers’ skills and
motivation. As the World Development Report states, “many education systems do not take seriously teachers’
skills and motivation” (World Bank, 2018). In order to improve the teaching and learning processes, it is necessary
to improve teachers’ skills and motivation and for this, three basic principles should be taken into account: Firstly,
for effective teacher training, individual goals should be determined, repetitions should be made, and coaching
services should be provided for teachers using specific pedagogical techniques and practices. Secondly, goals and
achievements should be determined in accordance with the individual learning speeds of students and teachers
should use support mechanisms, such as catch-up classes, to achieve the desired level of learning. Thirdly, tangible
and intangible incentives should be used to increase teachers’ motivation.
The Aims of the Research and Research Questions
The main purpose of this research was to provide science teachers with the necessary knowledge and skills
through a training program to enable them to make scientific inquiries in virtual laboratory environments through
argumentation-based experimental activities, to ensure that they can develop argumentation-based experimental
activities and apply them together with their students in virtual laboratory environments, and to help them raise
awareness in their students about the importance of scientific arguments. Throughout the research, the participat-
ing science teachers were provided with knowledge and skills about argumentation-based learning environments
and about how to conduct scientific inquiries. Thus, teachers were given the opportunity to experience from the
first-hand how scientific claims are tested and evaluated with empirical or theoretical evidence in scientific argu-
ments. It was also aimed to provide them with the necessary skills and knowledge about how to have scientific
arguments and apply scientific principles in their classes. It was also aimed to provide them with the necessary
skills and knowledge about how to have scientific arguments and apply scientific principles in their classes.
Following the implementation phase, answers to the following research questions were sought:
1. To what extent have the participating teachers’ views about virtual labs changed?
2. To what extent have the participating teachers’ views about the principles of scientific research changed
after argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities?
631
(pp. 628-646) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
3. What do the participating teachers and students think about argumentation-based virtual laboratory
activities?
4. How do the participating teachers and student evaluate argumentation-based science learning activi-
ties?
Research Focus
The current research is important in that it aimed to give science teachers training on argumentation-based
learning, to provide them with scientific inquiry experience, to ensure that they gain skills to develop argumentation-
based experimental learning activities that they can apply in their classes and use in virtual laboratories with their
students without any time and learning material restrictions, and to help them develop their students’ scientific
skills with a self-paced learning approach with the help of scientific arguments and social interaction so that they
can become scientifically literate individuals and develop positive attitudes towards science classes.
General Background
This research was mixed-method research that involved collecting, analyzing, and integrating both quantita-
tive and qualitative data. The research did not include experimental and control groups; instead, a pre-test and a
post-test were applied to the study group. As a pre-test and post-test, the “Opinion Scale for the Virtual Lab” and
the “Principles of Scientific Inquiry- Teacher” scale were applied to the participants. In this research design, no
change is made on the measurement tools applied as a pre-test and a post-test and they are applied to the same
sample group (Buyukozturk et al., 2008).
Following the implementation phase, the “Assessing Argumentation-based Science Learning Activities- Scale”
was applied to the participating students and teachers. Also, semi-structured interviews were conducted with ran-
domly selected 15 teachers and students who were included in the study. The main purpose of using the interview
technique is usually not to test a hypothesis, but on the contrary, to understand the experiences of other people
and how they make sense of these experiences. Therefore, the focus is on other people’s explanations, descriptions,
and thoughts (Seidman, 2006). With the interview technique, the researcher tries to enter the inner world of the
interviewed person and to understand the studied phenomenon or concept from his/her perspective (Patton, 1987).
Participants
The research group consisted of 100 volunteered science teachers working in secondary schools affiliated to
the Ministry of National Education in Istanbul, Erzurum, Adana, and Izmir. 25 science teachers from each city were
included in the research. Only science teachers were preferred as the participants, as all the contents developed
within the scope of the research includes science concepts. Teachers who wanted to participate in the research
submitted their applications by clicking a link on the web page created for the project. The link redirected the
applicants to a Google form. The form included questions aimed at finding out about demographic information
of the participants, why they wanted to participate in the research, and whether they had ever used a virtual lab
with their students. Then, the applicants’ answers were examined, priority was given to disadvantaged districts and
schools of the cities included in the project, lists of original and substitute participants were created for all cities,
and study groups were identified. Participation in the research was voluntary. The teachers and the students were
informed about the data to be collected, the goal of the collection, and the mode of processing, according to the
TUBITAK project ethical standards. The participants were informed that they might renounce their participation in
the study at any stage. The training was delivered in the form of a 4-day-long workshop, including 28 hours of classes.
Following the training program, the participating teachers used their experience and knowledge in their
classes, as a result of which a total of 1240 students were indirectly included in the research. Views of all students
participating in the process were also included in the research. Table 2 shows some basic information about the
participating teachers, students, and cities.
632
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 628-646)
Table 2
Participating teachers, students, and cities
Science Teachers
Number of participating students
City
in each city
Female Male
Participants Erzurum/Turkey 13 12 280
Adana/Turkey 10 15 320
Istanbul/Turkey 19 6 400
Izmir/Turkey 18 7 240
Ethical Considerations
In this study, all the rules stated in the “Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Eth-
ics Directive” were followed.
Ethics Committee Permit Information
Ethical Evaluation Board Name: Istanbul Aydın University Social Sciences Ethics Commission Decision
Date of Ethical Assessment Decision: 10.01.2017
Ethics Assessment Document Number: 2018/02
Data Collection Tools and Procedures
100 science teachers participating in the research were provided with a training program delivered in the
form of a 4-day-long workshop, including 28 hours of classes. On Day 1, applied practices were held on models and
principles of scientific argument. Also, information was given on the basic principles of scientific argumentation
and the strategies and materials developed by Erduran et al. (2004), who studied Toulmin’s model of argument.
In addition, sample activities on how to use scientific arguments in the classroom environment were shown. The
flow of Day 1 was as follows:
•• The “Opinion Scale for the Virtual Lab” and the “Principles of Scientific Inquiry- Teacher” were applied
to the participants as a pre-test.
•• A presentation was made about the basic principles of the argumentation method.
•• Different scientific arguments were shown and held.
•• The following strategies and sample materials that would help teachers easily apply scientific argu-
ments in the classroom were examined.
•• Table of Statements
•• Competing Theories –Story
•• Evidence Cards
•• Concept Map of Student Ideas
•• A Report of a Science Experiment Undertaken by Students
•• Competing Theories – Cartoons
•• Competing Theories – Ideas and Evidence
•• Constructing an Argument
•• Predicting, Observing, and Explaining
•• Discussing with Models
On Day 2, the participants were informed about virtual laboratory environments and the scientific argumen-
tation method. Throughout the training program, interactive activities and scientific arguments were held with
science teachers in argumentation-based virtual laboratory environments. The flow of Day 2 was as follows:
633
(pp. 628-646) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
•• Teachers applied argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities developed in accordance with the
achievements of the science curriculum.
•• Teachers first applied argumentation-based activities developed for different learning areas and then
tried to design different arguments for the same study.
On Day 3, teachers developed arguments suitable for virtual environments in three different pre-determined
strategies and prepared materials for the implementation of these arguments in the classroom environment. The
flow of Day 3 was as follows:
•• Teachers were given further information about three of the argument strategies to ensure that they
can use scientific arguments easily in the classroom environment.
•• In accordance with the given strategies, activities were designed in virtual laboratory environments
(Phet and E-Chalk).
•• Necessary revisions were made so that the activities designed by the teachers could be easily applied
in the classroom environment.
•• Teachers then prepared materials for the selected study and applied it in a classroom environment.
On Day 4, the implementation of the developed arguments continued. The flow of Day 4 was as follows:
•• Groups of participants presented the scientific arguments they had developed.
•• The arguments were evaluated with the participation of all participants according to the achievements
of the science curriculum, the skills desired to be gained by students, and the implementation of the
chosen strategy.
•• Then, the “Opinion Scale for the Virtual Lab” and the “Principles of Scientific Inquiry- Teacher” scale were
applied to the participants as a post-test.
The data collection tools used as a pre-test and a post-test were as follows:
Opinion Scale for the Virtual Lab: At the beginning and the end of the research, the “Opinion Scale for the
Virtual Lab” developed by Ekici (2015) was applied as a pre-test and a post-test. The scale consisted of 36 items.
The reliability of the scale was calculated as .762.
Principles of Scientific Inquiry- Teacher: At the beginning of the research, the “Principles of Scientific In-
quiry- Teacher” scale was applied to the teachers. The same scale was also applied as a post-test once the teachers
applied in their classrooms the scientific arguments, they developed during the training program. The scale was
developed by Campell et all. and published in the Journal of Science Teacher Education in 2010. The Principles of
Scientific Inquiry-Teacher scale was developed to examine in detail teachers’ views on the activities that enable
students to engage in scientific research in science classes. The scale was developed based on five basic principles
identified by National Research Council (2005). The correlation coefficient of the scale was calculated as .88.
The research proceeded with the participating teachers applying in their own classes the argumentation-based
virtual laboratory activities they developed during the training program. Thus, a total of 1240 students indirectly
participated in the research. Following the implementation phase, the “Assessing Argumentation-based Science
Learning Activities- Scale” was applied to the participating students and teachers. In addition, semi-structured
interviews were conducted with randomly selected 15 teachers and 15 students.
Assessing Argumentation-based Science Learning Activities- Scale: At the end of the research, the “As-
sessing Argumentation-based Science Learning Activities- Scale,” developed by Cigdem (2010), was applied as a
post-test to the teachers and students. The instrument consists of 20 three-point items (“No,” “Sometimes,” “Yes”).
These questions are aimed at learning the views of teachers and students about argumentation-based science
learning. The questions also aim to find out about the learning outcome provided by learning environments based
on argumentation-based science learning approach, the challenges encountered during the implementation phase,
and whether they think it is appropriate to use the argumentation-based science learning approach in other lab
classes. The correlation coefficient of the scale was calculated as .922.
634
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 628-646)
Data Analysis

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference
between the teachers’ pre-test and post-test scores from the “Opinion Scale for the Virtual Lab” and the “Principles
of Scientific Inquiry- Teacher” scale. First of all, it was tested whether the differences between pre-test and post-test
scores were normally distributed. According to the results of the normality test, the differences were not normally
distributed “p < .05”, and since the assumption was not met, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, which is the nonpara-
metric test equivalent to the dependent t-test, was used.
The participating teachers’ and students’ responses to the “Assessing Argumentation-based Science Learning
Activities- Scale” was examined and the frequency and percentage distributions of the responses were interpreted
in detail.
Within the scope of the research semi-structured interviews consisting of four questions were held with 15
randomly selected teachers following the teachers’ implementation of science arguments in their classes. Then,
the teachers’ responses to the questions were subjected to content analysis, and as a result, themes and categories
were determined. Besides, semi-structured interviews about argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities
were conducted with 15 randomly selected students. The content analysis method was used to analyze the data
(Yildirim & Simsek, 2005). The obtained data were encoded separately by the researcher and a faculty member
experienced in qualitative research. In this way, categories were formed by merging similar codes. A total of seven
themes were identified after the content analysis of students’ responses. The themes were then elaborated and
interpreted. In addition, in order to improve the reliability and validity of the findings, sample excerpts from the
interviews were included.
Research Results
Teachers’ Views about Virtual Labs
between the teachers’ pre-test and post-test scores from the “Opinion Scale for the Virtual Lab.” First of all, it was
tested whether the differences between pre-test and post-test scores were normally distributed. According to the
results of the normality test, the differences were not normally distributed “p < .05”, and since the assumption was
not met, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, which is the nonparametric test equivalent to the dependent t-test, was
used. As a result of the analysis, a significant difference was found between the teachers’ pre-test and post-test
scores (z = -3,939; “p < .05”, r = .43). Given the mean rank and sum of ranks for the difference scores, the observed
difference was found to be in favor of positive ranks, or in other words, the post-test. Accordingly, it can be said that
the research had a statistically significant effect on teachers’ views about the virtual laboratory. When the effect size
is analyzed, it can be said that the research had a moderate effect on teachers’ views about the virtual laboratory.
Table 3
Results of the Wilcoxon signed ranks test of the teachers’ mean pre-test and post-test scores from opinion scale for the virtual lab
Post-test - Pre-test
n Mean Rank Sum of Ranks z p
Negative Rank 29 37.86 1098.00 -3.939 ˂ .0001

Positive Rank 62 49.81 3088.00
Equal 0
Teachers’ Views about the Principles of Scientific Research
between the teachers’ pre-test and post-test scores from the “Opinion Scale for the Virtual Lab.” First of all, it was
tested whether the differences between pre-test and post-test scores were normally distributed. According to the
635
(pp. 628-646) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
results of the normality test, the differences were not normally distributed “p < .05”, and since the assumption was
not met, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, which is the nonparametric test equivalent to the dependent t-test, was
used. As a result of the analysis, a significant difference was found between the teachers’ pre-test and post-test
scores (z=-4,240; “p < .05”). Given the mean rank and sum of ranks for the difference scores, the observed differ-
ence was found to be in favor of positive ranks, or in other words, the post-test. Accordingly, it can be said that the
research had a statistically significant effect on teachers’ views about the virtual laboratory. When the effect size
is analyzed, it can be said that the research had a moderate effect on teachers’ views about the virtual laboratory.
Table 4
Results of the Wilcoxon signed ranks test of the teachers’ mean pre-test and post-test scores from the principles of scientific
inquiry- teacher scale
Post-test - Pre-test n Mean Rank Sum of Ranks z p
Negative Rank 20 38.72 774.00 -4.240 ˂ .0001

Positive Rank 71 51.77 3676.00
Equal 0
Teachers and Students’ Views about Argumentation-Based Virtual Laboratory Activities
Within the scope of the research, semi-structured interviews consisting of four questions were held with 15
randomly selected teachers following the teachers’ implementation of science arguments in their classes. Then, the
data from the interviews were subjected to content analysis, and as a result, themes and categories were determined.
Table 5
The most remarkable aspects of the process of argument-focused virtual laboratory applications
Number of
Themes Codes
Mentions
Better understanding 2
Getting rid of theoretical lessons 1
Quality content 1
Quality learning environment Feeling comfortable 2
Abundant application 4
Learning while practicing 4
Eliminates issues that are difficult to learn in normal life 2
Learning while searching for evidence 1
Providing freedom 2
Responsibility for learning Trying different ways to reach the conclusion 2
To be like a teacher in the course 3
Providing learning by living 3
Being visual 4
Active use of the computer. 2
Like a game 3
Different from classical courses 3
Differences of application
To be able to practice at the same time 1
Teaching in a fun way 3
Moving learning to a virtual environment 1
Interesting 4
It is seen that the students summarized the process in short and effective sentences after their activities in the
lesson. The views of the most remarkable aspect of the process are presented under the themes of “Differences of
636
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 628-646)
application”, “Responsibility for learning” and “Quality learning environment”. The argument-focused virtual labora-
tory applications process freed the students from the theoretical lessons and gave the responsibility to the student
completely. Students stated that they learned more comfortably because the application was so interesting for
students and they had the chance to do plenty of practice. Students had the opportunity to learn by living during
the practice and they felt like teachers during the practices. They sought out evidence for their argument-focused
work, moved away from theoretical lectures, and enjoyed the learning environment as playing games in virtual
lab environments. Some excerpts from the interviews with our students are as follows:
“This applications showed me the topic in a fun way. Like we played.” (S1, 10.01.2019)
“I was very comfortable in the virtual environments of the computer.”(S5, 24.11.2018)
“It was very interesting to have a virtual environment. ” (S3, 10.01.2019)
“It was very interesting to have a virtual environment. I learned all conceptions in this environment without being bored
because I like it very much.” (S3, 10.01.2019)
“ Very impressive because it is visual.” (S15, 10.01.2019)
“I had the opportunity to learn the topics in a shorter time while doing the virtual applications..” (S7, 24.12.2018)
“I had a lot of fun looking for evidence..” (S6, 10.12.2018)
“I felt comfortable.In the same time, I felt like a teacher guiding the course.” (S13, 10.01.2019)
“We do not use such practices during our school lesson so I was very interested in.” (S8, 17.11.2018)
Table 6
Contributions of argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities to students
Themes Codes Number of mentions
Observational learning 2
Designing skills 2
Being able to state reasons and justifications 1
Being able to classify 1
Contributions to scientific process skills
Being able to set up experiments easily 5
Being able to reach conclusions in a short time 2
Makes learning fun 2
Creates a competitive environment 1
Provides more effective learning 3
Reinforces learning 2
Enables students to learn quickly 3
Contributions to learning Helps students develop a positive attitude towards science 2
Improves students’ thinking skills 2
Applies science to everyday life 2
Provides a fun learning environment 5
Helps expand knowledge 2
Makes it easier for students to remember what they have learned 2
When the contributions of the implementation phase to the students are examined, two themes come to the
fore. Students’ views are shown under the “Contributions to scientific process skills” and “Contributions to learning”
themes. It is seen that the students mostly shared their views on the experiments they set up in the virtual lab.
Thanks to the experiments that they set up in the virtual lab, they were able to reach the correct results in a shorter
time through trial and error. Therefore, it can be said that such fun learning environments can help students achieve
the learning outcomes specified in the curriculum in a shorter time. Also, with these fun activities, students not
only developed scientific process skills but also reinforced what they had learned and developed a positive attitude
towards science classes. Some excerpts from the interviews that support this finding are as follows:
637
(pp. 628-646) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
“We got good results in a short time. I have learned to develop different points of view and state the reasons and rationale
for my findings.” (S15, 10.01.2019)
“I found the opportunity to learn the subjects in a shorter time by doing the activities.” (S7, 24.12.2018)
“I like science classes more now.” (S6, 10.12.2018)
“(These activities) helped us learn to give reasons and rationale (for our scientific claims). We had the opportunity to make
observations.” (S13, 10.01.2019)
“I have reinforced what I have learned and made classifications with the results in the virtual lab. It was (a) very different
(experience).” (S8, 17.11.2018)
“The competitive environment helps us learn the subjects better.” (S14, 17.11.2018)
“(These activities) helped me like designing. I was able to set up the right experiments and had the opportunity to try many
things at once.” (S12, 21.12.2018)
Table 7
The challenges encountered during the implementation of argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities
Theme Codes Number of mentions
Complicated menus 1
Limited number of texts 1
Challenges in implementation Difficulties with explaining 1
The phase of defending the arguments 1
Justification 1
It is seen that the students were able to perform the activities without having much difficulty. Although they
were not much familiar with scientific arguments and virtual labs, most of the students had fun while learning.
This is indeed the desired outcome. With such approaches to be included in curricula, faster progress and more
academic achievement can be achieved in science classes. Only two of the interviewed students expressed that
they had some difficulties defending and finding reasons and rationale for their arguments, which is the key fea-
ture of arguments. Another challenge stated by the students is that they found the menu of the virtual lab quite
complicated. Some excerpts from the interviews with the students are as follows:
“I had a hard time advocating my arguments to my friends and convincing them to approve them. Sometimes I failed to
find a reason while defending.” (S15, 10.01.2019)
“I couldn’t understand the menu and had difficulty using the limited texts on the menu.” (S12, 21.12.2018)
Table 8
Students’ feelings during argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities
Having fun 5
Interesting 2
Being fond of activities 4
Making them feel like a professional 2
Pleasure 2
Freedom 1
Feelings Easy 1
Makes them feel like a scientist 2
Makes them feel like a teacher 2
Makes them feel like a playing kid 3
Excitement 3
Joy 2
Wonderful 1
638
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 628-646)
When asked about how they felt about virtual laboratory activities, most of the students stated that they
had fun. According to them, argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities were fun, interesting, and exciting
activities that felt like a game to them.
“Being able to do what I couldn’t previously do was very exciting.” (S15, 10.01.2019)
“Excitement and joy.” (S7, 24.12.2018)
“Fun and easy to learn.” (S6, 10.12.2018)
“I thought our teacher left all control to us. It was more fun than traditional science classes.” (S13, 10.01.2019)
“It was like playing a game. I could apply different ideas.” (S8, 17.11.2018)
“I sometimes felt like a scientist and sometimes a kid playing games.” (S14, 17.11.2018)
“It was a lot of fun to learn a theoretical subject in this way. I got excited.” (S12, 21.12.2018)
Table 9
Some remarkable aspects of argumentation-based laboratory activities
Students learn by exchanging information 2

Students easily find evidence in the virtual environment 2
Education dimension
Easy planning 3
Self-paced learning 4
Students can plan the process 2
Increased student participation 5
Student dimension Fun for students 4
They find the activities exciting 3
As a result of the interviews with the teachers, the most remarkable features of argumentation-based laboratory
activities were classified under two groups as “teaching dimension” and “student dimension.” Under these themes,
teachers expressed their opinions about the process by referring to their students and the teaching of the course.
Teachers mostly underlined increased participation in classes and self-paced learning. They stated that they did
not have much difficulty getting the students’ attention to the activities and that they had fun teaching the lessons.
“We were able to find the evidence for our arguments in the virtual environment and we had to think about what could
happen next when doing these activities.” (T3, 10.01.2019)
“The students participated in activities with great joy and excitement and they were able to plan the duration of time they
needed to learn the new information.” (T8, 24.12.2018)
“The students were able to interact and exchange information with each other in classes.” (T9, 10.12.2018)
“It is a process that increases student participation in the course. The students easily planned the process and engaged in
scientific arguments.” (T11, 10.01.2019)
639
(pp. 628-646) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 10
Contributions of argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities to education
Makes the use of laboratories more meaningful 1

Fun learning 5
Promotes cooperation among students 2
Improves students’ academic achievement 3
Learning by doing 4
Contributions to education Makes studying theoretical subjects fun 2
Education is more meaningful 1
Helps students question the process of the scientific method 3
Effective communication 2
Promotes trial and error 3
Applies science to everyday life 5
During the interviews, all the participating teachers gave positive feedback about virtual lab activities. The
teachers’ observations during the activities show that the activities generally had positive effects on the students.
These activities, according to the participating teachers, promote meaningful learning rather than rote learning,
giving the students an opportunity to learn by doing, relate what they have learned to everyday life, and establish
cooperation and stronger communication with their friends. Some excerpts from the interviews with the teachers
that support this finding are as follows:
“It creates a fun learning environment by minimizing the need to use a laboratory. Thanks to the collaboration between
students at this stage, even students with communication problems did not have difficulty participating in the lesson.”
(T15, 10.01.2019)
“We got positive feedback from the students. These activities helped students learn by doing.” (T7, 24.12.2018)
“(It is) a method that makes it easier for children to discover scientific steps.” (T1, 10.12.2018)
“That the students tried to relate their answers to everyday life and to find examples from everyday life provided more
meaningful learning.” (T13, 10.01.2019)
“Thanks to these activities, I have experienced that education provides significant and meaningful contributions.” (T12,
10.01.2019)
Table 11
Contributions of argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities to students
Increases students’ interest 3

Ensures effective learning 5
Cognitive flexibility 2
Creativity 5
Contributions to students
“I can do it” feeling 3
Easy to understand 5
Easy to apply 2
Curiosity 2
During the interviews, the teachers summarized the contributions of the activities to students with simple
but effective sentences. The teachers emphasized that the activities provided more meaningful learning, which
increased the students’ creativity, cognitive flexibility, curiosity, and self-confidence. Some excerpts from the in-
terviews with the teachers are as follows:
640
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 628-646)
“The most important contribution is that (these activities) increased students’ interest in classes.” (T1, 10.12.2018)
“Students were able to use the virtual lab to perform the experiments that they cannot usually perform on their own.” (T7,
24.12.2018)
“(These activities) improved the students’ cognitive flexibility, creativity, and made them say ‘I can do it.’“ (T9, 10.12.2018)
“The activities increased the students’ curiosity and helped achieve meaningful learning. They learned because they were
interested.” (T12, 10.01.2019)
Table 12
Contributions of argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities to teachers
Time-saving 3
Gives them the chance to do experiments on their own 1
Eliminates the lack of materials 3
Offers necessary physical settings 2
Contributions to teachers
Assists visualization 1
Concretization of abstract concepts 2
Positive educational climate 4
Easy to apply 2
The most remarkable contribution of the activities to the teachers, as can be inferred from the interviews,
was the positive learning environment that emerged as a result of these activities. The teachers also underlined
the time-saving feature of the activities and that they were able to use the virtual lab to perform the experiments
which they were not able to perform previously due to the lack of necessary materials. Some excerpts from the
teachers’ responses to the relevant question are as follows:
“Considering the necessary physical conditions, materials, and time for real-life experiments, argumentation-based virtual
laboratory activities provided us with important advantages.” (T3, 10.01.2019)
“The activities helped us concretize abstract concepts for the students. They enabled a more effective learning environ-
ment.” (T12, 10.01.2019)
“(The virtual lab) helps the teacher save time by minimizing the procedures to be done before and after the laboratory work.
Also, the students can have the chance to perform experiments on their own.” (T6, 10.12.2018)
“We used to have difficulty motivating the students. But this activity helped us (do this). All the students tried to actively
participate in classes.” (T5, 10.01.2019)
Views of Teachers and Students about Argumentation-Based Science Learning Activities
Considering the participants’ responses to the “Assessing Argumentation-based Science Learning Activities-
Scale,” it is clear that the research had positive impacts on them. Also, they mostly expressed their satisfaction with
the activities performed throughout the research. This can be understood from the scarcity of “No” responses in
the scale. This shows that the research achieved its goals and objectives. The percentages of responses to the key
questions in the scale and the interpretation of these percentages are given in detail below.
93.33% of the teachers and 96.80% of the students who participated in the research stated that the laboratory
activities based on the argumentation-based science learning approach helped them understand the subjects bet-
ter. 94.44% of the teachers and 74% of the students thought that the activities increased student interest in classes.
Also, 91.11% of the teachers and 69.0% of the students responded ‘yes’ to the question, “Have the laboratory activi-
ties based on the argumentation-based science learning approach helped you develop scientific process skills?”
On the other hand, 8.88% of the teachers and 26.0% of the students responded ‘sometimes’ to the same question.
90% of the teachers and 54.0% of the students were of the opinion that argumentation-based science learning
made it easy for the students to establish connections among research questions, stages of research, data, evidence,
and claims. However, to the same question, 10% of the teachers and 36.0% of the students responded ‘sometimes.’
641
(pp. 628-646) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
3.33% of the teachers responded ‘no,” 27.77% sometimes, and 70% yes to the question, “Have the laboratory
activities based on the argumentation-based science learning approach made you feel like a scientist?”. Also, 15%
of the students responded ‘no,’ 15% ‘sometimes,’ and 70% ‘yes’ to the same question. This is a desirable result. Since
the argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities place all the responsibility on the learner, it is one of the big-
gest achievements that a majority of the students felt like a scientist.
Besides, 90% of the teachers and 87% of the students stated that they would like to use the laboratory activi-
ties based on the argumentation-based science learning approach in other lab classes. This finding shows that
teachers and students want to have more scientific arguments in their laboratory classes.
7.77% of the teachers and 31% of the students responded ‘yes’ to the question, “Have you had any difficulty
applying the laboratory activities based on the argumentation-based science learning approach?” while 38.8% of
the teachers and 33% of the students responded ‘sometimes’ to the same question. This result needs further con-
sideration. In order for the concept of argumentation, which is inherent in science, to be easily applied by teachers,
necessary materials should be made more available.
In addition, 80% of the teachers and 77% of the students were of the opinion that the laboratory activities
based on the argumentation-based science learning approach enriched the classroom environment, while 17.77%
of the teachers and 17% of the students thought that these activities ‘sometimes’ enriched the classroom environ-
ment. This result indicates that some of the teachers and students had difficulty adapting to the process.
The vast majority of the teachers 87.77% and students 80% think that the laboratory activities helped them
develop the ability to ask the right research questions for the solution of a scientific problem.
The argumentation-based science learning approach requires teachers and students to discuss the research
questions with peers at the beginning of lab classes. 94.44% of the teachers and 77% of the students thought this
was helpful. On the other hand, 19% of the students thought that this was ‘sometimes’ helpful.
96.66% of the teachers and 84% of the students responded ‘yes’ to the question, “Do you think that designing
different experiments according to research questions was helpful?”
Furthermore, a great majority of the teachers (90.00%) and the students (84.00%) thought that the argu-
mentation-based science learning approach increased their motivation. Besides, 94.44% of the teachers and 87%
of the students responded ‘yes’ to the question, “Has your active participation in all stages of laboratory activities
increased your interest in the subject?”
While 80% of the teachers and 70% of the students responded ‘yes’ to the question, “Do you think that all the
students in the classroom were actively involved in the laboratory activities based on the argumentation-based
science learning approach?” 17.77% of the teachers and 21% of the students responded ‘sometimes’ to the same
question. This result also needs further consideration.
Also, 77.7% of the teachers and 73% of the students were of the opinion that the argumentation-based sci-
ence learning approach provides a collaborative learning environment, and 21.11% of the teachers and 21.0%
of the students thought that this approach ‘sometimes’ provides a collaborative learning environment. Creating
collaborative learning environments is very important in education. Collaborative learning environments arising
from the right activities can enable students to improve each other.
On the other hand, the percentage of the teachers who were of the opinion that the argumentation-based
science learning approach allowed them to exchange and organize information was greater than that of the stu-
dents: Of the teachers, 94.44% thought that they could fully exchange information and 87.77% thought they could
fully organize information. In the students, these percentages were determined as 72.00% and 70%, respectively.
94.44% of the teachers and 75% of the students responded ‘yes’ to the question, “Considering the argumen-
tation-based science learning approach in general, have these activities improved your critical thinking skills?” On
the other hand, 23% of the students responded ‘sometimes’ to the same question.
One of the most effective materials for argumentation-based virtual lab activities is the pencil. The student
is expected to write what he/she has learned, the evidence he/she has found, his/her reasons, and the reasons
for his/her changing thoughts. In short, in these activities, students are expected to write what they think. Of the
participating teachers and students, 77.77% and 41%, respectively, were of the opinion that the argumentation-
based science learning approach improved their writing skills. On the other hand, 8.88% of the teachers and 37%
of the students were of the opinion that the approach did not improve their writing skills.
Finally, 91.11% of the teachers and 76% of the students responded ‘yes’ while 18% of the students responded
‘sometimes’ to the question, “Have the laboratory activities based on the argumentation-based science learning
approach improved your ability to collect data and evaluate the obtained data?”
642
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 628-646)
Discussion
93.33% of the teachers and 96.80% of the students who participated in the research stated that the laboratory
activities based on the argumentation-based science learning approach helped them understand the subjects better.
This is quite a crucial result in terms of effective education. The rote-learning method is unfortunately sometimes
used by teachers to teach scientific concepts and definitions. However, abstract concepts and subjects taught in this
way are usually forgotten by students in a short time. Also, incorrect or ineffective methods and approaches used in
science education cause students to develop negative attitudes towards science classes. What needs to be done is
to let children have more experience with concepts and to include them in scientific processes. Scientific knowledge
alone is not enough for a student to gain scientific literacy. The student needs to understand, interpret, and apply
scientific knowledge (Benjamin et al., 2017; Lederman et al., 2013; Milar & Osborne, 1998; NRC, 2012; Roberts & Bybee,
2014; Tytler et al., 2008). According to the constructivist theory, well-organized argumentation-based virtual laboratory
environments can provide students with the opportunity to perform experiments on their own, as well as help them
develop the skills required for scientific literacy. Argument-based science inquiry can engage students in epistemic
activities that closely model that of professional scientists (Erduran et al., 2004).
The US National Science Education Standards (NSES) draws attention to the need for students to improve scien-
tific process skills such as using scientific information, critically evaluating data, making claims, and supporting and
discussing evidence and arguments (NRC, 2005). These guidelines aim to ensure that students can establish meaningful
connections between evidence and questions, can question the accuracy of the information, and construct scientific
knowledge by using sociological processes used by scientists (Hand et al., 2007). In this context, the argumentation-ba-
sed science learning approach provides student-centered collaborative learning environments based on research and
inquiry, promoting self-paced and self-directed learning and students’ engagement in scientific arguments, thereby
improving the above-mentioned key scientific literacy skills (Hohenshell & Hand, 2006).
However, there are very few activities that allow teachers to use this method. Teachers need to master the
argumentation-based science learning method so that they can easily adapt to the process and use it in their clas-
ses. Teachers who wish to use such activities in their classes should also be able to develop different activities and
learning materials that serve their students’ needs. It is also very important for teachers to present the materials they
developed to the students in a fun way. Therefore, argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities serve as a more
acceptable and applicable learning material for both teachers and students. Indeed, the change in the participating
teachers’ views about virtual laboratory activities and about the principles of scientific research shows that they feel
more prepared for the activities that they can use at school. NRC (2005) has stated 20 articles under five titles for
conducting scientific research. Considering the importance of research-based learning (Harwood et al., 2006) and
the emphasis on research-based learning in the science curriculum in Turkey, it is thought that argumentation-based
virtual laboratory activities can provide the necessary fun and collaborative learning environments that will allow
students to do scientific inquiry and research.
Interviews with randomly selected teachers and students after the implementation phase of the research
presented results demonstrating the effect of argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities. The point that the
interviewed teachers most underlined was the positive educational climate. Students’ easy adaptation to the activities
and teachers’ role as a facilitator and counsellor in these activities were some very important indicators of a positive
learning climate. In fact, numerous studies have pointed to the role of virtual laboratory activities, compared to tea-
cher-centred teaching, in increasing students’ academic performance and achieving permanent learning (Basciftci et al.,
2011; Chang, 2000; Comek, 2003; Demircioglu & Geban, 1996; Huppert et al., 2002; Mitra & Hullett, 1997; Olgun, 2006;
Ozmen & Kolomuc 2004; Yenice et al., 2003; Yigit & Akdeniz, 2003). Thanks to argumentation-based virtual laboratory
activities, learning can be made more permanent through scientific inquiries and arguments. Furthermore, as can be
inferred from the interviews with the students, argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities made learning more
fun and engaging for the students. This is today quite a precious result. For the development of scientific literacy in
children, NSTA (2007) recommends using games that encourage students to discover, asking open-ended questions
that promote scientific inquiry, research, and developing models, creating a learning environment where students
are encouraged to do research, collect data, interpret the collected data, and share their conclusions, and involving
students in science and engineering activities. The participating students were able to perform experiments in virtual
environments, question the accuracy of their existing knowledge through arguments, and develop an awareness of
the learning outcomes specified in the science curriculum. For this reason, such activities that reflect the constructivist
learning theory should be made available throughout the country for more teachers and students.
643
(pp. 628-646) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities help teachers create a positive and fun learning climate
which, in turn, develops different skills in students. Also, argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities to be
developed according to the learning outcomes specified in the science curriculum offer an opportunity not only
for self-paced learning, but also for the development of scientific process skills. As a matter of fact, the participat-
ing teachers stated that argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities increased students’ interest and made
learning more fun and that with these activities, their students could relate what they have learned to everyday life.
On the other hand, as can be inferred from the interviews with the participating students, the laboratory activities
based on the argumentation-based science learning approach “increased their interest, were fun to participate,
and helped them learn the subjects better.” Considering that increasing student motivation is the fundamental
requirement for empowering students with 21st-century skills that express the high-level skills that students need
for life in the information age, the number of such activities to be carried out in schools should increase, and train-
ing programs that will educate teachers about how to develop such materials should be made more widespread.
Considering the participating teachers’ responses to the “Opinion Scale for the Virtual Lab” and the “Principles
of Scientific Inquiry- Teacher” scale applied both as a pre-test and as a post-test, it can be seen that the research
had a moderate effect on the teachers’ views. This finding indicates that the teachers embraced the new and fun
learning environment made possible through argumentation-based laboratory activities. During the training
program, the teachers both developed argumentation-based materials to be used in virtual labs and frequently
underlined the necessity of using such activities in their classes.
Argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities were developed with the aim of providing students with a
learning environment where they can learn new scientific information, discuss scientific facts, and draw evidence-
based conclusions. The emphasis on raising individuals involved in the process for the solution of scientific mat-
ters that concern society, which was included in the PISA 1999 and 2006 framework documents, was replaced by
the emphasis on scientific inquiry, scientific evidence and scientific knowledge in PISA 2015. The materials and
contents developed within the scope of the current research are very important in that they aimed to achieve the
goal specified in PISA 2015. Teachers and students found opportunities for more systematic thinking on scientific
knowledge developed through these materials. Argumentation-based virtual laboratory activities have emerged a
more effective class model. Students who have the opportunities to understand science subjects better attended
the lesson more eagerly and motivated. In addition, teachers’ and students’ abilities to ask research questions for
the solution of a scientific problem have also improved through this research. In this way, the course contents
progressed by gaining a more scientific and critical direction.
References
Akdeniz, A. R., Cepni, S., & Azar, A. (1999, September 22-25). An approach to improve the laboratory use skills of prospective
physics teachers Breakout session [Symposium]. III. National Science Symposium, Trabzon, Turkiye.
Aufschnaiter, C. V., Erduran, S., Simon S., & Osborne, J. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how
students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
Basciftci, F. V., Gulec, N., Akdogan, T., & Koc, Z. (2011, April 27-29). Investigation of teacher candidates’ value preferences and
epistemological beliefs [Paper presentation]. International Conference on new trends in education and their implications,
Turkey. http://www.iconte.org/FileUpload/ks59689/File/117.pdf
Benjamin, H., Feldman, A., & Vernaza-Hernandez, V. (2017). Florida and Puerto Rico secondary science teachers’ knowledge
and teaching of climate change science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(3), 451-471.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9706-6
Buyukozturk, S., Kılıc-Cakmak, E., Akgun, O., Karadeniz, S., & Demirel, F. (2008). Scientific research methods. PEGEM Publishing.
Chang, C. Y. (2000). Enhancing tenth graders’ earth-science learning through computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Geoscience
Education, 48, 636- 641. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-48.5.636
Cigdem, C. (2010). Argumentation based science learning in science laboratory activities. [Master thesis, Gazi University Institute
of Educational Sciences]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
Comek, A. (2003). The effect of teaching heat and heat travel in tatter with computer assisted teaching materials on student achieve-
ment. [Master thesis, MarmaraUniversity]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
Dalgarno, B. (2002). The potential of 3D virtual learning environments: A constructivist analysis. Electronic Journal of Instructional
Science and Technology, 5(2), 3-6. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.126.4994&rep=rep1&type=pdf
644
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 628-646)
Demircioglu, H., & Geban, O. (1996). Comparison of computer assisted teaching and traditional problem- solving activities in
terms of course success in science education. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 12(12). 183-185. https://
dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/88163
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,
84, 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science
Education, 38, 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
Ekici, M. (2015). Science teachers’ opinions about virtual laboratory and their utilization levels. [Master thesis, Adıyaman University].
https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
Erduran, S., Ardac, D., & Guzel, B.Y. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science
teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2, 1- 13. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/
Sibel_Erduran/publication/26466228_Learning_To_Teach_Argumentation_Case_Studies_Of_PreService_Secondary_Sci-
ence_Teachers/links/5416b2b80cf2788c4b35dfb2.pdf
Erduran, E., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument
pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88 (6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
Garratt, J., Overton, T., & Threlfall, T. (1999). A question of chemistry: Creative problems for critical thinkers. Pearson.
Gershenson, C., Gonzalez Perez, P. P., & Negrete Martinez, J. (2000). Thinking adaptive: Towards a behaviours virtual. Cogprints.
http://cogprints.org/1478/3/Gershenson-ThinkingAdaptive_TowardsABehavioursVirtualLaboratory.pdf
Goldsworthy, A., Watson, R., & Wood-Robinson, V. (2000). Developing understanding in scientific enquiry. Hatfield: ASE
Hand, B., Gunel, M., & Prain, V. (2007). Writing for learning in science: A secondary analysis of six studies. International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 615-637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9082-y
Harwood, W. S., Hansen, J., & Lotter, C. (2006). Measuring teacher beliefs about inquiry: The development of a blended qualitative/
quantitative instrument. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 69-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-0357-4
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Educa-
tion, 88(1), 28-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. Inter-
national Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336965
Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students’ cognitive stages, sci-
ence process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803-821.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110049150
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research,
3- 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2
Karamustafaoglu, O., & Yaman, S. (2006). Special teaching methods in science education I-II. Ani Publishing.
Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons. Teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of Science
Education, 21, 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290642
Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of sci-
ence and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology, 1(3),
138-147. http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423903690.pdf
Ministry of National Education (2018). Science course curriculum. MoNE Publications.
Mitra, A., & Hullett, C. R. (1997). Toward evaluating computer aided instruction: Attitudes, demographics, context. Evaluation and
Program Planning, 20(4), 379-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(97)00019-0
Morozov, M., Tanakov, A., Gerasimov, A., Bystrov, D., & Cvirco, E. (2004). Virtual chemistry laboratory for school education. In Pro-
ceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 605-608). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICALT.2004.1357486
National Research Council (2005). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (2007). NSTA position statement: The integral role of laboratory investigations in science
instruction. NSTA Handbook. http://static.nsta.org/pdfs/PositionStatement_LabScience.pdf
National Research Council. (2012). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Nap Publishers.
http://www.nap.edu/catalopg.php?record_id=12882
Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (2000). Concept cartoons in education. Millgate House Publishers.
Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students’
understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86, 505-525. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10035
Olgun, A. (2006). The effect of computer aided science teaching on students’ science attitudes, metacognitive skills and success.
[Master thesis, Osmangazi University / Institute of Science]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
Osborne, J. F. (1997). Practical alternatives. School Science Review, 78(285), 61–66.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. King’s College in-Service Training Manual
and Resource Pack.
Ozmen, H., & Kolomuc, A. (2004). Effect of computer-based teaching on student achievement in solution concept. Gazi University
Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 12(1), 57-68. https://scholar.google.com.tr/scholar?cluster=11906810013686480447&
hl=tr&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Sage Publishing.
645
(pp. 628-646) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Prieto-Blazquez, J., Herrera- Joancomartí, J., & Guerrero-Roldán, A. E. (2009). A virtual laboratory structure for developing
programming labs. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 4, 47-52. https://doi:10.3991/ijet.v4s1.789
Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Science Education. Routledge.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers Col-
lege Press.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom.
International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
Solomon, J. (1991). Exploring the nature of science: Key stage 3. Blackie.
Solomon, J., Scott, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ understanding of the nature of science. Science
Education, 80(5), 493-508. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199609)80:5
Subramanian, R. K. (2002). Intelligent virtual biology experiments. [Doctoral thesis, Rutgers University]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Global.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Topalsan, K. A. (2015). Ontological examination of the misconceptions of pre-service teacher candidates in the force and movement
unit and elimination of these misconceptions with the argument environments created. [Doctoral thesis, Marmara University
Institute of Educational Sciences]. Turkey. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
Topalsan, K. A. (2018). Evaluation of engineering design-based science teaching activities developed by prospective classroom
teachers. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Education Faculty, 15(1), 186-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2018.66
Tytler, R., Symington, D., Kirkwood, V., & Malcolm, C. (2008). Engaging students in authentic science through school--community
links: learning from the rural experience. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 54(3),
3-18. http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30017978
Ulucınar Sagir, S. (2008). Investigation of the effectiveness of scientific discussion focused teaching in science class. [Doctoral thesis,
Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences]. Turkey. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. The Falmer Press.
World Development Report. (2018). The world development report 2018. Worldbank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publica-
tion/wdr2018
Yenice, N., Sumer, S., Oktaylar, H. C., & Erbil, E. (2003). The effect of computer assisted instruction on the level of achieving the
objectives of the course in science lessons. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 24 (24), 152-158. https://
dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/87849
Yerrick, K. R. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry ınstruction. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(8), 807-838. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<807::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-7
Yigit, N., & Akdeniz, A. R. (2003). The effect of computer aided activities on student attainment in physics teaching. Journal of
Gazi Education Faculty, 23(3), 99-113. http://www.gefad.gazi.edu.tr/en/download/article-file/77353
Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2005). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Seckin Publishing.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 39(1),
35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
Cite as: Topalsan, A. K. (2020). Development of scientific inquiry skills of science teaching through argument-focused virtual
laboratory applications. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4), 628-646. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.628
Aysegul Kinik Topalsan PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Elementary Education, Faculty of
Education, Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey.
E-mail: aysegulkinik@aydin.edu.tr
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000_0003_0947_5355
646
EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF
GUIDANCE IN A COMPUTER
DETECTIVE GAME FOR SCIENCE ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
EDUCATION ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
Abstract. This research aimed to develop a

Fu-Hsing Tsai, computer detective game for science edu-
I-Ying Hsu cation to provide students in experiencing
real-world problem-solving after learning
electricity-related knowledge, and to ex-
plore the effects of designing the guidance
of process constraints and prompts into this
game. To explore the effects of guidance,
Introduction two different game tasks with and without
the guidance of process constraints and
For more than half a century, education scholars have advocated that prompts were integrated into this game. At
science education should not only ask students to memorize knowledge the same time, to understand appropriate
but also teach them how to think (Wong et al., 2001). At present, under the prompt guidance, two different versions
unceasing endeavors of science education organizations and scholars who of the first game task with and without
have promoted various science education projects and experimental curricula real-time prompts were also designed. Two
(National Research Council, 2000; NGSS Lead States, 2013), the educational ninth-grade classes from a lower second-
idea of teaching students to do science and learn science through scientific ary school were randomly assigned to use
inquiry activities has gradually been incorporated in the national education different versions of game with different
standards of numerous countries (Department for Education, 2013; National real-time guidance prompts. The research
Research Council, 2013). At the same time, inquiry-based learning has become findings indicate that students had signifi-
a core teaching strategy in contemporary science education. cantly better problem-solving performance
Many researchers have recommended that these inquiry-based cur- in first game task with the guidance of pro-
ricula should give students experience in dealing with real-world problems cess constraints and prompts than those
(Fortus et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 2016). Abundant research has also verified that in second game task without guidance.
implementing such curricula can enhance students’ scientific knowledge The results also indicate that the design of
acquisition and scientific inquiry abilities, such as data analysis and scientific real-time prompts may not only enhance
inference abilities (Ebenezer et al., 2011; Furtak et al., 2012; Ketpichainarong students’ problem-solving performance
et al., 2010). However, some challenges could arise when attempting to de- and knowledge acquisition, but also lower
velop meaningful real-world science problems or create real-world inquiry students’ cognitive load.
situations in conventional science classrooms. Fortunately, the advancement Keywords: inquiry guidance, learning
and popularization of computer technologies have made them a feasible game, physics education, science knowl-
tool for supporting inquiry-based curricula. edge, science problem-solving.
Computers can simulate the conventional equipment that students
require to conduct science experiments; they can also be used to construct Fu-Hsing Tsai
virtual worlds where students can explore the real-world problems that National Chiayi University, Taiwan
cannot be conducted in traditional classrooms (Quellmalz et al., 2009). Cur- I-Ying Hsu
rently, teachers can allow students to sit in front of computers to engage in The Affiliated Senior High School of
National Kaohsiung Normal University,
scientific exploration activities on their own. Furthermore, using computer Taiwan
simulations saves both time for learning and the cost of science equipment;
647
Exploring the Effects of Guidance in a CoMPUTER Detective Game FOR SCIENCE
EDUCATION
(pp. 647-658) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
it also resolves safety concerns for engaging in otherwise dangerous science activities (Hickey et al., 2003). Numer-
ous studies have confirmed that computer simulations contribute to students’ science learning (Rutten et al., 2012;
Smetana & Bell, 2012).
Nevertheless, engaging in science activities in a computer environment has drawbacks, including common
problems observed in many e-learning environments. As e-learners generally partake in self-directed learning
without a teacher present (Kim et al., 2014), this kind of learning can be ineffective for those who lack learning
motivation and the requisite abilities to engage in self-directed learning. Furthermore, science inquiry activities in
computer environments are more complicated than ordinary e-learning activities, as they often require learners
to solve complex science problems involving varied procedures, such as defining the problem, collecting data,
analyzing data, and interpreting results (Zhang et al., 2015). Therefore, exploring science problems in a computer
environment without teacher guidance is a considerable challenge for most students, mainly because of the lack
of learning motivation and the cognitive complexity caused by the rich information (Azevedo et al., 2010; Scheiter
& Gerjets, 2007; Zacharia & Olympiou, 2011).
In recent years, game-based digital learning has become a popular solution for the lack of motivation and
guidance in e-learning environments. Well-designed digital games do not have the problem of users lacking mo-
tivation and abilities to engage in gaming, because game designers know how to use the game rules, non-player
characters (NPC), or competition to attract and guide players engaging in a new game (Nicholson, 2015). In addi-
tion, digital games have been viewed as a good way to integrate real-world problems into learning for developing
students’ problem-solving and decision-making abilities (Gee, 2003; Turkay et al., 2014). Thus, properly using the
characteristics of games may transform computer games into an ideal inquiry environment where students can
engage in science problem-solving with high motivation and adequate support.
Nowadays, many science educators have also attempted to help students overcome challenges when per-
forming scientific inquiries in a computer environment by providing appropriate guidance (Alfieri et al., 2011;
Furtak et al., 2012). Different forms of guidance for scientific inquiry activities in a computer environment have
been proposed, such as process constraints, prompts, or scaffolds (de Jong & Lazonder 2014). A number of em-
pirical studies (D’Angelo et al., 2014; Kim & Pedersen, 2011; Olympiou et al., 2013) have proved that guidance can
enhance students’ learning effectiveness when learners are required to conduct scientific inquiry activities in a
computer environment. However, research results showing the learning effects of applying such guidance into
science computer games are few.
Accordingly, to address this research gap, this research developed a digital game entitled Science Detective
Squad (SDS) to provide students with a real-world science problem-solving environment. Each participant plays
the role of a science detective in this game to find the answers to the problem of the escalating electricity fees
in a virtual family. Moreover, to explore the effects of using guidance in the science computer game, two game
tasks with different situations and answers have been developed in this game. Only the first game task integrated
the guidance of process constraints and prompts, as proposed by de Jong and Lazonder (2014), into the game
mechanism to provide guidance for students, while the second game task did not include any design guidance.
The principle of process constraints involves restricting students’ inquiry process. For example, guidance can
structure the entire inquiry activity into a series of subtasks and lead students to complete the subtasks in order (de
Jong & Lazonder, 2014). In this way, students can conduct the inquiry according to the proper inquiry process and
explore in greater depth (Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016). The principle of prompts is to provide students with hints
during the inquiry activities, and to remind learners what to do, instead of telling them how to do the inquiry tasks
(de Jong & Lazonder, 2014). Therefore, this research divided the first SDS game task into four subtasks according
to the general process of scientific inquiry. A NPC in SDS was created to lead students to perform each subtask
in order. In addition, the game points were integrated with this guidance to restrict students’ inquiry processes.
Moreover, the NPC was designed to provide students with text-based hints about what to do before they executed
each subtask, or to remind students what to do in that moment with real-time prompts during each subtask in
the first game task.
However, because students are required to continually receive and collect a variety of information to solve
the mystery task in SDS, providing them with real-time prompts during the task may increase their cognitive load
or lower their pleasure in the game experience. Thus, the challenge remains of how to offer appropriate real-time
prompts in a science computer game when relevant studies are extremely scarce. Therefore, this research developed
two versions of the first SDS game task involving different real-time prompts (no real-time prompts and real-time
prompts) to explore whether these variations affect student performance and perception in this game.
648
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ Exploring the Effects of Guidance in a CoMPUTER Detective Game FOR SCIENCE
EDUCATION
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 647-658)
The Design of the Computer Detective Game
SDS is a single-player game that can be played individually through any web browser. To understand students’
science problem-solving performance when providing guidance in the game, this game has two game tasks. The
first one, referred to as task-1, provides guidance for players; the second one is task-2 without any guidance. The
goal of each game task is to make each player play the role of a science detective to investigate why a virtual fam-
ily’s electricity prices rise suddenly in a specific scenario. The players can obtain game points when they conduct
any behavior that facilitates the investigation or successfully solve each game task. Moreover, the amount of points
awarded is related to time; for example, players who complete a game task faster earn more points. Thus, this
game also provides a leaderboard that ranks the top 20 players according to scores. Therefore, the goals of each
player are to complete each game task as fast as possible within a limited game time and to become a member
of the high score list.
The game interface is shown in Figure 1. The upper area provides the game information, such as task time
remaining, score, leaderboard, and personal records. This area also provides activation buttons linked to various
game functions, such as calling the detective captain, the simulation tool, learning resources, and a notepad. The
main area of the game interface displays various game scenes. This game is a third-person view game. For example,
each player can see a virtual household with different spaces (e.g. living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom, and
balcony) and NPCs (e.g. father, mother, and children) when they start to investigate the game task. The bottom
area provides real-time prompts in one version of game’s task-1.
Figure 1
The interface of the SDS
This game designs a NPC, meaning the captain of the science detective squad, who explains the rules and
each game task through texts. Each player can use the function of calling the detective captain to review the de-
scription of each game task and to report the investigation results when finishing the game task. The game’s task-1
incorporates the guidance of process constraints, as proposed by de Jong and Lazonder (2014). To guide players
to conduct the game task in the proper process and in depth, task-1 is divided into four subtasks according to the
process of general inquiry: defining the problem, collecting data, analyzing data, and interpreting the results. The
subtask of defining the problem asks students to preliminarily understand the task problem. The subtask of col-
lecting data mainly asks students to collect information to solve the game task. In the subtask of analyzing data,
students are asked to analyze information to solve the game task by using the simulation tool. In the subtask of
interpreting the results, students need to consider and identify the cause of the task problem. Each player is asked
to complete the four subtasks in order, and to provide the subtask investigation results to the captain after they
have earned a certain number of game points in each subtask.
649
EDUCATION
(pp. 647-658) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Task-1 also incorporates the guidance of prompts, as proposed by de Jong and Lazonder (2014). Based on the
suggestion of de Jong and Lazonder, the guidance provided in this game reminds players of what to do, instead
of telling them how to do it. The captain prompts players what they can carry out some actions instead of per-
forming specific action for completing the subtask by text-based hints. For example, before executing the subtask
of defining the problem, the captain will prompt players to collect information from the family members or the
house to gain a preliminary understanding of the detective case, instead of telling players to collect information
from specific family members.
Moreover, to understand the effects of real-time prompts, in one version of task-1, the captain provides
real-time text prompts to the player during task-1 execution. This guidance provides timely reminders to players
regarding what they can do during each subtask of task-1. For example, the captain will provide real-time prompts
reminding players to collect information from the household appliances in each game scene during the subtask
of collecting data (see the bottom area in Figure 1). This guidance also provides timely and encouraging messages
or useful information to players. For instance, if the player completes an action by freely choosing the preset text-
information menus (see the main area in Figure 1) to collect useful information from the family members in the
subtask of defining the problem, the real-time prompt will mention that the player has found a piece of valuable
information for the subtask, and remind the player to use the notepad function to record this information. Another
example is when players click the household appliances; the real-time prompt notifies them that they found use-
ful information, and timely provides some electricity knowledge, such as introducing the electricity consumption
information of the appliance, even though each player can search the learning contents in the game function of
learning resources.
After players complete task-1, task-2 begins. Task-2 does not have any restrictions of procedure and game
points and does not provide any prompts. Thus, players can use their own investigation procedure, and report the
investigation results to the captain at any time after completing the task.
Task-1 and task-2 have different problem situations and answers relating to the escalating electricity fees in
a virtual family. The problem situation of task-1 is related to the use of new electrical appliances, while task-2 is
about the changing behaviors of using appliances in daily life. Finally, students must identify the correct answers
through multiple-choice type questions when reporting their investigation results in each game task. No matter
whether task-1 or task-2, the player can collect information from the virtual family members, such as finding out
the ordinary electricity usage behaviors of the family or collecting statistical data concerning their recent electricity
expenses. The player also can collect information regarding the electric power data from the appliances within the
virtual family, and use the simulation tool provided by the game (see Figure 2) to analyze the collected information
to estimate the electricity expenses of different appliances. In other words, players also can explore the relations
of appliance’s electric power and time on electricity expenditures through changing variables and observing the
effects in the simulation tool. Furthermore, the game offers learning materials related to electricity as a reference
for each player, as well as a notepad function for players to record the key points of their investigation.
Figure 2
The simulation tool in SDS
650
EDUCATION
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 647-658)
Research Focus
The primary research questions of this research were, as follows:

•• Does integrating the guidance of process constraints and prompts into the SDS affect students’ problem-
solving performance?
•• Does providing real-time prompt guidance in SDS affect students’ problem-solving performance, sci-
ence knowledge acquisition, participation perception, and cognitive load?
General Background
To explore the effects of guidance in the self-developed computer game, this research conducted an experi-
ment using a two-group pre-test post-test quasi-experimental design. Participants were randomly assigned to
an experimental group (playing the SDS with real-time prompts in task-1) or a control group (playing the SDS
without real-time prompts in task-1). Participants’ science knowledge acquisition was assessed before and after
the experiment, and their problem-solving performance, participation perception, and cognitive load were also
evaluated after the experiment. The research participants, procedures, and instruments are detailed, as follows.
Participants
This research selected two ninth grade classes from a lower secondary school in Kaohsiung City, Taiwan, as
the participants. The two classes (n = 58) were randomly assigned to use different versions of SDS with different
real-time guidance prompts in task-1. After eliminating the students who were unable to complete the pre-test,
post-test, or the SDS game, the study sample included 50 students. One class with 24 students (10 males and 14
females) used the SDS without real-time prompts in task-1, while the other class with 26 students (11 males and
15 females) used the SDS providing the real-time prompts in task-1. In order to give students experience in dealing
with real-world problems after learning the science knowledge, all the research participants had learned electricity-
related knowledge in the semester prior to the one in which this experiment was conducted.
Procedures
The experiment was conducted over three weeks in April 2017, encompassing six class periods (lasting 45 min
each) in the participants’ science and living technology course. The experimental procedure comprised three steps.
Before playing the SDS game, all the students took pre-test, including a self-developed electricity knowledge test.
After completing the pre-test, the students were instructed to operate a computer by themselves to engage in the
SDS game. Students were required to participate in task-1 first, and then task-2. When all students had completed
the SDS game, they were asked to perform post-test of the same electricity knowledge test, and to complete the
cognitive load scale and participation perception scale, as developed by this research.
Instruments

Electricity Knowledge Test
This research developed an electricity knowledge test to explore whether playing the SDS game with differ-
ent real-time prompt guidance affects the enhancement of students’ science knowledge. The questions in this test
focused on the learning concepts used in the SDS game, including electric power, the correlation between electric
power and energy, and the calculation of electricity expenses. The test consisted of 20 multiple-choice questions,
such as “Assuming 1 kWh of electricity costs NT$5, what electricity expenses would be generated by using an 800W
oven for 2 hours?” and “How much electric power does a microwave use that consumes 24,000 J of electricity for 30
sec of operation?” Each question had four answer choices. The total score of this test is 100, and the questions were
examined by two junior high school teachers to ensure the content validity. Kuder-Richardson reliability was .79.
651
EDUCATION
(pp. 647-658) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Cognitive Load Scale
With reference to Hong et al. (2017), this research developed a cognitive load scale comprised of eight items
on a 5-point Likert scale to understand whether providing real-time prompts in SDS affects students’ cognitive load.
Sample questions in the scale include: “Task-1 in SDS was difficult for me, because there was too much information
related to the task.” and “I tended to lose my attention while playing the SDS.” Cronbach’s α for this scale was 0.93.
Participation Perception Scale
A scale comprising 11 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale was developed in this research to evaluate whether
providing real-time prompts in SDS affects students’ perceptions of pleasure and learning. Of the 11 items, 6 assessed
the pleasure perceptions by using questions, such as “I think the SDS game is fun” and “I would like to play similar
games in the future”. The remaining 5 items tested learning perceptions by using questions, such as “I learned about
electricity through this game” and “I think this game is beneficial for science knowledge acquisition.” Cronbach’s
α values for the overall scale, pleasure perception, and learning perception were .91, .84, and .90, respectively.
Data Analysis
To explore the guidance effects of the process constraints and prompts on students’ problem-solving perfor-
mance in the computer detective game, this research used paired sample t-test to analyze the differences of all
students’ problem-solving performance between task-1 and task-2, because each student first played the task-1
with guidance and then played the task-2 without any guidance. Moreover, because one group of students par-
ticipated in the game version with real-time prompts in task-1 and the others played the game without real-time
prompts in task-1, the two groups’ problem-solving performance, participation perceptions, and cognitive load
were compared by using independent t-test to explore the guidance effects of real-time prompts. A one-way
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was also used to evaluate whether students’ enhancement of science knowledge
was different between the two groups who accepted different real-time prompts in task-1.
Research Results
Analysis of Students’ Problem-Solving Performance
To explore the effects of integrating guidance into the science computer game, this study analyzed students’
problem-solving performance in SDS. If we only analyze whether each student could correctly identify the cause
of each task problem through the multiple-choice question when reporting their task investigation results in SDS,
50% of the students (n = 50) correctly found the right answer in task-1 with the guidance of process constraints and
prompts, while 36% of students successfully found the correct answer in task-2 without any guidance. However,
students could select the right answer by guessing. In order to accurately analyze participants’ problem-solving
performance in each game task, each student’s problem-solving performance was calculated by a scoring rubric,
as shown as Table 1. The total score that each student obtained in a task was added (for a maximum possible score
of 8 points) and adopted as that student’s overall score of problem-solving performance in that task.
Table 1
Scoring rubrics for problem-solving performance
Problem-solving
Score Description
behavior
When reporting the task investigation results, students correctly identified the task problem through a multiple-
2
Defining the problem choice question.
0 Students incorrectly identified the task problem.
652
EDUCATION
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 647-658)
Problem-solving
Score Description
behavior
Students collected all the key information for solving the game task (i.e. the key information in task-1 comprised
the electricity expense figure and information about the air conditioner and electric water heater; task-2
2
Collecting data consisted of the electricity expense figures for the past 2 years, and information concerning the air conditioner,
electric water heater, and oven).
0 Students did not collect all the key information for solving the game task.
2 Students simulated all key information for solving the game task by using the simulation tool.
Analyzing data
0 Students did not simulate all key information for solving the game task by using the simulation tool.
When reporting the task investigation results, students correctly identified the cause of the task problem
2
through a multiple-choice question.
Interpreting results
When reporting the task investigation results, students incorrectly identified the cause of the task problem
0
through a multiple-choice question.
Based on the scoring rubric, whole students (n = 50) who received the guidance of process constraints and
prompts in task-1 received an average score of 5.68 (SD = 2.26) for overall problem-solving performance, while
students received an average score of 4.20 (SD = 2.29) for overall problem-solving performance when they par-
ticipated in task-2 without any guidance. As all students first played task-1, followed by task-2, paired sample
t-test was conducted to explore the guidance effects of the process constraints and prompts on students’ overall
problem-solving performance between task-1 and task-2. The result of this test was t(49)=3.60, p < .05, suggest-
ing that student’s scores for overall problem-solving performance in task-1 were significantly higher than those
in the task-2. The findings imply that integrating the guidance of process constraints and prompts into the game
mechanism may be useful for enhancing students’ problem-solving performance in a computer detective game
for science education.
At the same time, in order to understand which step of the problem-solving behaviors led to the significant
difference, the problem-solving performance scores of each step scored according to a scoring rubric between
task-1 and task-2 were analyzed separately. Table 2 presents the results, which show that students’ performance
of collecting data and analyzing data in task-1 scored significantly higher than those in task-2. In other words, the
significant difference of the overall problem-solving performance between task-1 and task-2 could be attributed
to students’ better problem-solving performance of collecting and analyzing data in task-1.
Table 2
The results of paired t-test for the problem-solving performance between task-1 and task-2
Task-1 Task-2
Paired t-test
(n = 50) (n = 50)
M SD M SD t
Problem-solving performance in defining the problem 1.92 .40 1.96 .28 t(49) = -.573
Problem-solving performance in collecting data 1.4 .93 .96 1.01 t(49) = 2.29*
Problem-solving performance in analyzing data 1.36 .94 .56 .91 t(49) = 4.67*
Problem-solving performance in interpreting results 1.00 1.01 .72 .97 t(49) = 1.55
Overall problem-solving performance 5.68 2.26 4.20 2.29 t(49) = 3.60*
*p <.05
Moreover, in order to explore the effects of providing real-time prompts, students’ problem-solving perfor-
mance in task-1 was individually analyzed by independent t-test. Through the same standard of the scoring rubric,
students’ problem-solving performance scores of each step in task-1, which provided real-time prompts, were
compared with those providing no real-time prompts. As shown in Table 3, student’s scores of overall problem-
solving performance in task-1 with real-time prompts are significantly higher than those without real-time prompts.
Moreover, in addition to the performance of defining the problem, students’ problem-solving performance scores
653
EDUCATION
(pp. 647-658) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
of each step in task-1 with real-time prompts are also all significantly higher than those without real-time prompts.
This means that providing the guidance of real-time prompts may be helpful for enhancing students’ problem-
solving performance in a computer detective game for science education.
Table 3
The results of independent t-test for the problem-solving performance between two groups in task-1
Real-time prompts No real-time prompts

Independent t-test
group (n = 26) group (n = 24)
M SD M SD t
Problem-solving performance of defining the problem in task-1 2.00 .00 1.83 .56 t(48) = 1.45
Problem-solving performance of collecting data in task-1 1.69 .74 1.08 1.02 t(49) = 2.41*
Problem-solving performance of analyzing data in task-1 1.69 .74 1.00 1.02 t(49) = 2.73*
Problem-solving performance of interpreting results in task-1 1.46 .90 .50 .88 t(49) = 3.76*
Overall problem-solving performance in task-1 6.85 1.29 4.42 2.43 t(49) = 4.37*
*p <.05
Students’ problem-solving performance in task-2 without the guidance of process constraints and prompts
was also analyzed by independent t-test to understand whether the two groups’ performances were different in
task-2 after participating in task-1 with different real-time prompts. Based on the same standard of the scoring
rubric, the two groups’ problem-solving performance scores in task-2 were compared. As shown in Table 4, student’s
overall and each step problem-solving performance scores in task-2 are not significantly different between the two
groups that were provided with different real-time prompts in task-1. This implies that students’ problem-solving
performances may be similar when the game task did not integrate guidance into the game mechanism, even
though all students had accepted the guidance of process constraints and prompts in task-1 and some students
had accepted the guidance of real-time prompts in task-1.
Table 4
The results of independent t-test for the problem-solving performance between two groups in task-2 without any guidance
Real-time prompts No real-time prompts

Independent t-test
group (n = 26) group (n = 24)
M SD M SD t
Problem-solving performance of defining the problem in task-2 2.00 .00 1.92 .41 t(48) = 1.00
Problem-solving performance of collecting data in task-2 1.00 .02 0.92 1.02 t(49) = .29
Problem-solving performance of analyzing data in task-2 .62 .94 .50 .88 t(49) = .45
Problem-solving performance of interpreting results in task-2 .62 .94 .83 1.01 t(49) = -.79
Overall problem-solving performance in task-2 4.23 2.29 4.17 2.35 t(49) = .10
*p <.05
Analysis of Students’ Science Knowledge Acquisition
To explore whether students’ enhancement of science knowledge was different between the two groups who
accepted different real-time prompts in task-1, this study adopted the student’s group as an independent variable,
the pre-test score of electricity knowledge test as a covariant, and the post-test score of this test as a dependent
variable to perform ANCOVA. Before ANCOVA, the assumption of regression homogeneity was tested, F(1, 46) =
3.91, p > .05, and was not violated. The ANCOVA result was F(1, 47) = 5.54, p < .05, and η²=.11, indicating that, after
the effect of the covariant was eliminated, students’ post-test scores of electricity knowledge were significantly
654
EDUCATION
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 647-658)
different between the two groups who accepted different real-time prompts in task-1. Moreover, according to
post hoc comparison using the least significant difference (LSD) method, the real-time prompt group obtained a
significantly higher adjusted average score in the electricity knowledge post-test (M = 75.64) than the no prompt
group (M = 67.23). In other words, providing students with more electricity knowledge through real-time prompts
in SDS may be effective in helping them enhance their science knowledge.
Analysis of Students’ Participation Perception
To clarify whether providing real-time prompts lowered students’ participation perceptions in the game,
this study adopted the student’s group as an independent variable and the score of the participation perception
scale as a dependent variable to perform independent t-test. The t-test result (t(48) = .07, p > .05) indicated that no
significant differences existed between the real-time prompts (M = 3.25, SD = .83) and no real-time prompt (M =
3.24, SD = .52) groups in terms of pleasure perception. Regarding learning perception, the result of t-test was t(48)
= .80 and p > .05, suggesting that significant differences did not exist between the real-time prompts (M = 3.62,
SD = .70) and no real-time prompt (M = 3.48, SD = .53) groups. In other words, providing real-time prompts in SDS
may not affect the students’ perceptions of in-game fun and learning. Overall, all the students had a positive view
of the pleasure and learning in the SDS game.
Analysis of Students’ Cognitive Load
To understand whether providing excessive real-time prompts increased students’ cognitive load, this study
adopted the student’s group as an independent variable and participants’ scores on the cognitive load scale as a
dependent variable to perform independent t-test. The results of t-test did not achieve significance (t(48) = -1.80,
p > .05), indicating that significant differences did not exist between the real-time prompts (M = 2.52, SD = .78) and
no real-time prompt (M = 2.89, SD = .65) groups regarding their overall perceptions of cognitive load in the game.
Moreover, if only partial questions (item 3 and item 7) regarding students’ perceptions toward task-1 on the cogni-
tive load scale were analyzed, the results of t-test achieved significance (t(48) = -2.27, p < .05), while the real-time
prompt group obtained a significantly lower average score (M = 2.29, SD = .87) than the no prompt group (M = 2.83,
SD = .82). However, significant differences did not exist (t(48) = -.51, p > .05) between the real-time prompts (M =
2.79, SD = 1.06) and no real-time prompt (M = 2.92, SD = .66) groups regarding their partial perception questions
(item 4 and item 8) of cognitive load toward task-2. In other words, providing real-time prompts in SDS may not
increase students’ cognitive load when participating in the game. Even providing real-time prompts may decrease
students’ cognitive load in SDS’s task-1.
Discussion
This research aimed to develop a computer detective game for providing students with motivation and
opportunity in experiencing real-world problem-solving after learning electricity-related knowledge. To explore
the effects of applying guidance proposed by science educators in the science computer game, the guidance of
process constraints and prompts, as proposed by de Jong and Lazonder (2014), were designed into the game’s first
task, while the second game task was without guidance. In addition, in order to explore how to offer appropriate
real-time prompts in this detective game, the first game task was designed with and without real-time prompts.
The research findings indicate that, when students play the proposed SDS game alone, providing the guid-
ance of process constraints and prompts may affect students’ problem-solving performance. The experimental
evidences reveal that fewer (only 36% ) students correctly identified the right answer in task-2, while all students
in task-1, which included the guidance of process constraints and prompts, exhibited significantly higher scores of
overall problem-solving performance than those in task-2 without guidance. These results imply that the design
of integrating guidance through process constraints and prompts in the game mechanism may be appropriate
for guiding students to solve a real-world science problem in a computer detective game. This finding seems to
support previous science educators’ arguments, which indicate that unguided inquiry learning is challenging
for most students (Alfieri et al., 2011; Azevedo et al., 2010). It also seems to support that providing the guidance
of process constraints and prompts to students in computer scientific inquiry environments is useful to improve
their performance (Hagemans et al., 2013; Manlove et al., 2006), even though the definition of problem-solving
655
EDUCATION
(pp. 647-658) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
performance in this study is different from the previous pure simulation-based scientific inquiry research, which
only indicates the inquiry performance in simulation tools.
In terms of the research question, meaning whether providing real-time prompts is appropriate, the research
findings indicate that designing real-time prompts into the game may enhance students’ problem-solving per-
formance and science knowledge, and could not affect students’ cognitive load and participation perceptions.
The experimental evidences reveal that students in task-1 with the additional guidance of real-time prompts
exhibited significantly higher scores of overall problem-solving performance and electricity knowledge than
those in task-1 without real-time prompts. The statistical evidences also show that the two group who accepted
different real-time prompts in task-1 had no significant differences in their scale scores of pleasure, learning,
and cognitive load perceptions toward the SDS game, and even the group who accepted real-time prompts in
task-1 exhibited significantly lower scores regarding their cognitive load perceptions toward task-1 than those
who accepted no real-time prompts in task-1. These results imply that the design of providing the guidance
of real-time prompts in this detective game may be appropriate for helping students improve their problem-
solving ability and knowledge acquisition, while decreasing their cognitive load. These results seem to support
that, the provision of guidance to students facilitates their learning in computer scientific inquiry environments
(Alfieri et al., 2011; Eckhardt et al., 2013; Olympiou et al., 2013). It also seems to support previous research find-
ings, which indicate that students attain superior scientific inquiry effectiveness with lower cognitive load in
simulation-based scientific inquiry environments (Eckhardt et al., 2013). Moreover, this finding seems to sup-
port previous research results again, which indicate that providing guidance to students in computer scientific
inquiry environments is useful to improve their performance.
The research findings also indicate that students’ better overall problem-solving performance when accept-
ing game tasks with additional guidance could be the result of their superior performances in the problem-solving
behaviors of collecting and analyzing data. The experimental evidences reveal that students in task-1 with the
guidance of process constraints and prompts exhibited significantly higher problem-solving performance scores
of collecting and analyzing data than those in task-2 without guidance. Students’ problem-solving performance
scores of collecting and analyzing data in task-1 with additional real-time prompts are also significantly higher
than those without real-time prompts. These results imply that the design of providing additional guidance in
this detective game may be helpful for first enhancing students’ performance of collecting and analyzing data,
and then, promoting their overall problem-solving performance. It also seems to support Tsai’s (2017) research
findings, which indicate that the performance of analyzing data is a critical factor regarding whether students
can complete an inquiry task in a game.
In summary, this research develops a computer detective game to provide students in experiencing
real-world problem-solving after learning electricity-related knowledge, and finds that integrating the guidance
of process constraints and prompts into the game have effects on enhancing students’ problem-solving perfor-
mance and knowledge acquisition. The evaluation of this game indicates that students have significantly better
problem-solving performance in the game task with the guidance of process constraints and prompts than those
in the game task without guidance. It also indicates that the design of real-time prompts may not only enhance
students’ problem-solving performance and knowledge acquisition but may also lower students’ perceptions of
cognitive load.
However, the research experiments should be improved in some aspects. Future studies should adopt more
participants to verify the findings of this study and evaluate students’ cognitive load with more appropriate timing.
Paying more attention to analyzing students’ inquiry behaviors in the SDS’s simulation tool should also be conducted
in the future. Moreover, the digital game developed in this research still requires improvement in some aspects.
In addition to the guidance of process constraints and prompts, other forms of guidance, such as metacognitive
prompts or another scaffolding design, can be incorporated in this game to further determine whether other
guidance designs can more effectively improve students’ problem-solving performance.
656
EDUCATION
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 647-658)
Acknowledgements
This research received financial support from the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under contract
numbers MOST 104-2511-S-415-010-MY2, MOST 106-2511-S-415-005, MOST 107-2511-H-415-008-MY2, and MOST
109-2511-H-415-008-MY3.
References
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes
during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 210–223.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.515934
Burns, J. C., Okey, J. R., & Wise, K. C. (1985). Development of an integrated processes skill test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 22(2), 169-177. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220208
D’Angelo, C., Rutstein, D., Harris, C., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., & Haertel, G. (2014). Simulations for STEM learning: Systematic
review and meta-analysis. SRI International.
de Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2014). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 371–390). Cambridge University Press.
de Jong, T., Martin, E., Zamarro, J. M., Esquembre, F., Swaak, J., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1999). The integration of computer simula-
tion and learning support: An example from the physics domain of collisions. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 36(5),
597-615. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199905)36:5%3C597::AID-TEA6%3E3.0.CO;2-6
Department for Education. (2013). Science programmes of study: KS 1 & 2. Crown Copyright.
Dewey, J. (1964). Science as subject matter and method. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on education: Selected wrirings
(pp. 182-1 95). University of Chicago Press.
Ebenezer, J., Kaya, O. N., & Ebenezer, D. L. (2011). Engaging students in environmental research projects: Perceptions of fluency
with innovative technologies and levels of scientific inquiry abilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 94–116.
Eckhardt, M., Urhahne, D., Conrad, O., & Harms, U. (2013). How effective is instructional support for learning with computer
simulations? Instructional Science, 41(1), 105-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9220-y
Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-
solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855-879. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038165
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science
teaching a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
Gee, J. P. (2003). What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hagemans, M. G., van der Meij, H., & de Jong, T. (2013). The effects of a concept map-based support tool on simulation-based
inquiry learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029433
Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. T. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evalu-
ation in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 495-538.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040002495
Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y., Tai, K. H., & Tsai, C. R. (2017). An Exploration of Students’ Science Learning Interest Related to Their
Cognitive Anxiety, Cognitive Load, Self-Confidence and Learning Progress Using Inquiry-Based Learning With an iPad.
Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1193-1212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9541-y
Ketpichainarong, W., Panijpan, B., & Ruenwongsa, P. (2010). Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based
cellulase laboratory. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5(2), 169–187.
Kim, J. H., & Pedersen, S. (2011). Advancing young adolescents’ hypothesis-development performance in a computer-supported
and problem-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1780–1789.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.014
Kim, R., Olfman, L., Ryan, T., & Eryilmaz, E. (2014). Leveraging a personalized system to improve self-directed learning in online
educational environments. Computers & Education, 70, 150-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.006
Kimball, M. E. (1967). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 5(2), 110-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660050204
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research,
86(3), 681-718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2006). Regulative support for collaborative scientific inquiry learning. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 22(2), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00162.x
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science standards. National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. The National Academies Press.
Nicholson, S. (2015). A recipe for meaningful gamification. In Gamification in education and business (pp. 1-20). Springer, Cham.
657
EDUCATION
(pp. 647-658) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Olympiou, G., Zacharias, Z., & de Jong, T. (2013). Making the invisible visible: Enhancing students’ conceptual under-
standing by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation. Instructional Science, 41, 575–596.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9245-2
Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., & Schneider, S. A. (2009). Assessment of student learning in science simulations and games. National
Academy of Science.
Rutten, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education.
Computers & Education, 58(1), 136-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 285–307.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9046-3
Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the
literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337-1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182
Turkay, S., Hoffman, D., Kinzer, C. K., Chantes, P., & Vicari, C. (2014). Toward understanding the potential of games for learning:
Learning theory, game design characteristics, and situating video games in classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 31(1-2),
2-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2014.890879
Wong D, Pugh K, The Dewey Ideas Group (2001) Learning science: the Deweyan perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teach-
ing, 38(3), 317–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<317::AID-TEA1008>3.0.CO;2-9
Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning &
Instruction, 21(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001
Zhang, W.-X., Hsu, Y.-S., Wang, C.-Y., & Ho, Y.-T. (2015). Exploring the impacts of cognitive and metacognitive prompting on
students’ scientific inquiry practices within an e-learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3),
529-553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.996796
Cite as: Tsai, F.-H., & Hsu, I.-Y. (2020). Exploring the effects of guidance in a computer detective game for science education.
Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4), 647-658. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.647
Fu-Hsing Tsai PhD, Professor, Teacher Education Center, National Chiayi

(Corresponding author) University, 85, Wunlong Village, Minsyong Township, 62103 Chiayi
County, Taiwan.
E-mail: fhtsai@mail.ncyu.edu.tw
I-Ying Hsu PhD, Teacher and the Section Chief of Information & Media, The
Affiliated Senior High School of National Kaohsiung Normal
University, 89, Kaixuan 2nd Rd., Lingya Dist., 802 Kaohsiung City,
Taiwan.
E-mail: tosca@tea.nknush.kh.edu.tw
658
DEFINING TEACHER
OWNERSHIP: A SCIENCE
EDUCATION CASE STUDY TO ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
DETERMINE CATEGORIES OF ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
TEACHER OWNERSHIP
Abstract. This study seeks to put forward

Ana Valdmann,
a justified definition for the concept of
Jack Holbrook, Teacher Ownership, and establishes levels
Miia Rannikmäe of science teacher ownership, based on a
hierarchy of categories, using phenom-
enographic analysis. Such ownership is
based on a meaningful science teacher
internalisation of a motivational context-
based teacher approach, established via
a prior CPD programme. In so doing, the
Introduction study distinguishes between teachers’
self-efficacy levels attained at the end of
In our rapidly changing world, there has been a growing need to re- the CPD and teacher ownership indicating
consider the role of science education within quality education, which has the capability of propagating the desired
led to a range of visions and even to paradigm shifts in curricula and science teaching to students and other teachers.
teaching. For implementing a paradigmatic change within science education, The phenomenographic analysis, based on
at both philosophical and operational levels, it is obviously important for semi-structured interviews, is carried out
teachers to reflect on their educational beliefs and changes needed in ways with 10 science teachers, 3 academic years
to engage in refocusing their teaching. This suggests the need to provide after the administered CPD programme.
effective, authentic training courses, or long-term continuous professional From an analysis of perceptions, 3 distinct
development (CPD) programmes for science teachers (Darling-Hammond et categories of sustainable science teacher
al., 2017; Desimone, 2009). The CPD effectiveness can be associated with a ownership, based on 5 distinct teaching
teacher expressed change of beliefs and the adoption of alternative actions, dimensions, reflect variations in orientation
based on such beliefs (Posnanski, 2002). of teacher ownership. The main conclusions
However, besides stating such beliefs and associated operational are that sustainable teacher ownership
changes, including the formulating of new approaches to the teaching of differs from terms such as a sense of owner-
science, it is important to go further and to seek to determine the inter- ship, towards ownership and self–efficacy
nalisation of such beliefs, thus identifying permanent teacher philosophical and that, in this study, teacher ownership
beliefs and the associated self-owned operations (Rannikmäe, 2001). This can be described as being exhibited by the
further step can be considered as reflecting true teacher ownership, which science teachers in paradigmatic, experien-
is seen as above and beyond a level of self-efficacy in comprehending CPD tial and emotional ownership categories.
ideas propagated by others. In so doing, it expresses an internalisation of the Keywords: phenomenographic analysis,
conceptualisation of the change in teaching as befitting sustainable teacher self-efficacy, teacher ownership, teacher
ownership, rather than, at best, a sense of teacher ownership coming from ownership categories.
repeating statements from others.
Research Focus
Ana Valdmann,
Jack Holbrook,
This study aimed to distinguish between a teacher’s post-CPD self- Miia Rannikmäe
efficacy status and the attainment of a sustainable level of teacher ownership Unniversity of Tartu, Estonia
based on underlying philosophical ideas, in this case, related to a motivational
659
dEFINING tEACHER OWNERSHIP: A SCIENCE EDUCATION CASE STUDY To DETERMINE
(pp. 659-674) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
context-based, science teaching approach (Valdmann et al., 2016), after reflection and teaching over a period of
time, post-CPD.
The research questions put forward were:
1. In what way can sustainable teacher ownership be meaningfully defined, distinguishing this from
teacher self-efficacy and a ‘sense of ownership’?
2. What characteristics of science teacher ownership based on dimensions of variation can be determined
3 years post-CPD, designed to operationalise a philosophy and teaching approach?
Theoretical Overview
Teacher Ownership
Ownership, as a term, is often used in legal circles and in psychology, less so in education. Pierce et al. (2003)
defined psychological ownership as:
‘The state in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership, or a piece of that target, is ‘theirs’ (p. 86).
Such ownership goes beyond materialistic ownership, or ownership of specific developments and can relate
to an internalised ownership that aligns with an intended philosophy and, within education, a teaching approach.
Applying this vision to teachers as individuals, with their conceptualisations portrayed by the philosophy they hold
and the internalised vision of science teaching they promote, this can be labelled ‘teacher ownership’.
Ketelaar et al. (2012) considered teacher ownership as a ‘mental or psychological state’ that captured a teacher’s
conceptualisation with regard to an innovation. The incremental movement from exposure towards sustainable
ownership of an innovation, such as a new philosophical viewpoint and its subsequent operationalisation, was
suggested to start when teachers felt an effort succeeded, teachers felt it belonged to them and was not simply
imposed on them (Ogborn, 2002). Teacher ownership of an innovation, such as implementing a new philosophy
using a suitable teaching/learning model, was thus seen as more than a belief (confidence) in one’s abilities (com-
petence) influencing “motivation to act” i.e. it needed to be seen as a stage beyond self-efficacy as put forward by
Bandura (1977). It was an internalisation of the conceptualisations involved to such a degree that this recognition
could be expressed to others. This suggested that teacher ownership is associated with “innovation to act” (Pierce
et al., 2003).
In the literature, teacher ownership seemed to be portrayed from three perspectives:
a) A sense of ownership.
b) Towards teacher ownership.
c) Appropriate, permanently attained attributes – sustainable ownership.
The literature pertaining to teacher ownership largely focused on gaining a ‘sense of ownership’, the teacher
‘feels’ they gained some form of ownership often emanating from a continuous professional development pro-
gramme (Blonder et al., 2008; Ketelaar et al., 2012; Kyza & Georgiou, 2014; Saunders et al., 2017). This ‘sense of
ownership’ could refer to the classroom operational level or pertaining to a curriculum innovation. In this way, as
Blonder et al. (2008) pointed out, a ‘sense of ownership’ could occur at the individual level, or through exposure,
to the school and system levels. A ‘sense of ownership’ could derive from an innovation and an approach being
deemed to be acceptable to teachers and hence a derived sense of self-efficacy. Thus, when most authors referred
to a sense of ownership (Blonder et al., 2008; Ketelaar et al., 2012; Kyza & Georgiou, 2014), they were probably see-
ing this as equivalent to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). According to Bandura, self-efficacy was the belief in one’s
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations.
In other words, self-efficacy was a person’s belief in his or her ability to succeed in a particular situation. Ban-
dura described these beliefs as determinants of how people thought, behaved, and felt. Thus, for the teacher, the
beliefs were largely based on self-reflection.
Between the ‘sense of ownership’ and sustainable teacher ownership, a ‘towards ownership’ concept (Hofstein
et al., 2012) could be considered. Here, there was recognition that further steps beyond self-efficacy were needed
and that the final ownership level had yet to be reached. These permanent attained attributes, as indicated by a
sustainable teacher ownership, were being able to internalise the ideas as intended, put them into operation as
expected and also to be able to teach others, as per the intended philosophy and approach. Rannikmäe (2001)
recognised that as change took place over time and required indicators beyond an initial trigger, permanent
ownership was a further step beyond any teacher guidance, such as CPD, and described the degree to which
purposeful teaching, as seen by the teacher, was explicitly along the lines of a philosophy and approach provided
660
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ dEFINING tEACHER OWNERSHIP: A SCIENCE EDUCATION CASE STUDY To DETERMINE
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 659-674)
by the initial trigger (e.g. a CPD course). This suggested permanent ownership was far from a measure of success
from CPD involvement and it depended on the teacher’s perception and enactments. Thus, it was more appropri-
ate to measure the categories of sustainable teacher ownership developed by a teacher associated, for example,
with a new teaching approach and philosophy. Such development and self-evaluation was seen as taking time
and hence any determination of teacher ownership, in the sense of permanency, needed to be considered after a
period of consolidation and reflection and it was probably that at least one year, after the end of any intervention
(e.g. CPD course), was needed. This further suggested that neither a ‘sense of ownership’ or ‘towards ownership’
reflected the permanency of actual operational beliefs of the teacher.
The concept of sustainable teacher ownership related to both the beliefs established by the teacher and the
operationalisation of these beliefs, which could be demonstrated in the classroom or to other teachers through
CPD involvement. Such a concept seemed to be absent for the literature. The literature gave little recognition to
the suggestion that CPD driven gains were not likely to be permanent, unless the teachers internalised these ideas
and sought to put these into operation in a theoretically justified manner.
Motivational, Context-based Science Teaching (MCST) Approach
The MCST concept (Valdmann et al. 2016) was based on 3 major theoretical considerations:
•• self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000), whereby the promotion of students’ intrinsic
motivation was seen as important in enhancing three self-determination attributes – autonomy, com-
petence and relatedness;
•• promoting instructional improvements (Deci, 2009) that focused on students’ active engagement,
aligning the learning with curriculum intentions and ensuring appropriate rigour in providing students
with meaningful challenges within the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1980);
•• a vision of science curricula that stressed learning utilising an ‘education through science’ emphasis
(Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2007), paying attention to the development of students’ personal, social, as
well as, scientific cognitive endeavours. The proposed ‘nature of science education’ was thus not about
stressing the ways of the scientist any more than history was seen as taught for students to become
historians, or language taught to become linguists, but it was proposed that science in school was part
of the education provision and any science content was gained so as to enhance education in the nature
of the subject, plus the personal and social domains (Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2007).
In the MCST approach, the vision was meaningfully promoted via a 3-stage teaching-learning model (Holbrook
& Rannikmäe, 2010), in which:
•• Stage1 focused on the motivational engagement of students, initiated through teaching via a social
concern, or issue, but having a scientific component. This, together with teacher scaffolding (raising
the competence of students with peer support), was intended to set to the scene for aligning science
learning with curriculum intentions and the focus for the learning that follows.
•• The second stage promoted the intended science conceptual learning, perceived by students as
having relevance, based on scientific questions emanating from stage 1, and where the teaching ap-
proach sought to be student-centred, inquiry-based and ensuring the rigour needed for establishing
self- determination.
•• Stage 3 built on the science conceptual learning and applied this to the social circumstances, through
argumentation based on the initial situation so as to derive a consensus, socio-scientific decision and
enabling the societal relevance of the learning to be enhanced.
General Background
Though a post-CPD study, this study sought to distinguish between a teacher’s post-CPD self-efficacy and
the concept of sustainable teacher ownership of the underlying philosophical ideas, in this case related to a mo-
tivational context-based, science teaching approach (Valdmann et al., 2016). The study sought to recognise such
teacher ownership, 3 years after the end of the CPD, seeking to identify differing conceptualisations by means of
a phenomenographic analysis approach.
661
(pp. 659-674) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Participants
Ten teachers, voluntary participated in this study. All teachers had participated in a one-year in-service
CPD course prior to this study (Valdmann et al., 2016) and were interested in exploring implementation of the
CPD ideas in practice. In the initial CPD course, all teachers had been introduced to, and became familiar with, a
motivational, context-based, science teaching (MCST) approach, based on an Education through Science (EtS)
philosophy (Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2007). Three years after the end of the CPD, all 10 teachers were approached
and asked to report how they incorporated the MCST approach in their teaching, interacted with each other and
interacted with other teachers during science teacher meetings over the previous 3 years. At the time of the study,
all teachers had more than fifteen years of teaching experience; two teachers taught only biology, three teachers
taught only chemistry, while five taught a combination of different subjects (science, biology, chemistry, physics
or agronomy). Four of the teachers taught at the middle school level (grades 7-9) and six at high school (grades
9-12) level, as indicated in Appendix 1. All teachers volunteering to participate in the study, as per the norm for
Estonia, had a master’s degree and were female.
The study followed on from a previously described CPD course (Valdmann et al., 2016), in which the design,
operation and self-efficacy outcomes were indicated. The CPD had been planned based on outcomes of a Teacher
Needs Questionnaire (Holbrook et al., 2014) using a constructivist, socio-cultural professional model (Howe &
Stubbs, 1997) and taking into account Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy determinants.
Data for this study were collected towards the end of the school year, three years after the in-service CPD
course, which ended in 2015. From the 27 original teachers involved in the CPD, 10 teachers voluntarily agreed
to be involved in an individual, semi-structured interview, which focused on determining their perception of, and
their ownership towards, the ideas put forward during the original CPD and allowed the interviewer to ask clari-
fication questions. One interview lasted approximately one hour, and all 10 interviews were conducted over two
consecutive days by the first author in similar conditions as in usual out-of-school meetings. All interviews were
audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. All teachers agreed to a recording of the interview being made and
all were assured that the data collected would be kept confidential and teacher names would not be disclosed.
The major question verbally asked during the semi-structured interview was:
‘Describe how you applied the MCST approach in teaching the last topic you taught?’
This requested the teachers to reflect on their teaching and, in the context of the latest MCST module taught,
to indicate their major teaching emphases and how effective they considered this to be. Where teachers were not
sufficiently specific and a deeper understanding of the aspects being presented was needed, one or more addi-
tional questions were asked, based on the teacher’s response. These additional questions tended to relate to the
philosophy behind the MCST approach e.g.
1. What were the goals for teaching the latest module?
2. How did you motivate students? (Related to MCST, stage 1)
3. How did you use inquiry-based teaching? (Related to MCST, stage 2)
4. How did you incorporate any decision making in the teaching? (Related to MCST, stage 3)
Data Analysis
Familiarisation with the empirical material obtained was undertaken by two independent science education
researcher staff from the University of Tartu who independently undertook steps 1-3 as indicated below and then
jointly collaborated in the remaining steps.
1. Read the whole text.

2. Read again and mark where the interviewee gave answers relevant to the main interview question.
662
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 659-674)
3. In these passages the researchers looked for the focus of the teacher’s attention which could indicate
meaningful aspects in the teaching approach described. A preliminary code was given for each mean-
ingful description related to each teacher’s predominant way of understanding MCST.
4. These coded descriptions were put into categories, based on similarities and differences. Categories
description units were re-coded to better fit the description.
5. Dominant areas of responses were discussed into which descriptive categories could be meaningfully
sub-divided.
6. The agreed responses areas were labelled as specific dimensions of variation, which were taken to be
meaningful for pointing to the teachers’ variation in implementing MCST.
7. Labels (initially codes but later descriptive names) were assigned to each category of description.
Based on the above, the most important descriptive elements of the responses, by each teacher, were coded.
Where appropriate, responses deemed to be sufficiently similar, were condensed into a single code agreed by the 2
researchers. The coded responses were compared and discussed between the researchers, recoding as appropriate,
so as to minimise the categories of responses.
From analysing the transcripts, 7 separate areas of responses (labelled dimensions) were initially identified by
agreement between the researchers, although these dimensions were subsequently reduced to 5, after discussions
and re-interpretations were considered. The researchers eventually agreed that 5 dimensions accommodated the
clarity and diversity of the teacher comments. These ‘dimensions of variation’ were identified as: reflection type,
student’s motivation, inquiry activities, student decision making, and purpose of teaching.
The process of analysing data was iterative and comparative, involving continuous sorting and re-sorting of
the data. This process was undertaken several times, comparing teachers’ answers associated with categories. The
major dimensions of variation were finalised only when they led to agreed characteristics of different categories
within a dimension, enabling a hierarchy of the categories to be established. The discussion continued multiple
times arranging and rearranging the category descriptions until not only were the categories of responses mini-
mised, but also aligned with meaningful levels of sophistication. Insofar as meaningful diversity permitted, three
categories were eventually agreed among the researchers for each dimension of variation. However, in cases where
the description of categories from the teacher responses were found to be overlapping, care was taken to ensure
meaningful differences were established across at least 2 of the 3 categories per dimension of variation, as illus-
trated in table 1. As a final stage, the categories were compared and contrasted, to enable meaningful describing
of the categories’ similarities, while also identifying their uniqueness.
The hierarchical nature of the eventual categories of ownership was established as one of the leading prin-
ciples in the analysis. This led to three categories being created.
Validation of the Data
The validity and reliability of the data was given strong consideration by the careful coding and re-coding
of the teacher responses to the semi-structured interview questions, seeking to capture the teachers’ intentions.
The interpretation of the teacher responses was undertaken initially, by two researchers working independently,
both having been present during the interviews. Nevertheless, the trustworthiness of the operation rests with the
reader’s recognition of the ability of the researchers. This is recognised as a potential area of concern in phenom-
enographic analyses (Cope, 2004). The researchers analysing the data were University science educators with at
least one having prior expertise in undertaking phenomenographic research.
Research Results
By analysing the data from the semi-structured interviews and subsequently grouping the teacher responses
into three categories. These three categories, related to the orientation of the teacher comments during the inter-
view, were as indicated in table 1 and labelled (a), (b) and (c) - the latter being recognised as the highest category
with respect to teacher ownership. Table 1 thus highlighted the hierarchical nature of categories, which was
established through a phenomenographic analysis as one of the leading principles. These categories were then
sub-divided into dimensions of variation that meaningfully characterised the teachers’ operationalisation of the
MCST approach. The five dimensions of variations identified were labelled: reflection type, student motivation,
663
(pp. 659-674) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
inquiry activities, student decision making and purpose of teaching, based on the philosophical ideas integral to
the three teaching stages associated with MCST.
The major dimension of variation was the reflection type, giving distinctive descriptions for teachers within
each category, meaningfully amplified from the semi-structured interviews. For the other dimensions of variation,
the categories often described more aspects than put forward by an individual teacher, but were meaningfully
grouped to form a meaningful hierarchy.
Table 1
Descriptive summary of each category for the five dimensions of variations
Dimensions Categories
of
Variation a b c
1 Reflection Reflected on the effectiveness of Besides aspects under (a), teachers Besides aspects under (a) and (b),
Type the teaching through emotional also identified promotion of educa- teachers also extended reflections to
comments related to the instruction competences, such as student include future considerations i.e. how
tion and student attitudes towards problems and how to handle these i.e. they would handle such teaching in the
the topic. the focus is on ensuring students were future, and also paid attention to moral
able to learn from their experiences. and ethical implications of the topic.
2 Student motivation Began teaching by asking a sci- Began teaching by asking questions Began teaching by introducing a socio-
ence, or everyday life, question, or from everyday life (exploring social scientific issue.
by using novel teaching methods aspects) or relating to a socio-scientific
(utilising an app on their mobile issue.
phone, students acting drama).
3 Inquiry activities Saw the undertaking of inquiry In carrying out inquiry activities, Stressing problem-solving skills to better
activities as a way of making stressed the development of problem- conceptualise the science ideas and the
the learning more attractive to solving skills so as to better conceptu- interconnection of these with appreciat-
students alise the science ideas. ing socio-scientific issues within the
society.
4 Student decision Undertaking decision-making in Undertaking decision- making related Undertaking justified socio-scientific
making tackling scientific problems, or to issues arising from everyday life in decision-making, related to issues,
everyday life problems (as op- which science plays a part. which involved science alongside other
posed to socio- scientific issues), issues arising from the society at the
or no decisions made. local, national, and global level.
5 Purpose of teaching Dominance placed on subject The purpose is seen as developing The purpose is seen as developing
content knowledge. self- regulatory skills and gaining self-directed learning (learn to learn;
knowledge for future learning. lifelong learning; becoming a respon-
sible citizen) and thus including a wide
range of science-related skills, but also
oriented to include social and value
judgements.
Illustrative Descriptions of Examples for the 5 Dimensions of Variation
The following examples illustrate typical teacher responses in each of the 5 dimensions of variation. The teacher
responses are captured within one of three category types, based on the responses provided by each teacher.
While examples are very distinctive for the reflection dimension, they offer less clarity for other dimensions and
perceptions within category types sometimes overlap.
Examples for the dimension “Type of reflection”, describing how teachers reflected on their teaching.
Associated with category (a) – illustrating that teachers only reflecting on the effectiveness of their teaching.
Teachers emphasised how happy, or unhappy they were when implementing the MCST approach. Teachers emo-
tionally reported on the students’ description about the effectiveness of their instruction.
“Students felt bad about the environment and because the summer was coming, the teacher allowed every student to
search for information on a single insect. It was well done. Also, the presentations were interesting. At the end, the students
created a crossword on insects. It was attractive for students.” (Informing about effectiveness - Comment by teacher T10)
664
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 659-674)
Associated with category (b) – reflecting on teaching effectiveness and identifying, or dealing, with problems.
Teachers reflected on aspects of the teaching that went well, or badly and clearly articulated problems. However,
such teachers did not offer solutions to the problems. The reflection indicated the teachers recognised inconsisten-
cies between the espoused 3-stage approach and what was actually undertaken in the classroom.
“Students learned the factors affecting the rate of reaction. At the beginning, I used a tutorial video, in which there were many
bangs; this attracted the attention of the students. Problems arose in planning the inquiry. Students did not understand
fixed and variable factors, as well as their importance. Putting forward the research question was problematic, although
this was practiced during the entire school year.”
(Identifying or dealing with problems - Comment by teacher T7)
Associated with category (c) – not only reflecting on effectiveness and problems encountered, but the reflec-
tion extended to include future considerations. Teachers engaged in critical reflections about the moral and ethical
implications of their teaching, describing action to take to change the situation in the future and adopt a wider
position about the purpose of teaching.
“I continued to use this same approach for teaching photosynthesis involving problem solving and a socio-scientific issue,
because I appreciated that it helped to motivate students to learn. It provided a better understanding of the world and the
place of humans in nature.”
(Extended to include future considerations - Comment by teacher T8)
Examples for the dimension “Student motivation”, describing how teachers motivated students to learn. Fol-
lowing the 3-stage model, the science learning was initiated by a familiar contextual frame of reference, linked
to a need in the eyes of students, stemming from a social context involving science. All teachers indicated that
they considered motivation important. But while the contextual introduction in each teaching module (stage 1)
was expected to be promoted as motivational for students, the teachers reported that they motivated students
in different ways.
Associated with category (a) - teacher used scientific questions as a way of motivating students. Teachers used
science questions related to familiar situations so as to motivate students to learn. The scientific problem was seen
as important, rather than paying attention to the economic impact e.g. metal corrosion on society, or how metal
corrosion affected a person’s daily life in the case of rusting of cars.
‘Why do metals rust?’

(Comment by teacher T5)
A further example associated with category (a) - teacher employed a new teaching/learning method to moti-
vate students.
‘I asked the students to make a video about the effects of alcohol on people. The students had never made a video before
and it was interesting for them and motivated them to look for information and learn.’ (Comment by teacher T9)
Associated with either category (a or b, but not by category c) – teacher used questions related to everyday life.
Teachers emphasised linking the teaching to everyday life, overlooking more general aspects such as the impact
on the society.
‘Why should we know about insects? Is anyone amongst you allergic towards wasp stings? What do you do when a wasp
stings you?’
‘Why is it not beneficial to eat potato chips?’

665
(pp. 659-674) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Associated with either category (b or c, but not a) - motivation via a relevant socio-scientific issue. Teachers used
a socio-scientific issue, which was closely linked to the economy, the culture and/or the society.
‘Can driving when tired be a crime re- reaction time? We were watching an animation of how tiredness influences reaction
time to stop the car and how a tired driver is creating a danger for himself, as well as other drivers and passengers.’
‘You become a landowner and what plants can you grow and why? This topic was related to the Estonian economy, rural
employment, soil chemistry, agriculture, plant growth conditions, etc.’
Comment by teacher T3)
Examples for the Dimension “Inquiry activities”, describing purposes for utilising inquiry activities. Within the
3-stage model, this related to the de-contextualised 2nd stage, where scientific learning paid attention to the nature
of science and the important role of undertaking scientific inquiry activities. The teachers tended to report they
used inquiry activities for three purposes:
a) Make learning attractive and interesting;
b) Better conceptualising the science ideas, and
c) Better conceptualising the science ideas and their interrelationship with socio-scientific issues within
the society.
Associated with category (a) – inquiry activities which promote interest. While all teachers emphasised that
inquiry activities make learning more interesting and attractive to students, responses by teachers associated with
category saw this aspect as the major purpose.
‘I used inquiry activities for making the teaching more attractive. Students like to do experiments.’ (Comment by teacher T5)
Associated with category (b) - emphasising inquiry activities aid understanding of the subject matter.
‘Experimental work helped students to better understand how to protect metals from rust and also the chemistry concep-
tualisation of metal corrosion’.
Associated with category (b or c, but not by a) – interconnecting the science with the society. Teachers con-
tributed to the understanding of the nature of science by developing students’ problem-solving and higher order
thinking skills, but also went further to promote the interrelationship with socio-scientific issues within society.
‘I used inquiry activities so that students could solve problems and develop problem-solving skills; it aided understanding
of science ideas (concepts). Also, in the worksheet, I included questions on how this problem was connected to everyday
life and the society.’
‘Inquiry learning allows chemistry to link with economics and the surrounding environment e.g. you becoming a landowner
is a good example where students need to consider economic aspects as well environmental aspects and be able to link
with knowledge from Chemistry and Biology in order to get an income from owning land.’
Examples for the Dimension “Decision making”, describing how decision-making is perceived.
Decision-making referred to the re-contextualisation stage 3 in the model, involving consolidation of the
scientific learning through transference to the initial contextual frame and involving justified socio-scientific
decision-making. For this, teachers reported four different approaches to decision-making.
Associated with category (a) - no decision making involved. Decision-making was not recognised; students
666
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 659-674)
simply summarised their work.
‘Student summarised how alcohol affects the human body.’

Also associated with category (a) – basing decisions on science content. The student solved science problem
and then decisions were made, based on the laboratory findings i.e. focusing on the science content.
‘Students reported the results of their experiments and found the best way to protect the metals from rusting.’
Associated with category (a or b) - decision made based on problems in everyday life. Decision made based on
problems what related to issues arising from everyday life.
‘Finally, we discussed the toxicity of berries and animals in Estonia and how to protect ourselves from them.’
‘We were discussing which kind of problems might appear for parents of students 15 - 18 years old and where to seek help.’
Associated with category (c, but not a or b) – relating the science to society. The teachers used a socio-scientific
decision-making procedure. The science problem was linked with social issues and students provided evidence
for different resolutions to the issue and then, between them, made a justified, consensus decision.
‘In conclusion, we discussed what is healthy eating and what the consequences of obesity are for human health and for the
country as a whole, and what to do to reduce overweight in society. Overweight is an issue at a local, national and global level.’
Examples for the Dimension “Purpose of teaching”, describing thoughts on the purpose of teaching.
Education through science focused on students’ educational gains and stressed the learning to be acquired
through science lessons. Both cognitive knowledge and process skills were intended as important parts of the
intellectual development of students. In addition, science, personal and social skills associated with the develop-
ment of the person were included, involving social values and interpersonal relations. The teacher’s responses
were grouped as:
1. Curriculum implementation with respect to promoting science content, or
2. Developing general/generic skills, or
3. Developing a wide range of skills oriented to include social and value judgements.
Associated with category (a) - purpose of teaching is curriculum implementation; subject content dominant,
but also including cross-curricula themes. Such teachers considered it important to complete the curriculum. Very
little attention was paid to developing students’ skills (problem-solving, communication, cooperation skills, even
though these were also mentioned in the curriculum).
‘It is my duty to promote the curriculum. The curriculum is extensive, and there is little time for any one topic. My
task is for the students to achieve the learning outcomes and to pass in the examination. I want the students to gain a
good grasp of the subject knowledge and skills.’
Associated with category (b, but not a) – develop generic skills. Alongside knowledge, teachers noted that their
role was to develop generic skills (problem solving, decision-making, cooperation, communication, and time
management skills).
667
(pp. 659-674) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
‘Besides teaching the subject, it is important that students learn to manage their time and set goals.’ (Comment by teacher T4)
‘Group work requires student’s responsibility; otherwise you will not be able to get cooperation. Again, and again, it arose
that someone had failed to do his or her job. As a teacher, you have to take this into account.’
Associated with category (c, but not a or b) - also the need to develop value judgements. Besides the acquisition
of knowledge and skills, the teachers saw the need to promote value judgements (the development of a responsible
citizenship) and saw lifelong learning as important.
‘It was important to me that my students were able to cope in life and respect other people and nature.’ (Comment by
teacher T8)
‘My goal was to promote essential skills for their life among students and get them to behave as responsible citizens. Schools
must prepare students to lead an independent life so as they can be satisfied with their lives and useful for the society.’
Determining the Category of Teacher Ownership
Based on the descriptions put forward by teachers with respect to the category assigned per dimension,
paying careful consideration to the degree of category description overlap for dimension 2-5, the 10 teachers
were identified with the categories for each dimension of variation as indicated in table 2. The overall teacher
ownership was established by careful consideration of the importance of different dimensions and the very distinct
categorisation identified for the reflection type dimension. The discussion section further clarified the categorisa-
tion for teachers 1,2,4,5, 6 and 10.
Table 2
Identifying Teacher Ownership, based on the teacher categories identified per dimension (N=10)
Teachers identifying with Teachers identifying with Teachers identifying with

Dimension
category (a) category (b) category (c)
1.Reflection type T5.T9.T10 T1.T2.T4.T6.T7 T3.T8

2.Student motivation T4.T6.T9.T10 T5.T7 T1.T2.T3.T8
3.Inquiry activities T5.T9.T10 T2.T4.T6.T7 T1.T3.T8
4.Student decision making T4.T5.T6.T9 T1.T2.T7.T10 T3.T8
5.Purpose of teaching T5.T9.T10 T2.T4.T6.T7 T1.T3.T8
Overall teacher owner- T3.T8
T5.T9.T10 T1.T2.T4.T6.T7
ship category
Discussion
This study sought to identify the categories of sustainable teacher ownership related to a MCST approach
(Valdmann et al., 2016). The identification took place 3 years after teachers had previously been involved in a
longitudinal CPD intervention and these had the opportunity to subsequently develop and reflect on their
teaching in their own way.
The study showed that the teachers exhibited their ownership in different ways. A major indicator in distin-
668
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 659-674)
guishing between the formats of the teaching exhibited by the teachers was found to be the manner in which
the teachers were able to reflect on their teaching. Teacher self-reflection was thus identified as an important
dimension to consider when wishing to appreciate the teacher’s practices and beliefs. While all teachers were able
to reflect on the effectiveness of their teaching, less were able to focus on solutions for problems encountered
and fewer still on reflecting on future considerations. As Wenger (2005) contended, reflection helped teachers
to focus on the complexity of interactively relating between practice and theory.
When reflecting, all teachers emphasised emotional aspects, indicating how happy or unhappy they were
when implementing the MCST approach. The teachers were able to reflect on aspects of the teaching that
went well, or badly and were able to clearly articulate problems. The reflections showed teacher recognised
inconsistencies between the espoused 3-stage model (Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2017) and what was actually
undertaken in the classroom.
Additional questions, where appropriate, were asked during the semi-structured interviews to determine
further aspects of variations, predicted to play a meaningful role in describing categories of teacher ownership.
These questions related to the manner in which the teachers established student motivation, included inquiry-
based teaching, involved students in decision-making and indicated the purpose of science teaching. All aspects
of variations were found to play a role in framing the operationalisation of the science teaching and gave indi-
cations of differences in conceptualisation. In the most sophisticated responses, teacher beliefs were seen as
associated with the inclusion of socio-science issues for student motivation (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Zeidler et al.,
2005), determining ways for stimulating the need for conceptual science learning (Jho et al., 2014; Klosterman &
Sadler, 2010) and also undertaking justified socio-scientific decision-making (Acar et al., 2010; Levinson, 2006).
Differences were detected between teacher responses, when teachers were triggered to comment on
student motivation. Although differences were identified related to the emphasis on subject matter, or to ev-
eryday life, teachers relatively rarely associated this with focusing on the initial motivational part of teaching,
or on putting forward a socio-scientific issue involving the subject matter (Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2017). While
all teachers commented on the use of inquiry teaching (Anderson, 2002; Furtak et al., 2012), opinions varied as
to whether it was an interesting way of teaching or having importance for the engaging of students in problem
solving. Only a few teachers indicated a link between inquiry-based teaching and forming a base for follow-up
socio-scientific discussions (Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2017). In fact, few teachers appreciated the learning value
in including socio-scientific decision-making activities in their teaching (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Zeidler et al.,
2005). All teachers easily recognised the purpose of the MCST approach as promoting science conceptual learn-
ing (Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2007), but only half of the teachers stated the reasons for MCST teaching was to
also develop self-regulatory skills (e.g. self-control, dependability, adaptability, optimism). Only two teachers
went further and indicated the purpose of teaching was to promote lifelong learning (EC, 2019), or to become
a responsible citizen (EU, 2019) and thus saw the need to include a wide range of science-related skills, plus
orient their teaching to take account of social values in making socio-scientific judgements (Sadler & Zeidler,
2005; Zeidler et al., 2005).
Through undertaking phenomenographic analysis (Akerlind, 2012; Marton & Booth, 1997), this study showed
the different categories of MCST ownership exhibited by the teachers. Primarily, the category came mainly
from their reflections, where the categories identified directly corresponded to the overall teacher ownership
category. Nevertheless, the categories for the other dimensions of variation added clarity. For example, teacher
T1 responses were strongly associated with category ‘c’ for the dimensions - motivation, inquiry activities and
purpose of teaching, but reflections were heavily associated with dealing with scientific problems so much so
that perceptions of decision making were poorly related to the MCST expectations. Teacher T2 identified with
the descriptions for category ‘b’, although having a strong belief in the need for motivating student. Teachers T4
and T6 did not see the need to recognise a social component for MSCT science teaching, other than for motiva-
tion purposes, while T5 and T10 indicated relatively little appreciation of MCST teaching.
The three teacher ownership categories were meaningfully described as ‘emotional’ (labelled as (a) in
Table 1 and exhibited by 30% of the teachers), ‘experiential’ (labelled as (b)’, relating to 50% the teachers), and
‘paradigmatic’ (labelled as (c), relating to 20% of the teachers ) as described below:
a) Emotional teachers (T5, T9, T10) were very much related to the conceptual knowledge and skills as the
overwhelming focus, neglecting personal and social development. Emotional ownership described a feeling,
or sense of ownership, which appropriately portrays operational elements of the MCST model, but which was
669
(pp. 659-674) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
not really being interpreted as per the intended philosophy and approaches. Emotional ownership teachers
recognised the 3-stages in the MCST approach, but saw them as separate components (i.e. motivational, inquiry-
based science learning, and decision-making). These teachers informed others about the effectiveness of their
teaching through teacher success in promoting the subject (main emphasis being science cognition). They did
not really pay attention to reflecting on students’ gains with respect to attitudes and values (re-moral, ethical,
environmental, economic, social, etc.) (Eurydice, 2011; NRC, 2010; OECD, 2016).
b) Experiential teachers (T1, T2, T4, T6, T7) found the socio-scientific frame difficult to handle. Experiential
ownership referred to teachers who possessed the ability to use the intended approach, as per a socio-scientific
motivational introduction so as to establish prior science learning and to facilitate an appropriate baseline for the
promotion of conceptual science learning in the 2nd stage of the MCST approach (Valdmann et al., 2016). They
also possess the ability to further guide students to apply, meaningfully, their newly gained science within an
everyday, or societal decision-making, situation. During reflection, these teachers were able to identify problems
and respond to the questions about the theory, practice, assumptions, beliefs and values related to teaching
(Posnanski, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000). They were also able to reflect on student – teacher interactions, emphasis-
ing teacher actions, but they did not pay attention to the value of the overall learning. Experiential ownership
teachers used the MCST model in a rather narrow, compartmentalised way (i.e. how to motivate students, how
to apply IBL - inquiry based learning, or how to teach students to make a decision, based on evidence). The term
‘experiential’ was chosen, because their ‘sense of ownership’ (Blonder et al., 2008; Ketelaar et al., 2012; Kyza &
Georgiou, 2014; Saunders et al., 2017) of the teaching approach was based on their experience in using MCST
(Valdmann et al., 2016).
c) Paradigmatic teachers (T3, T8) identified strongly with the purpose of education with respect to the three
attributes (learn to learn; lifelong learning; becoming a responsible citizen) (EC, 2019; NRC, 2010; Osborne & Dil-
lon, 2008). These teachers described the desired ownership of the ‘education through science’ (EtS) philosophy
(Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2007) and the intended operationalisation of a context-based approach (Gilbert et al.,
2011) as per the MCST approach (Valdmann et al., 2016). They indicated the sustainable, paradigmatic shift in-
tended. A teacher, who exhibited paradigmatic ownership, orientated their reflexive responses to give attention
to considering future developments rather than simply relating to the identification of, and how to deal with,
problems encountered. Paradigmatic described full acceptance of a shift to ownership of the EtS philosophy
(Holbrook & Rannikmäe, 2007).
The different categories of sustainable teacher ownership were seen as hierarchical. The paradigmatic
ownership teachers recognised that the MCST approach (Valdmann et al., 2016) provided the opportunity to
integrate relevance and student motivation as key factors in enhancing scientific conceptualisations, and that
the re-contextualised, 3rd stage provided an opportunity to consolidate the science learning as well as develop
decision making skills in a socio-scientific, argumentation frame. Experiential and emotional teachers, while
identifying the 3rd stage by name, had difficulty in appreciating the value of this stage as a key learning element.
In fact, emotional ownership teachers tended to see the strength of the MCST approach overwhelmingly in
terms of enhancing conceptual science learning.
These categories of sustainable ownership seem to be unique in comparison with findings by other re-
searchers. An earlier study by Rannikmäe (2001) identifies three categories of teacher ownership, in this case
towards scientific and technological literacy (STL) teaching. In that study, the categories are labelled as – ‘subject
learning activity based’, ‘sequenced activity based’, and ‘social issue based’. The social issue based category can be
identified with the dimension geared to decision making, positively supported by the paradigmatic category of
ownership, but the intended teacher ownership is more strongly detected through considering teacher reflections
on possible future actions, rather than issues arising from the society at the local, national and global level. The
‘sequenced activity based’ category has strong similarities to the experiential category label put forward in this
research, while ‘subject learning activity based’ is strongly focused on ownership of cognitive science, primarily
associated with the emotional category, as described here.
In this paper, it is argued that between the ‘sense of ownership’ (Blonder et al., 2008; Ketelaar et al., 2012;
Kyza & Georgiou, 2014; Saunders et al., 2017) and the identification of a paradigmatic change in ‘sustainable
teacher ownership’, stages of ‘towards ownership’ categories (Hofstein et al., 2012) can be considered. This can
build on the self-efficacy stage established following the initial CPD, through seeking to internalise the teach-
670
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 659-674)
ing/learning as intended through operationalising the 3-stage model using the MCST approach (Valdmann et
al., 2016), as well as meaningfully portraying the intended philosophy and approach to others. This is thus seen
as an additional dimension beyond a self-vision of one’s own capability. It indicates that just because a teacher
has high levels of self–efficacy (Bandura, 1977), it does not mean the teacher goes beyond this self-perception
to reach a sustainable ownership stage i.e. the stage where others can compare the intention and actual vision
and where the teacher makes such ideas their own, based on the intended philosophy. The paradigmatic owner-
ship stage of the innovation is suggested as the real target of any CPD programme, when the philosophy being
promoted by a provider or the system and that by the teacher, conceptually being able to absorb and promote
to others, becomes one and the same. This suggests that undertaking a CPD programme by itself is not enough;
further post CPD consolidation aspects are needed.
It is clear that CPD providers need to be at the paradigmatic ownership stage, possessing a view of teach-
ing that sees the goals of education beyond content acquisition, can be expected to encourage teachers to
value students being capable of self-learning (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and appreciate the inclusion of social and/
or value judgements as an integral part of science education. A danger, if CPD providers are at the emotional,
or experiential categories, is that the vision of subject content within science education is likely to be over
emphasised, with student involvement, in facilitating their own learning, appreciated only to the extent that it
is not too time-consuming.
This study shows that gaining self- efficacy, or a sense of ownership, to express the intentions from a CPD
programme is not sufficient for preparing teachers for taking ownership in implementing new developments.
By seeking teacher reflections on the implementation of their own teaching, professed to be in line with a prior
CPD programme, this study shows ownership is more about motivationally promoting subject matter, in this
case in science teaching, and that teacher reflections need to go beyond addressing student concerns and they
need to examine the totality of the learning being portrayed, in this case, on the motivational, context-based
approach associated with students’ personal, cognitive and societal interactions.
In general, teacher ownership is not to be taken as the same as teacher self-efficacy. While all teachers in
this study established self-efficacy through an earlier CPD and appreciate the MSCT approach in their teaching,
this study shows that the way teachers express ownership, determined through examining meaningful indica-
tors based on a phenemonographic analysis, substantially differ. The attributes of MCST are promoted through
differing in-depth levels, described as emotional, experiential and paradigmatic depending on the presence of
social interaction and the strengths of student involvement in socio-scientific argumentation, based on sound
scientific cognition.
The findings suggest that ownership, when simply applied at the CPD level, is associated, at best, with a
‘sense of ownership’ as an alternative way to express self-efficacy, based on Bandura’s indicators of confidence
and competence in using a new teaching approach (Bandura, 1977). Teacher ownership can be identified at
different levels when determined in the actual teaching environment, associated with the degree of consid-
eration of factors on which to reflect. The characteristics of sustainable, paradigmatic or experiential or emo-
tional ownership are shown to go beyond everyday science conceptual learning settings and, especially at the
paradigmatic level, value the involvement of students in inter-relating the science with motivational and social
aspects in a justified manner.
In this study, the science teachers who reached sustainable, paradigmatic ownership show, particularly
through the width of reflection on their teaching, that they fully appreciate the attributes of the ‘education
through science’ philosophy and the operationalisation of the 3-stage model, utilising a motivational, context-
based approach. On the other hand, the science teachers exhibiting ownership categories at the experiential
and emotional categories, tend to indicate teaching based on more superficial characteristics with reflection
limited to cognition aspects.
A potential implementation from this study is that involving teachers in CDP programmes is insufficient
for teachers to gain sustainable paradigmatic ownership of that intended. It suggests further follow-up inter-
ventions are needed to consolidate the ideas emanating from any CPD. The desired sustainable, paradigmatic
teacher ownership needs to be appreciated as a teaching requirement and needs to be the major focus for
post-CPD considerations.
671
(pp. 659-674) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Limitations of the Study
The study had limitations, based on the comparatively small sample size of voluntary teachers involved
in the CPD, who could not, necessarily, be taken as representatives of the teachers’ involved in the earlier CPD
programme. These teachers were motivated to participate in the interview and willing to promote MCST in their
classroom and were willing to reorganise their teaching programme to accommodate this. Even so, the percent-
age of these volunteering teachers meeting the expectation of full ownership was low (20%) and points to the
difficulty in promoting a sustainable change in teachers.
Establishing categories of teacher operations in the classroom based on semi-structured interviews, lasting
approximately 1 hour, limited the extent to which teachers were guided to promote the teaching intentions
being practiced in the classroom. This led to limitations in establishing coverage of the teaching emphases and
the manner in which the philosophical ideas are being implemented.
References
Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making
research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191-1206.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902991805
Akerlind, G. (2012). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher Education Research and
Development, 31(1), 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.642845
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
13(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). The nature and structure of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control (pp. 37-78). WH Freeman and
Company.
Blonder, R., Kipnis, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Hofstein, A. (2008). Increasing science teachers’ ownership through the adapta-
tion of the PARSEL modules: A ‘Bottom-up’ approach. Science Education International, 19(3), 285–301.
Cope, C. (2004). Ensuring validity and reliability in phenomenographic research using the analytical framework of a structure
of awareness. Qualitative Research Journal, 4(2), 5-18.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
Deci, E, L. (2009). Large-scale school reform as viewed from the self-determination theory perspective. Theory of Research in
Education, 7(2), 244-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104329
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations
and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104329
EC (2019). Key competences for lifelong learning. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/297a33c8-a1f3-
11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
EU (2019). Citizenship education in Europe. https://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/citizenship_education_in_europe_en.pdf
Eurydice (2011). Science Education in Europe: National Policies, Practices and Research. Brussels: EURYDICE.
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D., C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science
teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
Gilbert, J. K., Bulte, A. M., & Pilot, A. (2011). Concept development and transfer in context-based science education. International
Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 817-837. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.493185
Hofstein, A., Katchevich, D., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2012). Teachers Ownership: What is it and how it is developed? In: C. Bolte,
J. Holbrook, F. Rauch. (Eds.). Inquiry-based Science Education in Europe: Reflections from the PROFILES Project (pp. 56-58).
Freie Universität Berlin.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). Nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of
Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2010). Contextualisation, de-contextualisation, recontextualization–A science teaching ap-
proach to enhance meaningful learning for scientific literacy. .In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.). Contemporary Science Education
(pp. 69-82). Shaker Verlag.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2017). Motivational Science teaching using a Context- based Approach. In: B. Akpan, (Eds.).
Science Education: A Global Perspective (pp. 189–217). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32351-0_10
Holbrook, J., Rannikmäe, M., & Valdmann, A. (2014). Identifying teacher needs for promoting education through science as a
paradigm shift in science education. Science Education International, 25(2), 4-42.
672
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 659-674)
Howe, A. C., & Stubbs, H. S. (1997). Empowering science teachers: A model for professional development. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 8(3), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009487417488
Jho, H., Yoon, H. G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationship of science knowledge, attitude and decision making on socio-scientific
issues: The case study of students’ debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science & Education, 23(5), 1131-1151.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9652-z
Ketelaar, E., Beijaard, D., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Den Brok, P. J. (2012). Teachers’ positioning towards an educational in-
novation in the light of ownership, sense-making and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 273–282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.004
Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associ-
ated with socio-scientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017-1043.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902894512
Kyza, E., & Georgiou, Y. (2014). Developing in-service science teachers’ ownership of the pedagogical framework through a
technology-supported participatory design approach to professional development. Science Education International,
25(2), 57–77.
Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal
of Science Education, 28(10), 1201-1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560753
Marton, F., & Booth, S. A. (1997). Learning and awareness. Psychology Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and 21st Century Skills: A Workshop
Summary. Margaret Hilton, Rapporteur. Board on Science Education, Centre for Education, Division of Behavioural and
Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press.
OECD (2016). PISA 2015 results: Excellence and equity in education (Vol.1). OECD Publishing
Ogborn, J. (2002). Ownership and transformation: Teachers using curriculum innovations. Physics Education, 37(2),142-146.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/37/2/307
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections (Vol.3). The Nuffield Foundation.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of
research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84-107. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84
Posnanski, T. J. (2002). Professional development programs for elementary science teachers: An analysis of teacher
self-efficacy beliefs and a professional development model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 189-220.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016517100186
Rannikmäe, M. (2001). Operationalisation of Scientific and Technological Literacy in the Teaching of Science PhD thesis. University
of Tartu.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and
well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio-scientific decision making. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
Saunders, M., Alcantara, V., Cervantes, L., Del Razo, J., López, R., & Perez, W. (2017). Getting to Teacher Ownership: How Schools
Are Creating Meaningful Change. Brown University, Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
Valdmann, A., Rannikmäe, M., & Holbrook, J. (2016). Determining the effectiveness of a CPD programme for enhancing science
teachers’ self-efficacy towards motivational context-based teaching. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(3), 284–297.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Wenger, E. (2005). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity (13th Ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socio-scientific
issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
673
(pp. 659-674) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Appendix 1. Background Information for the teachers and the identified ownership level, 3 years
after the CPD provided to promote MCST.
Teacher Science Subjects taught School type Ownership level attained
T1 Chemistry, Health Countryside High School Experiential (b)

T2 Chemistry City High School Experiential (b)
T3 Chemistry, Agronomy City High School Paradigmatic (c)
T4 Science, Biology Countryside Middle School Experiential (b)
T5 Chemistry Countryside High School Emotional (a)
T6 Science, Physics Countryside Middle School Experiential (b)
T7 Chemistry Countryside High School Experiential (b)
T8 Science, Biology, Chemistry Countryside Middle School Paradigmatic (c)
T9 Biology City High School Emotional (a)
T10 Biology Countryside Middle School Emotional (a)
Received: March 13, 2020 Accepted: July 28, 2020
Cite as: Valdmann, A., Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2020). Defining teacher ownership: A science education
case study to determine categories of teacher ownership. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4), 657-674.
Ana Valdmann PhD, Research fellow of science education, University of Tartu,

(Corresponding author) Vanemuise 46, Tartu, Estonia.
E-mail: ana.valdmann@ut.ee
Jack Holbrook PhD, Professor of Science Education, University of Tartu, Vanemuise 46,
Tartu, Estonia
E-mail: Jack.Holbrook@ut.ee
Miia Rannikmäe PhD, Professor of Science Education, University of Tartu, Vanemuise 46,
Tartu, Estonia
E-mail: miia.rannikmae@ut.ee
674
INFLUENCING FACTORS OF 10TH
GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE
CAREER EXPECTATIONS: A ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
Jingying Wang, Abstract. Science career expectations can

Mingyue Yang, be affected by personal science beliefs and
Beibei Lv, Feixiong Zhang, social supports. Framed in Expectancy-
Yonghe Zheng, Value Models, this research studied the
Yihong Sun influence of science beliefs (science interest
belief, self-efficacy belief and value belief)
and social supports (parents and teachers)
on students’ science career expectations
Introduction
by the survey of 798 10th grade students.
Science career expectation is the process of identifying science- Based on Structural Equation Model, it
related occupations and students constructing self-knowledge during the was found that: 1) science interest belief,
continuous scientific practices (Tan et al., 2017). Many studies emphasized self-efficacy belief, value belief and parents’
the role of scientific practice experience in career choice. Through a support can directly predict students’
longitudinal ethnography research, Calabrese et al. (2013) suggested
expectations of science careers; 2) the
that scientific activities in family, school and society can affect non-
mainstream students' science identity, and only those students who can effect of student’s perception from parents
obtain recognition, encouragement and help of science identity and the and teachers support on science choice
opportunity to participate in scientific activities finally found self-identity preferences and career engagement are
in the future science-related choices. Aschbacher et al. (2010) found that mediated through the effects on students’
practice experience can change students' perceptions of science learning, interest, self-efficacy and value in science.
career choice and success expectations, and constantly reframe their science
Therefore, teachers and parents should en-
identities and pursuits. BØE et al. (2011) believed that the choice of science
career was the process of initiative self-construction, and identity is no longer hance students’ science beliefs and identity
given by others but more exists as self-selection and development. Success for the improvement of their science career
expectation belief and task value belief in the Eccles (2009) Expectancy- expectations.
Value Models could explain the influence of science beliefs on the choice of Keywords: influencing factors, science
a science career. These beliefs reflected the results of individual’s re-modeling career expectations, Structural Equation
and self-confirmation in the process of socialized science practice, and
Model, 10th grade students.
embodied their sense of belonging, meaning and identity. Therefore, the
development of science career expectations is the process of reconstructing
science belief, and realization of self-identity through scientific activities in Jingying Wang
family, school and social fields. Self-identity is individual’s understanding of Beijing Normal University, China
Mingyue Yang
his own experience. This research showed that science career expectation Henan University, China
was the tendency to engage in science-related occupations in the future, and Beibei Lv, Feixiong Zhang
also reflected the internal process of individual’s constructing science identity Capital Normal University, China
Yonghe Zheng
and remodeling self-belief and expectation. It is potentially affected by Beijing Normal University, China
family, society, school and other external factors, and has the characteristics Yihong Sun
of accumulation, continuity and development. Shandong Normal University, China
675
INFLUENCING FACTORS OF 10th GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE CAREER EXPECTATIONS: A
(pp. 675-686) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Literature Review
Previous studies have generally shown that gender, family economic status, scientific capital, ethnic class and
other personal background factors can significantly affect students' science career expectations (Archer et al., 2012;
Dewitt et al., 2013;). Further studies have revealed that the change of science career tendency is more predicted by
personal science beliefs and social supports, other than class or gender factors (BØE, 2012). Therefore, this research
focused on the influence of science beliefs and social supports on science career expectations.
First, science beliefs refer to the cognition and perception of science or science-related occupations that
an individual perceives and acquires during science learning or practice, including students’ interests in science,
recognition of science values, and judgment of self-ability on science. Scholars generally believed that science
beliefs have a significant predictive effect on students' science career expectations. Palmer et al. (2017) found that
students' science interests, abilities, learning values and future career values were ranked the top four among many
factors. Students' science beliefs (interest belief, self-efficacy belief, and value belief ) may largely predict students'
expectations of science careers, which reflected the process of students' recognition, construction and strategy
implementation of science identity, and could effectively shape and explain students' views on science identity
(Vincent-Ruz & Schunn, 2018). Holmegaard (2015) believed that the reason why students gave up STEM higher
education programs were largely due to their difficulty in establishing an ideal self-identity in STEM-related subjects.
Most studies believed that science beliefs can significantly affect science career expectations. However, different
scholars have reached controversial conclusions on the impact of different science beliefs on career expectations,
the process of motivation and the applicable groups. Mujtaba et al. (2018) found that science interests, value beliefs
and their afterschool activities could positively predict science career expectations, but the effect of self-efficacy
belief was small. Sheldrake (2016) proposed that science self-efficacy belief of students with high self-confidence
significantly affected their expectations of science career, but for those with low self-confidence, the prediction
was not obvious. Gottlieb (2018) further suggested that science interest and value belief could significantly predict
white males’ expectations of science careers. Thus, the effect of science beliefs on science career expectations may
vary to ethnic groups and cultural backgrounds.
Second, social supports such as expectations, encouragements and academic help from teachers and parents
may also have an impact on students’ expectations of science careers. Rueger et al. (2010) conceptualized the
social supports as the emotional and behavioral feedback that students obtained from the outside world. A large
number of studies have explored the interaction between social support and science career expectations. Perry
et al. (2010) found that support from teachers and parents can significantly affect students' future career choice
and preparation. Vedder-Weiss and Fortus (2013) also revealed that students' science goals and participation
were affected by their parents, peers, teachers and schools and other external expectations, and the influence of
parents and teachers was the most one. Lee et al. (2020) further proposed that parents' science value beliefs can
significantly affect boys' future willingness to work in science imposed or indirectly conveyed by parents. Social
support may positively explain and predict students' expectations of science careers. However, controversial
conclusions have been reached in some studies. Mujtaba et al. (2018) found that teaching methods, science
expectations and encouragements from teachers and parents had less explanatory power to students’ science
career expectations. There may be students in different cultural contexts have different perceptions on social
support. For example, the Asian family culture may promote students to identify, or obey their parents’ advice
on careers. Therefore, this research focused on the influence of social support such as parents and teachers on
Chinese students' expectations of science careers.
Third, science belief and social support may have direct effect on science career expectations. Sjaastad (2012)
believed that parental encouragement and dialogue could help students recognize and understand the STEM
identity. Wong (2012) found that family culture and parents' expectations could influence students' cognition of
science-related education to reframe their science value beliefs. Those students who can get encouragements
and academic guidance from their parents may be more inclined to recognize the science values, set higher
academic goals and take part more seriously in science learning process. In addition to the direct role of parents’
support and science beliefs, some studies have further explored the interaction among science beliefs, parents’
support and career expectations. Neuenschwander et al. (2007) suggested that parents' expectations can not only
directly influence students' academic achievement, but also play an indirect role through self-efficacy beliefs. Sha
et al. (2016) also found that family support can not only directly predict science participation, but also indirectly
play a role by influencing science interests and self-efficacy. Teachers’ guidance and emotional support could
676
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ INFLUENCING FACTORS OF 10th GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE CAREER EXPECTATIONS: A
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 675-686)
significantly affect students' academic achievement (Song et al., 2015). Tas et al. (2019) also proposed that teachers’
support can positively predict students' science value beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs. Osborne et al. (2003) further
confirmed that teaching quality, emotional support and characteristics of teacher-student interaction can not only
influence students' attitudes towards science, but also their faith in science learning. Teachers' emotional support
and academic help could effectively reduce students' fear of difficulties and anxiety in learning and help them to
get a positive science learning experience. Besides, some studies have further explored the intermediary role of
teachers’ support, science beliefs and expectations. Burns (2019) found that teachers’ feedback not only directly
predicted students' science value and interest beliefs, but also indirectly affected academic performance through
science value and interest. Mohtar et al. (2019) confirmed that STEM interest and self-efficacy beliefs both played
an important intermediary role between environment and STEM career expectations.
Research Hypothesis
Science career expectation is the process of an individual to construct science identity and re-model self-
belief and expectation. Science beliefs generally have a very important and direct impact on one’s future science
choices, and Expectation-Value Theory (EVT) has been widely used in the research of science selection and career
expectation (Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2013). EVT is a comprehensive evidence model which holds that the choices,
persistence and performance related to achievement depend on individual's success expectation and task value
belief (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). The former is one’s expectations of success and judgment of whether he/she can
succeed, and belongs to Bandura's self-efficacy, known as self-efficacy belief. The latter is the subjective value of
task that an individual perceives when pursuing a specific activity, mainly including the interest value, importance
value and usefulness value.
Therefore, based on social psychology, EVT lays emphasis on the interaction between personal motivation
beliefs and external environment, which can explain the complexity, dynamics and developmental characteristics
of one's career decisions. By examining students' success expectation and task value, the characteristic of science
education and career expectation can be effectively explained over time (BØE et al., 2011). This research analyzed
the influence of social support (parents and teachers), self-efficacy belief, interest belief and value belief (importance
and usefulness value) on the science career expectations, and further confirmed the mechanism of the above
factors. Therefore, this research proposed the following hypotheses:
H1: The science self-efficacy belief can directly and positively affect students' science career expectations.
H2: The science interest belief can directly and positively affect students' science career expectations.
H3: The science value belief can directly and positively affect students' science career expectations.
The expectancy-value beliefs (science beliefs including self-efficacy beliefs, interest beliefs and value beliefs) in
EVT can significantly predict students' science career expectations, the expectations, encouragement and help from
parents, teachers and other social support may also have directly predictive influence on science career expectations.
Students' science career expectation was significantly influenced by their parents' attitudes towards science (Dewitt
et al., 2013), family capital and parents' habits could significantly explain kids’ science career expectations (Archer et
al., 2012). Similarly, external expectations from parents and teachers would positively predict students' science goals
and participation (Vedder-Weissand & Fortus, 2014). Therefore, this research proposed the following hypotheses:
H4: Parents supports can directly and positively affect students' science career expectations.
H5: Teachers supports can directly and positively affect students' science career expectations.
In addition, external support has a significant influence on science beliefs. For example, help and care from
parents and teachers could positively influence science self-efficacy belief and interest belief (Rice et al., 2013).
Some scholars further explored the interaction between science beliefs, social supports and career expectation
(Sha et al., 2016), and they found that parents’ support not only directly predicts students' science participation
and selection, but also indirectly influences science interest and self-efficacy. Caspi et al. (2019) proposed that
students' STEM efficacy beliefs and interest beliefs could play a positive intermediary role between environment
and career expectations. Therefore, this research assumed that science beliefs played an intermediary role between
social support and science career expectations, and the hypotheses were as follows:
H6: The science interest belief plays a positive intermediary role between parents’ support and science
career expectations.
H7: The science self-efficacy belief plays a positive intermediary role between parents’ support and science
677
(pp. 675-686) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
H8: The science value belief plays a positive intermediary role between parents’ support and science career
expectations.
H9: The science interest belief plays a positive intermediary role between teachers’ support and science
H10: The science self-efficacy belief plays a positive intermediary role between teachers’ support and science
H11: The science value belief plays a positive intermediary role between teachers’ support and science career
expectations.
This research had 11 hypotheses and constructed a model of influencing factors related to science career ex-
pectations in Figure 1 using Structural Equation Modeling to examine: 1) Whether science interest belief, self-efficacy
belief, value belief and social support can influence students' science career expectations? 2) Whether students'
science beliefs can play an important intermediary role between social support and science career expectations?
Figure 1
The structural model of influencing factors of science career expectations
General Background
EVT provides an important framework for analyzing science career expectations, that is, when students believe
they can do science-related tasks well and recognize the value of these tasks, they may have the motivation to
complete science tasks to reflect science learning persistence and the willingness to engage in science-related
careers in the future. Besides, the theory also emphasized the high correlation between expectations of success
and perception of task value. Nagengast et al. (2011), by reviewing PISA data (n=398750) of 57 countries, found
that the interaction of science self-efficacy, interest belief and expectations have a significant impact on students'
participation in science activities and their science career expectations. The building of individuals’ expectancy-
value beliefs is potentially influenced by cultural background, gender, parents, teachers and other external support
factors. Eccles et al. (1993) summarized important research from past 10 to 15 years and proposed that positive
family and school environments could significantly change and enhance students' expectancy-value beliefs and
their learning achievements.
Sample Selection
This research took Chinese 10th grade students as the participants under the background of college entrance
examination in January 2020, and the study group was selected based on the following two considerations. One
is that 10th grade students who chose their subjects of examination may evaluate the interests of their own and
the influence of parents, teachers and peers, so as to truly reflect expectations of science careers in the future. On
the other hand, because the 10th grade students have relatively stable self-knowledge and social cognition, they
678
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 675-686)
can make relatively independent judgments on career expectations. Although the study of career expectation
attached much to the students from grade 7 to 12, ethical factors were also taken into account in the selection of
students. Chinese students from grade 11 and 12 have relatively heavy academic burden, and grade 10 happens
to be the first stage after the end of compulsory education. This research finally selected 10th grade students in
Shandong province, China, and collected 920 online questionnaires. After carefully sorting out and deleting the
invalid questionnaires, 798 were effective. Among them, 306 were boys and 492 were girls. There were 362 in the
schools at the provincial level, 340 at the municipal level, and 96 at the district level. Other ethical aspects were
also ensured by anonymous method to protect the privacy of students in the survey.
Table 1
The status of participants
Total questionnaire Valid questionnaire The percent Male Female
920 798 86.74 306 492
Provincial School 407 362 88.94 131 231

Municipal School 390 340 87.79 137 203
District School 123 96 75.61 38 58
Instrument and Quality
To determine the interaction among six potential variables in the hypothesis model, the research developed a
questionnaire, items of which were measured by 5-point Likert scale. 25 items were developed at first and 2 items
with unknown directions were moved by consulting experts, then language correction was done to ensure the
content validity. After the preliminary data survey on the newly developed questionnaire, the research carried out
the reliability and validity test and factor loadings analysis through SPSS 22.0 and Amos 24.0 to form a complete
questionnaire with 22 items after deleting 1 item whose factor load was not obvious (Table 2). The reliability and
validity of the data were also tested to ensure the quality of measurement scale. First of all, the reliability test
showed that the total reliability coefficient α of the scale was .940, and the reliability coefficients on the subscales
of parents’/teachers’ support, interest, self-efficacy belief, value belief and career expectations were .842, .825,
.896, .897, .870, .891. It can be found that this scale has high internal consistency. Secondly, the validity test was
carried out by means of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results of confirmatory factor analysis of the scale
were χ2 /df=2.576 (<3, indicating a good fit) and RSMEA=0.044 (<3, indicating a good fit), and the goodness of fit
index were all greater than 0.9 (GFI=.944, AGFI=.927, NFI=.957, TLI=.968, CFI=.973). This scale is reasonably divided,
and then, the AVE test was used to test the convergent validity and discriminant validity of the scale. The results
showed that the factor load of each item in the scale is between .712 and .923, the average variance extraction
(AVE) is between .577 and .7534, and the combined reliability (CR) is between .8275 and .9014. All the six subscales
have reached the ideal aggregate validity.
Table 2
Dimension the questionnaire
Dimensions Indicators
Demographic variables Gender, age, grade, school type

Parents support Career expectation, academic help, activity support
Teachers support Teacher encouragement, learning guidance and academic care
Science self- efficacy Expectation of scientific success and judgment of scientific self- ability
Science interest Scientific attitude, course elective, scientific experiment
Science value Science importance value and science usefulness value
Science career expectations Science career expectation and science learning intention
679
(pp. 675-686) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Data Analysis
This research used Structural Equation Modeling on the sample data to investigate the impact of science
beliefs and social supports on students’ science career expectations, and to reveal the intrinsic mechanism of the
influencing factors. Firstly, according to the standardized path coefficient (B) in the Structural Equation Model, the
study analyzes the direct effect of science interest belief, value belief, self-efficacy belief, parents’ and teachers’
support on science career expectation. Secondly, with the help of Bootstrap intermediary test, the study also tests
the intermediary effect of science beliefs on parents’/teachers’ support and science career expectation, then confirms
the intermediary effect of different influence paths in the model through the scope of 95% confidence interval.
The convergent validity can explain the consistency relationship between each dimension and the corresponding
potential variables, the discriminant validity can also explain the structural validity of the scale from the relationship
among different potential traits. Therefore, this study further tested the discriminant validity of the scale. The
criterion for determining the discriminant validity among dimensions is whether the arithmetic square root of AVE
of the dimension is greater than the correlation coefficient with other dimensions. Table 3 shows that the square
root of AVE in each dimension is greater than the standardized correlation coefficient, and the dimensions of the
scale have good discriminant validity.
Research Results
Considering the high correlation among different science beliefs (interest, self-efficacy and value belief) and the
collinearity interaction among them, the collinearity can be expressed by the residual correlation among different
science beliefs (Jeffries et al., 2020). The results showed that χ2/df=2.576 (<3, indicating a good fit), RMR=.024 (<.08,
indicating a good fit), RSMEA= .044 (<0.05, indicating a good fit), and each goodness-of-fit index is greater than
0.9 (GFI=.944, AGFI=.927, NFI=.957, TLI=.968), CFI=.973). The fitting parameters in the model constructed are good
and suitable for the further exploration of variable relations, and the standardized path coefficients of influencing
factors are obtained in Figure 2. This research conducted a path test on the research hypotheses in the model to
clarify the direct effect of each influencing factor on science career expectations.
Figure 2
The standardized path coefficient of influencing factors of science career expectations
680
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 675-686)
Table 3 shows the corresponding indicators and their test results. The standardized coefficient (B) of each
H1-H4 hypothesis path in this model is positive (p<.01), reaching the statistical significance, and H1-H4 hypotheses
are supported by data. The science interest belief, self-efficacy belief, value belief (usefulness and importance
value) and parents’ support (science activity support, career expectation and science academic help, etc.) can
directly predict students’ expectations of science careers. Results also show that science interest belief (B=.436)
> parents’ support (B=.216) > science value belief (B=.182) > science self-efficacy belief (B=.15). So, students'
expectations of science careers are more reframed and constructed by personal scientific beliefs, which can better
reflect students' sense of belonging, meaning and identity compared with the influence of external support
factors. Besides, the standardized coefficient of teachers’ support (science academic expectation, requirement,
encouragement, guidance and teaching strategies, etc.) on the expectations of science careers is -.073 and
p=.068 (>.05), indicating no significant direct impact on science career expectations. Teachers’ support is likely
to affect students' science career expectations indirectly by influencing their science beliefs.
Table 3
Test results of the research hypotheses
The standardized Supportive/ Not

Hypothesis path SE CR p
coefficient (B) supportive
H1: Science self-efficacy belief → science career expectations 0.15 0.052 2.979 .003** Supportive
H2: Science interest → science career expectations 0.436 0.087 5.536 .000*** Supportive
H3: Science value → science career expectations 0.182 0.099 2.637 .008** Supportive
H4: Parents support → science career expectations 0.216 0.059 5.692 .000*** Supportive
H5: Teachers’ support → science career expectations -0.073 0.067 -1.82 .069 Not supportive
Note:*** p＜.001; **p＜.01; * p＜.05
This research also constructed a structural equation model with science beliefs (science interest belief,
value belief and self-efficacy belief ) as the intermediary variable, social supports (parents’ and teachers’ support)
as the predictive variable, and students' science career expectations as the outcome variable. Results showed
that there are significantly positive correlations among the variables. In this case, it is suitable for the mediation
effect test of the above variables. Then, the study used Bootstrap to extract 1000 times repeatedly to construct
a 95% unbiased confidence interval and test the significance of the hypothesis path mediation effect based
on whether the 95% confidence interval contains 0 or not. The direct effect, the intermediary effect and total
effect are shown in Table 4.
Table 4
The intermediary effects test of the model
The direct effect The intermediary effect Total effect
Path Bootstrap 95% CI

ES SE p ES SE ES SE p
Upper limit Lower limit p
Te→Ca -.073 .042 .135
Te→Ee→Ca .046 .021 .011 .094 .019 *
Te→Va→Ca .095 .046 .017 .201 .015 *
Te→In→Ca .196 .05 .09 .291 .003 **
Indirect total effect .336 .039 .269 .421 .001 **
Total effect .263 .046 .002**
681
(pp. 675-686) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The direct effect The intermediary effect Total effect
Path Bootstrap 95% CI

ES SE p ES SE ES SE p
Upper limit Lower limit p
Pa→Ca .216 .044 .002**
Pa→Ee→Ca .048 .024 .008 .105 .026*
Pa→Va→Ca .051 .025 .011 .115 .013*
Pa→In→Ca .128 .034 .066 .203 .001 **
Indirect total effect .227 .032 .169 .295 .001 **
Total effect .443 .041 .002**

Note: Te-teacher factors, Pa-parent factors, Va-science value belief, In-science interest belief, Ee- science self-efficacy belief, Ca-
science career expectations; *** p＜.001, ** p＜.01, * p＜.05.
The intermediary effect of science beliefs on teachers’ support and science career expectations is mainly
realized through 3 parallel intermediary paths: science interest, value belief and self-efficacy belief. The 95%
confidence interval of Bootstrap of these three paths does not include 0 (p<.05), which means that they have a
significant intermediary effect on parents’ support and science career expectations to make H6-H8 hypotheses
verified. Because teachers’ support can’t directly and significantly affect the expectations of science career
expectations (B=-.073, p=.135>.05), science beliefs hold complete mediation on the teachers’ supports and
science career expectations. In addition, the intermediary effect of students' science interest belief is most
significant (B=.196, p=.003<.01), the intermediary influence of value belief is at the second (B=.095, p=.015<.05),
and self-efficacy belief is at the last (B=.095, p=.019<.05). The above inferences further indicate that teachers'
expectations, encouragements and academic help may significantly enhance students' science interest and
recognition of science values, and then help students to obtain a positive science learning experience. The total
effect of students’ science beliefs is .227 (p=.001), and the Bootstrap 95% confidence interval is [0.169, 0.295],
which does not include 0 (p=.001), indicating that science beliefs have a significant intermediary influence on
parents’ supports and science career expectations. Because the factors of parents’ support can directly and
significantly affect science careers expectations (B=.216, p=.002), the intermediary influence of science beliefs
between parents’ supports and science career expectations is more of a partial intermediary influence. In addition,
the intermediary effect of science interest belief is .128 (p=.001<.01), .051 (p=.013<.01) of value belief, and .048
(p=.026<.05) of self-efficacy belief.
Discussion
Framed in expectancy-value models, this research explained the influencing factors and the mechanism
of science career expectations from the perspective of science beliefs. First, science interest belief, self-efficacy
belief, value belief and parents support could positively predict students' science career expectations, which
was consistent with many studies (Mujtabaet al, 2018; Andersen & Ward, 2014; Caspi et al., 2019; Dewitt et al.,
2013). Besides, the direct effect of teachers’ support on science career expectations was not significant. The
reason might be that under the self-selected examination background, teachers' science encouragements,
requirements, academic help and care to students did not significantly improve students' learning experience, or
even made students mistakenly think that they were not good at learning science, then not be able to promote
the development of science career expectations.
On the one hand, according to the result of direct effect, students’ expectation of science careers is largely
influenced by their beliefs of interest, self-efficacy, value and parents’ support towards science. This result showed
that the factors related to students' personality and family background were the closest factors influencing their
science career expectations, and the previous studies, such as Sha et al. (2016), Caspi et al. (2019) and Mohtar et
al. (2019), did not distinguish the distance effect of the influencing factors. Sha et al. (2016) found that parents'
682
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 675-686)
science expectations, activity supports and academic help and science selection expectations were regulated
by the science interest belief (B=.149, p<.01) and self-efficacy belief (B=.130, p<.01). Similarly, Harackiewicz et
al. (2012) also found that mothers' science recognition and encouragements can significantly affect children's
views on the usefulness and importance of science, and finally affect students' choice of science. This research
found that science belief plays an intermediary role between parents’ support and science career expectations,
and the mediation effect of science interest belief is the largest, followed by science value belief and self-efficacy
belief. Therefore, parents' science encouragements, supports and feedback can significantly improve students'
science ability and value belief, and constantly reconstruct, reframe and develop their science career expectations.
On the other hand, teachers’ support only had an indirect effect on students' scientific career expectations,
and students’ science belief was the intermediary between teachers’ support and science career expectations.
Although in most studies, such as Hattie (2010) and Burns (2019), teachers played a primary role, few studies also
found that teachers have indirect effects. Palmer et al. (2017) suggested that teachers had the least impact on
students' choice of science-related subjects, and Ma (2001) also found that teachers' expectations and suggestions
may be not able to significantly influence students’ mathematics career intention, but parents expectations
can positively predict the changes of students’ mathematics career expectations. Harmonious teacher-student
relationship, creative teaching strategies and rich science activities can not only help students obtain positive
science learning experience (Wigfeld, 2009), but also build students' science beliefs and enhance their intention
to engage in science-related careers in the future (Tytler & Osborne, 2012). Hattie (2010) proposed that students'
academic achievements and motivation are affected by teaching quality, teacher-student relationship and
practice activities. Teachers may indirectly promote students' expectations of science careers by stimulating their
interest in science and enhancing their cognition of science value. Therefore, the theory and practice of science
teacher education may not only focus on the improvement of teachers' competence in teaching skills, but also
on how to stimulate students' personality, so as to change passive teaching into active learning. In addition,
students' learning experience is also an important factor to stimulate students’ science interest and their science
enthusiasm (DeWitt & Archer, 2015). Teachers should optimize students' science learning experience by cultivating
a good relationship between teachers and students, innovating scientific teaching methods and expanding
science activities so as to more effectively stimulate students' science interest and enhance their science value
recognition and breakout their stereotype of scientists to build and develop science career expectations.
Conclusions
This research found that students science self-efficacy belief, value belief and interest belief can play a positive
intermediary role between parents’/teachers’ support and science career expectations, and the intermediary
effect of interest belief is significantly better than that of value and self-efficacy belief. The social supports from
parents and teachers can be more significant to stimulate students’ science interest and enhance their awareness
of science value. Different from the dominant factors of teachers in the previous studies, it was clearly found
that students’ science beliefs can significantly predict their future expectations of science careers, and teachers’
and parents’ expectations, encouragements, and academic help can indirectly develop students’ science career
expectations by influencing their science beliefs.
In order to stimulate students' enthusiasm for a science career, families, schools and society should interact
with each other to jointly participate in building an environment conducive to the development of students'
science career expectations. First of all, schools should provide rich career education environment through the
establishment of career education courses, internship activities and other ways to enhance students' knowledge
and understanding of science-related careers. Secondly, teachers should adopt various teaching methods such
as cooperation, inquiry, argumentation, and interdisciplinary to stimulate students' interest in science and
understanding of scientific value, so as to help students acquire positive science beliefs. Finally, parents should
also actively participate in students' scientific learning process, not only cognitive and behavioral participation,
but also emotional participation.
The gap comparison of this study and existing studies also found that the mechanism of interaction among
parents, schools and students is still in the black box. Students with different personal characteristics should
adopt a diversified school education model and provide different family education environment. However,
683
(pp. 675-686) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
for students from different countries, regions and families with social and economic backgrounds, there are
also many differences in their personality characteristics. Although these studies provide sufficient support for
understanding the static distribution of science career expectations of different groups, they pay little attention
to the dynamic development and changes of science career expectations. In order to achieve the purpose of
science career expectation by stimulating students' personality psychological characteristics, it is needed to
develop multi sample and comparative design in the future studies of science career expectation.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the support of Chinese Ministry of Education's Major
Project “Cultivation of Educational Science Research Strategic Base” (28500/211700001) and the Medium & Long
Term (2021-2035) and “the 14th Five Year Plan” of Science and Technology Development Strategy Research
“Science Education Promotes Science Popularization”.
References
Andersen, L., & Ward, T. J. (2014). Expectancy-value models for the STEM persistence plans of ninth-grade, high-ability
students: A comparison between black, hispanic, and white students: STEM persistence. Science Education, 98(2),
216-242. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21092
Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis. B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus how
families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Educational Research Journal, 49,
881-908. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211433290
Aschbacher, P. R., Li, E., & Roth, E. J. (2010). Is science me? High school students’ identities, participation and as-
pirations in science, engineering, and medicine. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 564-582.
BØE, M. V. (2012). Science choices in Norwegian upper secondary school: What matters?. Science Education, 96(1), 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20461
BØE, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T., & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young
people’s achievement-related choices in late-modern societies. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 37-72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.549621
Burns, E. C., Martin, A. J., & Collie, R. J. (2019). Examining the yields of growth feedback from science teachers and students’
intrinsic valuing of science: Implications for student- and school-level science achievement. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 56(8), 1060-1082. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21546
Calabrese, B. A., Kang, H., Tan, E., O’ Neill, T. B., Bautista-Guerra, J., & Brecklin, C. (2013). Crafting a future in science: Trac-
ing middle school girls’ identity work over time and space. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 37-75.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212458142
Caspi, A., Gorsky, P., Nitzani-hendel, R., Zacharia, Z., Rosenfeld, S., Berman, S., & Shildhouse, B. (2019). Ninth-grade students’
perceptions of the factors that led them to major in high school science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
disciplines. Science Education, 103(5), 1176-1205. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21524
DeWitt, J., & Archer, L. (2015). Who Aspires to a Science Career? A Comparison of Survey Responses from Primary and
Secondary School Students. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2170-2192.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1071899
Dewitt, J., Osborene, J., Archer, L., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2013). Young children’s aspirations in science: The
unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 1037-1063.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.608197
Eccles, J. S. (2009). Who Am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of
action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Maclver, D. (1993). Development during
adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families.
American Psychologist, 48(2), 90-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational Beliefs, Values, and Goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Gottlieb, J. J. (2018). STEM career aspirations in Black, Hispanic, and White ninth-grade students. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 55(10), 1365-1392. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21456
684
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 675-686)
Harackiewicz, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Helping parents to motivate adolescents in math-
ematics and science: An experimental test of a utility-value intervention. Psychological Science, 23(8), 899-906.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435530
Hattie, J. (2010). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
Holmegaard, H. T. (2015). Performing a Choice-Narrative: A qualitative study of the patterns in STEM students’ higher
education choices. International Journal of Science Education, 37(9), 1454-1477.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1042940
Jeffries, D., Curtis, D. D., & Conner, L. N. (2020). Student Factors Influencing STEM Subject Choice in Year 12: a Structural
Equation Model Using PISA/LSAY Data. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(3), 441-461.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09972-5
Lee, M., Shin, D. D., & Bong, M. (2020). Boys are Affected by Their Parents More Than Girls are: Parents’ Utility Value So-
cialization in Science. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(1), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01047-6
Ma, X. (2001). Participation in Advanced Mathematics: Do Expectation and Influence of Students, Peers, Teachers, and
Parents Matter?. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 132-146. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1050
Mohtar, L. E., Halim, L., Abd Rahman, N., Maat, S. M., Iksan, Z. H., & Osman, K. (2019). A model of interest in STEM careers among
secondary school students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(3), 404-416. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.404
Mujtaba, T., Sheldrake, R., Reiss, M. J, & Simon, S. (2018). Students’ science attitudes, beliefs, and context: asso-
ciations with science and chemistry aspirations. International Journal of Science Education, 40(6), 644-667.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1433896
Nagengast, B., Marsh, H. W., Scalas, L. F., Xu, K., Hau, K. T., & Trautwein, U. (2011). Who Took the “×” out of Expectancy-Value
Theory?: A Psychological Mystery, a Substantive-Methodological Synergy, and a Cross-National Generalization. Psy-
chological Science, 22(8), 1058-1066. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611415540
Neuenschwander, M., Vida, M., Garrett, J. L., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). Parents’ expectations and students’ achievement in two West-
ern nations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 594-602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025407080589
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. Inter-
national Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199
Palmer, T.-A., Burke, P. F., & Aubusson, P. (2017). Why school students choose and reject science: a study of the fac-
tors that students consider when selecting subjects. International Journal of Science Education, 39(6), 645-662.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1299949
Perry, J. C., Liu, X., & Pabian, Y. (2010). School Engagement as a Mediator of Academic Performance Among Urban Youth:
The Role of Career Preparation, Parental Career Support, and Teacher Support. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(2),
269-295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000009349272
Rice, L., Barth, J. M., Guadagno, R. E., Smith, G. P., & McCallum, D. M. (2013). The Role of Social Support in Students’
Perceived Abilities and Attitudes Toward Math and Science. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(7), 1028-1040.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90
Rueger, S. Y., Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2010). Relationship Between Multiple Sources of Perceived Social Support
and Psychological and Academic Adjustment in Early Adolescence: Comparisons Across Gender. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 39(1), 47-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9368-6
Sha, L., Schunn, C., & Bathgate, M. (2016). Families support their children’s success in science learning by influencing
interest and self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 450-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21251
Sheldrake, R. (2016). Students’ intentions towards studying science at upper-secondary school: the differential ef-
fects of under-confidence and over-confidence. International Journal of Science Education, 38(8), 1256-1277.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1186854
Sjaastad, J. (2012). Sources of Inspiration: The role of significant persons in young people’s choice of science in higher edu-
cation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1615-1636. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.590543
Song, J., Bong, M., Lee, K., & Kim, S. (2015). Longitudinal investigation into the role of perceived social support
in adolescents’ academic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 821-841.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000016
Tan, E., Calabrese, B.A., Kang, H., & O’Neill, T. (2013). Desiring a career in STEM-related fields: How middle school girls
articulate and negotiate identities-in-practice in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 6-7.
Tas, Y., Subasi, M., & Yerdelen, S. (2019). The Role of Motivation between Perceived Teacher Support and Student Engage-
ment in Science Class. Educational Studies, 45(5), 582-592.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.2.222
Tytler, R., & Osborne, J. (2012). Student attitudes and aspirations towards science. In B.Fraser, K. Tobin & C. McRobbie
(Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Vincent-Ruz, P., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). The nature of science identity and its role as the driver of student choices. Interna-
tional Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0140-5
685
(pp. 675-686) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psy-

chology Review, 6(1), 49-78. https://doi.org/10.2307/23359359
Wong, B. (2012). Identifying with science: A case study of two 13-year-old “high achieving working class” British Asian girls.
International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 43-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.551671
Cite as: Wang, J. Y., Yang, M. Y., Lv, B. B., Zhang, F. X., Zheng, Y. H., & Sun, Y. H. (2020). Influencing factors of 10th grade
students’ science career expectations: A structural equation model. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4), 675-686.
Jingying Wang Doctor, Professor, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University,

Beijing 100875, China.
E-mail: wangjingying8018@126.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6109-7542
Mingyue Yang Student, Business College, Henan University, Kaifeng 475001, China.
E-mail: 3574281787@qq.com
Beibei Lv Doctor, College of Life Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing
(Corresponding author) 10048, China.
E-mail: beibeilv2014@126.com
Feixiong Zhang Doctor, Professor, College of Life Sciences, Capital Normal University,
Beijing 10048, China.
E-mail: fxzhang@cnu.edu.cn
Yonghe Zheng Professor, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing
100875, China.
E-mail: zhengyonghe@bnu.edu.cn
Yihong Sun Student, School of Foreign Languages, Shandong Normal University,
Jinan 250300, China.
E-mail: sunyihong0114@163.com
686
INFORMATION
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
EDITORIAL AND REVIEW PROCEDURES
Journal of Baltic Science Education (JBSE) publishes original scientific research articles in the field of Natural Science Education and
related areas for all educational levels in the Baltic and other countries. It is possible to publish special (thematic) issues of JBSE. The
papers should be submitted and will be published in English. JBSE will promote to establish contacts between researchers and practical
educators both in the Baltic countries and countries around.
The authors of the manuscripts are responsible for the scientific content and novelty of the research materials. Articles, published
before in other international journals or papers’ collections will not be accepted for publication in JBSE.
As a publication that represents a variety of cross-disciplinary interests, both theoretical and practical, the JBSE invites manuscripts on
a wide range of topics, especially in the following areas:
• Didactics of natural sciences. • Philosophical, political, economical and social aspects
• Theory and practice in natural science teacher of natural science education.
education. • The supplementary natural science education.
• Integrated natural science education. • ICT in natural science education.
• Natural science and technological literacy. • The standardisation of natural science education etc.
• General and professional natural science education.
MANUSCRIPTS GUIDELINES
The structure of the research paper presented to the Journal of Baltic Science Education should be as follows: abstract - short report of the
investigation; introduction inc. aim and subject of the research; research methodologies and methods; results of the research incl. discussion;
conclusions; list of references in APA style.
The papers should be submitted in English. If English is a second language for the author, please consider having the manuscript
proof read and edited before submitting. The preliminary text of the article can be sent as a.doc file in the attachment by e-mail: mail.
jbse@gmail.com
The text must be elaborated in Word for Windows, using 12 point Times New Roman letters. An article should not exceed 7-10 A4 pages,
included figures, tables and bibliography. Publishing of longer articles should be negotiated separately. Texts margins: top and bottom 20mm,
left - 25mm, right - 20mm. The title: capital letters, 14pt, bold; space between the title and the author’s name is one line interval. Author’s name
and surname: small letters, 12pt, bold. Under the name, institution: 11 pt, italics; space between the title and the text: 1 line interval. Abstract
– about 100-150 words - precedes the text. The text: 12pt Single or Auto spacing, in one column. Key words: no more than five words. The
language must be clear and accurate. The authors have to present the results, propositions and conclusions in a form that can suit scientists
from different countries.
Titles of the tables and figures: 11 pt, small letters. Space between figures or tables and the text: 1 line interval. Introduction, titles of
chapters and subchapters: 12pt, bold, small letters. Numbers: Arabic, subchapters numbered by two figures (1.1, 1.2, etc.). Figures, tables and
captions should be inserted within the manuscript at their appropriate locations. Diagrams and graphs should be provided as finished black
and white line artwork or electronic images. When there are a number of illustrations, the author should endeavour to reduce the amount of
text to accommodate the illustrations in the limited space available for any article.
References in the text should be presented in brackets (Knox, 1988; Martin, 1995). If necessary, the page can be indicated: (Martin,
1995, p.48). The list of references should be presented after the text. The Words List of References: 11pt, bold, small letters. The references
should be listed in full at the end of the paper in the following standard form:
For books: Saxe, G.B. (1991). Cultural and Cognitive Development: Studies in Mathematical Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
For articles: Bekerian, D.A. (1993). In Search of the Typical Eyewitness. American Psychologist, 48, 574-576.
For chapters within books: Bjork, R.A. (1989). Retrieval Inhibition as an Adaptive Mechanism in Human Memory. In: H.L. Roediger III & F.I.M.
Craik (Eds.), Varieties of Memory & Consciousness (pp. 309-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
On a separate page, author - related data should be presented in English: name, surname, degree and academic title, institution, full
correspondence address in the clearest and most complete form /ordinary post and e-mail addresses /, position (to ensure anonymity in the
review process). The author (authors) should confirm in writing, that the manuscript has not been published in other journal or
handed over (transferred) to other journal for publication.
EDITORIAL AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

Manuscripts will be sent anonymously to reviewers with expertise in the appropriate area. All manuscripts will be rewieved by two
experts before JBSE’s accept them for publication. This process usually takes about two months. The journal co-editors will make minor
editorial changes; major changes will be made by the author(s) prior to publication if necessary. JBSE’s redaction will sent to author(s)
only one correcture which must be sent back within 2 weeks. JBSE will not review submissions previously published elsewhere through
print or electronic medium.
Manuscripts submitted to the JBSE cannot be returned to authors. Authors should be sure to keep a copy for themselves. Authors’
signatures should be at the end of the paper and its second checked proofs.
Manuscripts, editorial correspondence (and other correspondence for subscription and exchange), and any questions should be
sent to editor-in-chief or to regional redactors.
Journal`s requirements for the authors are available online: http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/files/JBSE_requirements_2019.pdf
687
ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/, ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
Compiled by: Vincentas Lamanauskas

Linguistic Editor: Ilona Ratkevičienė
Cover design by: Jurgina Jankauskienė
Layout design by : Linas Janonis

15 August 2020. Publishing in Quires 11. Edition 90
Publisher Scientia Socialis Ltd.,

Donelaicio Street 29, LT-78115 Siauliai, Lithuania
E-mail: scientia@scientiasocialis.lt
Phone: +370 687 95668
http://www.jbse.webinfo.lt/centras.htm
http://www.scientiasocialis.lt

Printing Šiauliai printing house
9A P. Lukšio Street
LT-76207 Šiauliai, Lithuania
Phone: +370 41 500 333.
Fax: +370 41 500 336
E-mail: info@dailu.lt

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol.19, No.

Published since 2002 Address:

ISSN 1648–3898 (Print) © Scientia Socialis Ltd., a member of the Lithuanian

ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

WHO IS AND SHOULD BE A SCIENCE TEACHER

UPPER-SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ APPROACHES TO SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS IN AN

THE INFLUENCE OF INTERACTION WITH NATURE IN CHILDHOOD ON FUTURE PRO-

TRENDS AND FOUNDATIONS IN RESEARCH ON STUDENTS’ CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING IN

PHYSICS TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE PHYSICS EDUCATION

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF USING THE BLENDED LEARNING APPROACH FOR STEM-RELATED

THE IMPACT OF PHYSICAL MOLECULAR MODELS ON STUDENTS' VISUO-SEMIOTIC REASONING

THE SCIENCE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS' IMAGINE

DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY SKILLS OF SCIENCE TEACHING THROUGH ARGUMENT-

EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF GUIDANCE IN A COMPUTER DETECTIVE GAME FOR SCIENCE

DEFINING TEACHER OWNERSHIP: A SCIENCE EDUCATION CASE STUDY TO DETERMINE

INFLUENCING FACTORS OF 10TH GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE CAREER EXPECTATIONS: A

INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687

WHO IS AND SHOULD BE A SCIENCE TEACHER

Received: July 15, 2020 Accepted: August 05, 2020

IN AN EXAMINATION DRIVEN ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/

CURRICULUM CONTEXT Abstract: This research explored upper-

Science Experiments in Context and Their Worth

A Framework for Students’ Approaches to Science Experiments

Subject combination Number of students

Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics 79

Instrument and Procedures

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .895

Bartlett‘s Test of Sphericity χ 2

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .937

Bartlett‘s Test of Sphericity χ 2

Factor 1: Iterative Factor 2: Linear Factor 3: Divergent

Factor 1: Iterative (∝ = .929, mean = 3.09, SD = 1.36)

NFI RFI IFI TLI

Default model .958 .949 .988 .985 .988

Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Student 1 4.32* 3.51 1.54 Iterative 79

Thank you for agreeing to complete this questionnaire.

No. Item Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always

ASEQ 1 When planning a science investigation, I consider many options before

Received: May 04, 2020 Accepted: August 05, 2020

Abstract. Pro-environmental behavior is a Šárka Doležalová Křepelková,

Significant Life Experiences

Correlation and Comparative Research Studies

Research Studies of a Mediated Connection

Research Aim and Research Questions

Instrument and Procedures

Measured variable Scale Items (N) Researcher(s) Reliability

Long-Term Childhood Experiences 10

1. GEB - .17** -.02 .02 .31** .38** .32**

Direct Connection between Interaction with Nature and Pro-Environmental Behavior

Indirect Connection between Interaction with Nature and Pro-Environmental Behavior

Conclusions and Implications

Environmental Concern (Dutcher et al., 2007)

Received: April 27, 2020 Accepted: August 01, 2020

Šárka Doležalová MSc, et Mgr., Research Assistant, Department of Environmental

IN SCIENCE EDUCATION: ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/

A METHOD BASED ON THE

Abstract. This study aims to reveal the

The above analysis revealed three significant questions to be answered:

The 20 most probable words of each topic were as follows:

Topic Document 1 Document 2 Document 3 Document 4 Document 5

Topic Document 1 Document 2 Document 3 Document 4 Document 5

The Correlations between Topics

The Prevalence of Sub-Topics

1. GEB - .17 -.02 .02 .31 .38 .32