Sci & Educ (2009) 18:609–629 DOI 10.1007/s11191-008-9139-5
Teaching Physics to In-Service Primary School Teachers in the Context of the History of Science: The Case of Falling Bodies Panos Kokkotas Æ Panagiotis Piliouras Æ Katerina Malamitsa Æ Efthymios Stamoulis
Published online: 4 March 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008
Abstract Our paper presents an in-service primary school teachers’ training program which is based on the idea that the history of science can play a vital role in promoting the learning of physics. This training program has been developed in the context of Comenius 2.1 which is a European Union program. This program that we have developed in the University of Athens is based on socioconstructivist and sociocultural learning principles with the intention of helping teachers to appropriate the basic knowledge on the issue of falling bodies. Moreover, it has the aim to make explicit through the exploitation of authentic historical science events, on the above topic (Aristotle’s, Galileo’s and Newton’s theories on falling bodies) the Nature of Science (NoS), the Nature of Learning (NoL) and the Nature of Teaching (NoT). During the implementation of the program we have used a variety of teaching strategies (e.g. group work, making of posters, making of concept maps, simulations) that utilize historical scientific materials on the issue of falling bodies.
1 Introduction Our study has as its theme the presentation of an in-service primary school teachers’ training program which is based on the potential role that history of science has for promoting the learning of physics. This training program has been developed in the context of Comenius 2.1 which is a European program and is named ‘‘The MAP prOject’’. It is a science teachers’ training program based on science education and on history of science. These two disciplines are the two main pillars of the development of the science teachers’ training curriculum. ‘‘The MAP prOject’’ aims: • To make a productive synthesis of the contemporary theoretical insights and research outcomes both of the history of science and of science education in order to produce embedded in practice in-service science teachers’ training strategies. P. Kokkotas (&) P. Piliouras K. Malamitsa E. Stamoulis Pedagogical Department, University of Athens, Athens 10680, Greece e-mail:
[email protected] 123
610
P. Kokkotas et al.
• To develop and evaluate innovative training conditions for in-service science teachers by using case studies from the history of science. The MAP prOject is an acronym formed by the names of the European cities where the five co-operating institutions come from, that is: Thessaloniki (The), Madrid (M), Athens (A), Pavia (P), Oldenburg (O). Thessaloniki (Pedagogical Department of Primary Education, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki) Madrid (Didactic of Experimental Sciences, University Complutense of Madrid) Athens (Pedagogical Department of Primary Education, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) Pavia (Department of Physics ‘‘Alessandro Volta’’, Universita` di Pavia) prOject (Oldenburg-Physics Education/History and Philosophy of Science, Institute of Physics, Carl von Ossietzky University). In the implementation of the program, the partners contributed their respective expertise in the various aspects of history of science and of science education (Kokkotas et al. 1998; Kokkotas 2003a; Bevilacqua and Giannetto 1998; Matthews et al. 2001; Riess 2000; Seroglou and Koumaras 2001; Seroglou 2002; Moreno 2001; Heering 2000) with the aim of the optimization of the possible ways that history of science and science education can be interrelated in the development of in-service science teachers training programs. In this paper we present the procedure that we have followed in developing the part of the program that was executed in the University of Athens. We will try to answer the question whether the implementation of our training program contributed to a better understanding on the part of the trainees of the scientific concepts concerning falling bodies and whether it has enhanced their knowledge and insight about the NoS, NoT and NoL. We have used four types of activities to attain our goal: (a)
The elicitation of science teachers views concerning the NoS, NoL and NoT on the basis of a review of the international literature on the above mentioned issues. (b) The design and development of an in-service science teachers’ training curriculum (goals, content, strategies, educational material, assessment process) that is based on the exploitation of historical scientific views on falling bodies. (c) Teaching the in-service training program in Athens. (d) Evaluating the in-service training program.
2 History of Science and Science Education In recent years, historians, philosophers of science and educators have repeatedly drawn attention to the potential role that history of science can play in promoting the learning of science (Matthews 1994). Researchers have shown that the incorporation of history of science into the teaching of science and teachers’ training programs is effective into leading students and teachers to a better understanding of the scientific concepts and of the nature of science (Seroglou and Koumaras 2001; Nott and Wellington 1998). Many contemporary curricula emphasize the link between science education and history of science (e.g. Project 2061). History of science can enable students to get an insight into the principles of science and to obtain an appreciation of the values of the scientific endeavor. We believe that the linking of history of science to science education in science teachers’
123
The Case of Falling Bodies
611
training programs in which teachers participate in an active collaborative, inquisitive mode enables them to gradually appropriate, the contemporary meaning of the NoS, NoL and NoT.
3 Tracing the Contemporary Assumptions about the NoS, NoT and NoL and their Implication in Science Teachers’ Professional Development For us the professional development of science teachers goes beyond the term ‘training’ in its current meaning of mechanically learning skills. On the contrary a broader approach is needed, an approach that includes the teaching of both formal and informal means in order to help teachers not only learn new skills but also develop new insights into pedagogy, insights that should be incorporated in their own teaching practice. We consider that the teaching practice has many dimensions. From the point of view of pedagogy, five of the most important ones, apart from the knowledge of content, are: • • • • •
Teachers’ Teachers’ Teachers’ Teachers’ Teachers’
knowledge and understanding of the NoS conceptions of their own role use of discourse views on learning goals views about the nature of classroom activities.
(Bartholomew et al. 2004) All these dimensions are related explicitly or implicitly with three basic aspects of science education: the NoS, the NoL, and the NoT. We argue that any contemporary teachers’ professional development program should be based and focused on the contemporary views on these three disciplines. In the first months of ‘‘The MAP prOject’’ we conducted a research in cooperation with the four other participating universities, using as research instrument a questionnaire that was designed to investigate science teachers’ views on the NoS, NoT and NoL, as they were elicited from their understanding of the issue of falling bodies. Our aims were firstly to assess their knowledge and then elicit their views on history of science and on science education and finally to assess their scientific knowledge on the theory of the gravitational force.
4 The Content of the Questionnaire The questionnaire had four parts the first of which referred to the demographic characteristics of the respondents. The other three ones contained on the whole 21 questions. The second one contained eight questions that aimed to detect the teachers’ views on the NoS. This part was based (with small alterations) on the Views on Science-Technology-Society questionnaire (VOSTS) (Aikenhead et al. 1989; Ryan and Aikenhead 1992). The VOSTS, as Aikenhead et al. support, is an inventory of student viewpoints about science, and about how science is related to technology and society. Indeed, the VOSTS was based in authentic Canadian high school students’ views on the above issues. From this research tool we chose eight questions that are related mainly with issues about the NoS (e.g. ‘‘What is science?’’, ‘‘What is scientific method?’’ etc.). The third part dealt in an indirect way, with science teachers’ views on the NoL and NoT. The seven questions of this part were properly adapted from a science questionnaire
123
612
P. Kokkotas et al.
Table 1 Demographic information of the sample Degrees—Work
Total
Perspective teacher Perspective teacher of Teacher in of primary education secondary education primary education Country Germany Greece Italy Total
Teacher in secondary education
–
10
–
22
32
25
2
106
37
170
–
4
1
30
35
25
16
107
89
237
that was used in the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. The 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education—a survey was prepared by Horizon Research, Inc., with support from the National Science Foundation—was designed to provide information and to identify trends in the areas of teacher background and experience, curriculum and instruction, and on the availability and use of instructional resources of K-12 science and math education in the United States (Weiss et al. 2001). The fourth part aimed to elicit science teachers’ views on the ‘‘falling bodies’’. The seven questions were designed (Driver et al. 1994) on the basis of the alternative ideas of the constructivist literature on falling bodies. The research instrument (see a representative sample of the questionnaire in Appendix 1) was created in the University of Athens and was initially presented in a pilot study to 40 Greek primary school science teachers. Subsequently, it was appropriately amended and in its final version was sent to all partners of ‘‘The MAP prOject’’ in order to use it for data collection purposes. In Table 1 we can see the demographic information of the participants in the research. In closing this section we want to stress the fact that we are aware of the criticism concerning the use of questionnaires with single tick responses for the assessment of science teachers’ views, concerning the NoS, NoL, and NoT (Aikenhead 1988; Lederman et al. 1998), and we agree that the follow-up interviews where it is possible to check the respondents understanding of the issues are the principal source of an instrument’s validity of evidence. On the other hand, and in view of the restricted time in our disposal and as we wanted to collect data of teachers’ views on the NoS, NoT and NoL from different countries (Greece, Italy and Germany—the countries1 in which the four participating universities are located), in order to shape a broader image from the way that the training programs in the four universities could be designed we chose as a realistic quantitative method for gathering and analysing the required data, the empirically derived, multiplechoice response mode (for part 2 and 4 of the questionnaire) that, as Aikenhead and Ryan (1992) have supported, can reduce the ambiguity of the answer of the respondents. 5 The Changing Views on the NoS and Science Teachers’ Professional Development Science education is not a static field but a dynamic one. It evolves in direct relation to the development in the society which it serves. One of the most important factors that led to the change of the direction of science education is the gradual change of our views on the NoS (Kokkotas 2003b). 1
The Spanish partner withdrew from the project due to personal reasons.
123
The Case of Falling Bodies
613
It is argued that a widely held contemporary view on this issue is that ‘‘science is dynamic, changing and tentative. Science is not a static collection of facts. We can not take current scientific knowledge to be complete and final’’ (Bell et al. 2000). Lemke (2001, p. 298) supports that: Historians, sociologists, and cultural anthropologists came increasingly to see that science had to be understood as a very human activity whose focus of interest and theoretical dispositions in any historical period were, and are, a part of the dominant cultural and political issues of the day. The teaching of the NoS in schools and the training of teachers in it have attracted the attention of the Science Education research community (e.g. Hodson 1988; Matthews 1998; McComas et al. 1998; Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000; Jenkins 1996). Studies have shown that high school science students and in-service teachers’ views on the NoS are not consistent with the currently accepted definitions of it (Lederman 1992; Ryan and Aikenhead 1992; Driver et al. 1996; Leach et al. 2000; Lederman et al. 1998). For example, most teachers and students believe that all scientific investigations adhere to an identical set and sequence of steps known as the scientific method (McComas 1996), and do not recognize the fact that scientists disciplinary training and commitments, as well as their personal experiences, preferences, and philosophical assumptions do influence their work (Akerson et al. 2000). We present the results and our interpretation of two questions concerning teachers’ views on the NoS, stressing again that we are aware of the weakness of the instrument we use in relation to qualitative methods such as interviews which are more effective in capturing the nature of teachers’ or students’ conceptions of science. As you can see in the Table 2 in the first question of the questionnaire teachers had to read the statements and then choose the one that probably fitted best their opinion. In Table 2 we can see that 34.3% of all respondents chose the statement that ‘‘science is an objective, logical, and repeatable attempt’’, and a percentage of 18.2% chose the statement that ‘‘science is a truth-seeking process’’. These results are in accordance with the findings of other researchers (e.g. Bartholomew et al. 2004; Lederman et al. 1998;
Table 2 Question 1: What, in your view, is science?
N
%
Science is a truth-seeking process. It is not a collection of unquestionable ‘‘truths’’
43
18.2
Science is an objective, logical, and repeatable attempt to understand the principles and forces operating in the natural universe
81
34.3
Science can prove anything, solve any problem, or answer any question
1
0.4
Science is primarily concerned with understanding how the natural world works
70
29.4
Science involves dealing with many uncertainties
16
6.7
2
0.8
Science is a self-correcting discipline—Such corrections may take a long time but as scientific knowledge accumulates the chance of making substantial errors decreases I don’t understand I don’t know enough about this subject to make a choice None of these choices fits my basic viewpoint Total
5
2.1
16
6.8
3
1.3
237 100
123
614
P. Kokkotas et al.
Leach et al. 2000). These researchers claim that a significant proportion of postgraduate students and science teachers have a not so adequate awareness of the tentative nature of scientific knowledge. In another question science teachers were asked to read the statements and then to choose one statement that fits better to their opinion about the nature of scientific method. In Table 3 we can see that the majority of respondents are in favor of the opinion that ‘‘scientific method is questioning, hypothesizing, collecting data and concluding’’ (56.9%). The other responses have less percentages apart from the view that ‘‘scientific method is postulating a theory, then creating the experiment to prove it’’, which attracted 17.7% of the respondents. Both of these views show that teachers adopt a very specific opinion about scientific method, which may be regarded possibly as something steady. On the contrary more informed and contemporary accepted views on the NoS and the scientific methods have attracted a smaller percentage of the respondents. For example ‘‘Testing and retesting—proving something true or false in a valid way’’ have been selected by 8.8% of the respondents. Bell et al. (2000) support that: … the overly simplified hypothetico-deductive method that is frequently given as the only example of scientific methodology in the initial chapters of textbooks is not the only way science progresses. McComas et al. (1998) claim that there is not only one way to do science, and therefore, there is not a universal step-by-step scientific method but they are methods that characterize science in contrast to other forms of inquiry. As the sampling took place in three different countries and as the groups of science teachers were of different professional status, we are not allowed to generalize our conclusions. Nonetheless, a few points were made apparent from the choices made by the science teachers in all participating countries: • In our research, science teachers chose statements that indicated a variety of views on the NoS. Most of them, as other researches have also indicated (e.g. Bartholomew et al. 2004; Lederman et al. 1998; Leach et al. 2000), chose statements that show not such an adequate recognition of the tentative nature of scientific knowledge. On the contrary they mainly indicate a predilection for empiricist views on the NoS. • Most of the participating science teachers regarded scientific method as something steady, as a universal step-by-step objective procedure.
Table 3 Question 3. When scientists investigate nature, it is said that they follow the scientific method. N The scientific method is: Controlling experimental variables carefully, leaving no room for interpretation Considering what scientists actually do, there really is no such thing as the scientific method
%
12
5.1
4
1.7
Testing and retesting—proving something true or false in a valid way
21
8.8
Postulating a theory then creating an experiment to prove it
42
17.7
Questioning, hypothesizing, collecting data and concluding
135
56.9
A logical and widely accepted approach to problem solving
7
3.0
None of these choices fits my basic viewpoint
8
3.4
8
3.4
I don’t know enough about this subject to make a choice Total
123
237 100
The Case of Falling Bodies
615
• The majority of science teachers held the view that ‘‘scientific discoveries result from a logical series of investigations’’. Furthermore, the majority of the respondents seemed to ignore the fact that the history of science reveals both an evolutionary and a revolutionary character inherent in scientific knowledge. The result of our study is in agreement with other studies which have shown that high school science students’ and in-service teachers’ views on the NoS are not consistent with the currently accepted definitions of it. According to McComas (1996) most of the teachers and students believe that all scientific investigations adhere to an identical set and sequence of steps known as scientific method. In conclusion, we could say that our research demonstrated the teachers’ need for a better understanding of the contemporary accepted views on the NoS. In responding to this need we followed in the development of the training program, the principle of the explicit instruction about NoS, encouraging teachers to study and compare the views, on falling bodies, of some important philosophers and scientists such as Aristotle, Galileo and Newton and the utilization of historical scientific theories to present the social and cultural aspects of the NoS.
6 The Changing Views on the NoL and NoT and Science Teachers’ Professional Development The last two decades there has been a shift from perspectives that adopt individual constructivist assumptions (e.g. Tobin 1993; Von Glasersfeld 1995) to socioconstructivist, sociocultural and discursive ones (e.g. Solomon 1993; Driver 1995; Lemke 2001; Mortimer and Scott 2003; Wells 1999). The central point of the critique coming from sociocultural approaches is that reasoning is a phenomenon that shows considerable variability depending on the cultural context in which it occurs, the meaning of the task at hand and the tools available (e.g. Cole 1996; Lave 1996; Rogoff 2003). The shift towards socioconstructivist and sociocultural views on the NoL and NoT creates major conflicts with the fundamental teaching beliefs of many science teachers and educators. Some of the fundamental educational principles of sociocultural perspectives are the following (Wells and Claxton 2002): • Learning is mediated by tools and signs. • Learning is an inherently social-dialogical activity. • The kind of learning that leads development takes place through active participation in purposeful, collaborative activity. • Human development depends on the appropriation and reconstruction by each individual of the resources that have been developed within their culture. • Support learning occurs primarily through ‘‘legitimate peripheral participation’’ (Lave and Wenger 1991). • Among individual members, both students and teachers, there are different identities and values that have their origins in cultural, linguistic, class and gender differences, as well as in individual trajectories of experience and current levels of performance. Despite the overwhelming push towards teaching methods involving collaborative research and inquiry, there is little evidence that these practices occur in science classrooms. Many studies on the role of the teacher in relation to the socioconstructivist and sociocultural approaches have established the conviction that most of the teachers have not
123
616
P. Kokkotas et al.
been familiarized with the constructive and sociocultural learning principles and function mainly as dispensers of knowledge and less as facilitators, they are closed and authoritative and not open and dialogic (e.g. Nystrand et al. 1997; Newton et al. 1999). Many scholars have promoted a social constructivist view of learning in teacher professional development (e.g. Tobin 1993; Bell and Gilbert 1996). Others have proposed a sociocultural one (e.g. Matusof and Hayes 2002; Wells 2002). Teachers’ professional development programs inspired by the sociocultural approach are based on the assumption that learning is a community process of transformation and of participation in sociocultural activities (e.g. Rogoff et al. 1996; Rogoff 2003). A sociocultural view of learning suggests a situated work model which is more likely to engage science teachers in activities and interactions that are directly related to their practices (Fletcher 2002). Situated action has the potential for teachers to re-examine their practice within the context of their every-day work enabling them to evaluate outcomes as they relate to their teaching experiences and their students’ learning needs. We shall present some of the results of our research in the initial stage of ‘‘The MAP prOject’’ that concern primary school science teachers views on the NoL and NoT. In question 8 that concerns teachers’ views on the NoL (see Appendix 1) most of the respondents (67.7%) agreed with the socioconstructivistic assumption that ‘‘Learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/ past knowledge’’. A percentage of 14.1% of the respondents chose the cognitive constructivist statement that ‘‘Learning is a process of building cognitive structures’’. This result indicates that respondents are at least theoretically informed about constructivist approaches and do not hesitate to adopt such assumptions about the NoL. However, research has shown that many times the constructivist theoretical assumptions that teachers theoretically adopt are in opposition to their more traditional pedagogical practices (e.g. Tobin 1993). On the contrary, we concluded from the teachers’ choices that they have not been familiarized with the constructivist approach as they didn’t adopt statements such as ‘‘Learning is a search for meaning’’ (0.9%), ‘‘Learning is an act of membership in a community of practice’’ (1.4%), ‘‘Learning is a co-construction (or reconstruction) of social meanings emerging from socially negotiated and discursive activity’’ (5.9%) and ‘‘Learning is a process of social apprenticeship’’ (1.4%) which are statements that belong in a sociocultural approach. This implied that in our training programs we should create the conditions so that these epistemological and ontological issues about the NoL may emerge and be discussed. A basic strategy to achieve this goal was to design a training program that it was based on socioconstructivist and sociocultural principles. We maintain that it is difficult if not impossible for science teachers to teach with the appropriate ways if they don’t experience in practice the meaningful training procedures of these teaching and learning strategies. In question 10 (see Appendix 1) the vast majority of respondents (‘‘fairly well prepared’’—45.4% plus ‘‘very well prepared’’—28%) support that they are well prepared to’’Take students’ prior understanding into account when planning curriculum and instruction’’. Research in science teachers’ practices does not confirm these statements (e.g. Kokkotas 2003a). But the majority of respondents (‘‘not adequately prepared’’— 26% plus ‘‘somewhat prepared’’—38.6%) supported that they were not prepared to ‘‘Make connections between science and history of science’’. Additionally, in question 13 the vast majority of the respondents declared that either sometimes (39.6%) or seldom (34.0%) use examples from the history of science when they teach science. This means that history of science does not seem to be a popular subject among the participants in
123
The Case of Falling Bodies
617
the research. Also, in question 10, the vast majority of respondents (‘‘somehow prepared’’—29%, plus ‘‘fairly well prepared’’—45.4% plus ‘‘very well prepared’’—28%) supported that they were well prepared to’’Have students work in cooperative learning groups’’. These views of teachers are in opposition to a series of situated in praxis studies that indicate that most of the teachers don’t have the appropriate cooperative competencies (e.g. Lazarowitz and Hertz-Lazarowitz 1998). Also the majority of respondents (‘‘not adequately prepared’’—22.4% plus ‘‘somewhat prepared’’—38.3%) supported that they were not prepared to’’Guide a class of students using investigative strategies’’. Finally the majority of respondents (‘‘not adequately prepared’’—47.7% plus ‘‘somewhat prepared’’—23.1%) declared that they were not prepared to’’Use computers for simulations and demonstration of scientific principles’’. We proceed in question 14, which intended to elicit science teachers background knowledge about the history of the evolution of theories of falling bodies (Aristotle’s, Galileo’s & Newton’s), and other issues such as how prepared they feel to use strategies that relate science education to the history of science. The majority of the science teachers (‘‘not adequately prepared’’—44.7% plus ‘‘somewhat prepared’’—26.5%) supported that they were not well informed about aspects that concern ‘‘Aristotle’s view on falling bodies’’. This has important consequences in the way they teach science, as it is difficult for one who doesn’t know the ‘‘paradigms’’ of falling bodies to implement strategies that relate science education with the history of science (Matthews 1994). Science teachers supported that they were well informed about aspects that concern ‘‘Newton’s view on falling bodies’’. We believe that this is something normal, since for years they had been trained in the physics of the Newtonian ‘‘paradigm’’. In conclusion, our research demonstrated teachers’ need for better understanding of the contemporary accepted views on the NoL and NoT. Science teachers, as it seems from their choices, weren’t so well prepared to use pedagogical strategies such as: make connections between science and history of science, guide a class of students using investigative strategies, and exploiting computer simulations. Science teachers, as it seems from their choices, weren’t also well prepared to use strategies such as: debate—argumentation activities, role playing, simulations, concept maps and utilization of events of the history of science. Additionally, in the design of the training program we took into account some broadly accepted positions and directions that they should characterize every contemporary training program. The review of the literature in science education research has shown that the design of teachers’ in-service training programs has to be in accordance with the following fundamental principles (Kokkotas 2003a): (a)
The aim of teachers’ in-service training is by using their views and practices to achieve appropriation of knowledge and competencies in some important teaching and learning aspects of science. (b) In-service science teachers following a professional development program are learners who actively construct their own theories about teaching and learning. This is achieved through their personal teaching experience and determined by their attitudes and beliefs. (c) The quality, breadth, and flexibility of practices teachers use in the classroom are tightly connected to their professional development. (d) In-service science teachers who attend professional development programs improve their teaching and learning skills by interacting with their colleagues and by expanding their experience on the processes of teaching and learning.
123
618
P. Kokkotas et al.
(e)
The teaching and learning processes receive continuously support from teachers who attend professional development programs, and offer opportunities allowing them to interact with colleagues and exchange experiences on these processes.
7 Our Proposal: Science Teacher Professional Development as a Process of Collaborative/Dialogic Inquiry Each of the models for teacher education is aligned implicitly or explicitly with a particular theory or theories of learning and has different implications for the nature of a teacher development program, because different models predict different roles for teacher and trainers, different training materials, different curriculum organization, and different timeframes. The traditional teacher-centered model in which knowledge is ‘‘transmitted’’ from the trainer to the trainee is being rapidly replaced by alternative models of teacher professional development (constructivist and sociocultural ones) in which the emphasis is on guiding and supporting teachers as they learn how to construct their understanding of the culture and the communities they participate (Duffy and Cunningham 1996; Rogoff 2003). In the process of shifting our attention to the constructive activity of the teacher, it is necessary to anchor learning in real-world or authentic contexts that make teacher professional development meaningful and purposeful. The current emphasis is to embed knowledge and competencies appropriation within a framework of teacher professional development, collaborative programs, and interactive research within a community of learners. We believe that professional development should be seen as a social process of enculturation in a work practice. So we propose a model of professional development that is based on participation and collaborative activities (Bruner 1996). For the designing of science teachers’ training program we adopted socioconstructivist and sociocultural learning principles and we were based on the potential role that history of science may play in the promoting of the learning of science. Our aim was the training program to be characterized by the following: • To make explicit through the exploitation of authentic historical scientific events the contemporary views on the NoS (explicit instruction about the NoS). • To include a variety of teaching and learning strategies (e.g. group work, debates— argumentation, concept maps, role playing, making posters, creating interviews, simulations) that exploit authentic historical scientific events on the topic of falling bodies. • To facilitate learning/training and professional development through collaborative inquiry activities among trainer and in-service science teachers (learning is an inherently social-dialogical activity). An oriented in collaborative inquiry training program should involve teachers in conversations about common experiences and in the development of collaborative projects (e.g. collaborative construction of a poster). • To involve science teachers in collaborative activities in order to develop their own educational instructional material (e.g. worksheets). We believe that when teachers are given the opportunity to research their own practice, collaboratively and with support, they establish what works for them and their students. This could become a creative transformative process that is participant-driven. • To contextualize training, learning, and joint productive activity in the experiences and competencies of in-service science teachers (knowledge is embedded in practice)
123
The Case of Falling Bodies
619
and to anchor training/professional development in real-world or authentic problems of science teaching that make science teacher professional development meaningful and purposeful (learning is embedded in the activities and practices in which it occurs). Our overall aim was teachers to re-examine their role in the classroom and try to transform their teaching methods, procedures and approaches. We believe that every science teacher training procedure should pursue the gradual shifting of the views of teachers from traditional to contemporary aspects about the NoS, NoT and NoL.
8 An Overview of the Training Program The program we have developed in the University of Athens is based on socioconstructivist and sociocultural learning principles with the aim to help teachers to appropriate basic knowledge on the topic of falling bodies and to make explicit through the use of historical scientific events on the above topic (Aristotle’s, Galileo’s and Newton’s interpretations on falling bodies) the contemporary views on the NoS, NoL, and NoT. In the implementation of the program we exploited a variety of teaching and learning strategies (e.g. debates—argumentation, group work, making posters, concept maps, and simulations) that use historical scientific events on the topic of falling bodies. In the context of the training program a series of eight lessons was produced and implemented. These lessons were accompanied by appropriately designed worksheets that exploited a variety of learning strategies. These are the following: 1. The changing views on the Nature of Learning (NoL) and the Nature of Teaching (NoT) 2. The changing views on the Nature of Science (NoS) 3. Aristotle’s views on falling bodies 4. Galileo’s views on falling bodies 5. The falling bodies and the Nature of Science (NoS) in the cosmological models proposed by Aristotle and Galileo 6. Newton’s views on falling bodies 7. Design a worksheet for teaching the topic of the motion of the planets around the Sun 8. Space trips. In the meetings of the program the focus was on teachers’ participation in activities that actively involved them, in discussions and actions that concerned issues about the NoS, NoT and NoL through the use of historical scientific events on the topic of falling bodies. Under the perspective of the program, learning was a collaboratively and socially constructed entity, rather than an individual possession. Teacher learning was a collaborative inquiry process as teachers interacted with their peers by discussing a topic and by engaging in activities with the guidance of the instructor who was particular experienced in the specific field.
9 A Training/Educational Scenario Concerning the Study of Aristotle’s Views on the Falling Bodies In order to make explicit the procedure of the training program, and with the experience of the implementation of this program for two academic semesters, we proceed in the
123
620
P. Kokkotas et al.
description of a specific training meeting. More specifically, we will make an elaborate description of a possible training/educational scenario that could concern the study of Aristotle’s views on falling bodies and the opportunities that are created for science teachers with the appropriate guidance of the instructor to negotiate issues concerning the NoS, NoL and NoT. In Appendix 2 we present the corresponding worksheet that in-service science teachers can have at their disposal during the training procedure. The pedagogical and didactical procedure we propose in this training lesson concerns the implementation of a worksheet that could include the utilization of the following strategies: • • • •
Reading texts from the history of science relative to the life and the work of Aristotle. Science teachers’ collaborative work under the guidance of the instructor. Using simulations to present or represent Aristotle’s views on falling bodies. Creative ways of communication and presentation of the collaborative work of science teachers teams in the plenary session [poster design, slide creation, journalistic reportage and an interview with the philosopher (Aristotle)].
The duration of the session was about 120 min teaching. The activities that were included in the worksheet were designed for collaborative work so it was preferable if not necessary for science teachers to work in groups. In order to facilitate the learning process the teacher has to choose suitable texts from Aristotle’s Physics and appropriately prepare the lesson. For example, in the case of Greek science teachers, we used a Greek book (Paleopoulou-Stathopoulou and KoukopoulouArnellou 1999) that has as its subject the cosmological thinking during a period of 2,500 years (from ancient years until now). In the 1st and the 2nd questions of the worksheet and after the science teachers or students had studied the corresponding texts in small groups one could start a discussion about the Aristotelian interpretation on falling bodies. It is necessary to select appropriate texts from history of science’s books that are referring to Aristotle’s view on the causes of falling bodies and his view on the positions of the earth and the sun in the universe. A synopsis of Aristotle’s view on the ‘‘cosmological model’’ and the ‘‘theory of bodies’ motion’’ that are included in the book of Paleopoulou-Stathopoulou and KoukopoulouArnellou would be useful for the instructor in order to coordinate the discussion of the teams in the plenary session that will follow the group discussions. [For example: Natural Motion: is the motion towards the ‘‘natural place’’ of a body. The cause of natural motion of the bodies is their substance. Impetuous Motion: is the motion towards any direction except of that of the ‘‘natural place’’ of a body. The cause of impetuous motion is an external force. The motion lasts as long as the body is in contact with the cause. The forces are exercised only when there is a contact point. The speed of the body is proportional to the force.] The presentation in a transparency of the synopsis of Aristotle’s view on falling bodies is proposed to take place at the end of the session because in the beginning they should express their views and opinions freely and spontaneously. During the 1st and 2nd questions trainees should be enabled to record their views, to discuss and to argue about the target topic. During the discussion in the work group and in the plenary session the instructor should offer the appropriate guidance to them. In the context of 3rd question, trainees based on the historical texts and the discussion that took place previously, write down the specific Aristotelian ‘‘laws’’ on falling bodies (for example: ‘‘The bodies move towards their ‘natural place’ depending on their substance’’). In the 4th question trainees are invited to compare the interpretation of falling bodies that Aristotle suggests and the one they have been taught at school. A further step is to
123
The Case of Falling Bodies
621
make a discussion about the rationale of the Aristotle’s interpretation. The process of interpretation will offer to the instructor a ‘fertile field’ to investigate students’ views on the NoS. When the groups have answered the four questions the instructor may invite them to present their answers and their opinions in front of the whole class by choosing one of the following ways: poster design, slide creation, report presentation, and interview with the philosopher (Aristotle).
10 The Implementation of the Program The MAP prOject’s training program was implemented in the University of Athens during a period of two semesters. The teachers who participated in the courses of the ‘‘The MAP prOject’’ were involved actively in the implementation of the project and expressed their opinions about it giving a crucial feedback for its improvement. According to their own words they were satisfied by the courses they attended, where they were involved in the performing of the training activities. ‘‘The comparative presentation of Aristotle’s, Galileo’s, and Newton’s theories as well as their alternative interpretations of the same phenomenology (falling of bodies), offered to the trainees the opportunity to understand the efforts towards a better understanding of the Nature of the Science, the ideas of scientific evolution and revolution, as well as the social and personal resistances to theoretical changes in science’’ (comments from one of the two external evaluators of the project). Teachers by using the worksheets of the program and with the guidance of the trainers worked cooperatively, made their own worksheets and so doing they made productive use of a variety of teaching tools that they presented in plenary sessions as groups. Picture 1
Picture 1 Aristotle cosmological view—making a poster
123
622
P. Kokkotas et al.
concerns a teachers’ group presentation of the Aristotelian cosmological model with the use of a poster. In Picture 2 is presented an imaginary interview with Aristotle that a team of trainees created in order to present to the whole classroom the Aristotelian cosmological model. In Picture 3 is presented a concept map that was constructed by another group in order to demonstrate to the whole class a comparison of Aristotle’s and Galileo’s views on the falling bodies.
Picture 2 Aristotle cosmological view—making an interview
123
The Case of Falling Bodies
623
Picture 3 Aristotle cosmological view—making a concept map
11 Conclusions The monitoring and the evaluation of the training procedure in the University of Athens indicated very positive results. The conclusions from the monitoring and the evaluation process are the following: • The courses of ‘‘The MAP project’’ satisfied the specific needs of science in-service teachers. • ‘‘The MAP project’’ courses make explicit to the target group the contemporary views on NoS, NoL, and NoT, through the utilization of authentic historical science events. • The implemented courses creatively exploited a variety of teaching and learning strategies by using historical scientific events on the topic of the falling bodies. • The implemented courses actively involved teachers in activities (e.g. worksheet construction). This had as a result that trained teachers developed their own educational instructional material in which is appropriately used the history of science as a method of teaching science. • The feedback from the presentation of ‘‘The MAP prOject’’ in many international and national conferences indicates that the produced work was useful for opening new ‘‘horizons’’ in the educational practice. Furthermore, we believe that the project outcomes helped in service teachers to: • Improve their knowledge on history of science. • Understand how material or case studies from history of science can be used to improve science teaching.
123
624
P. Kokkotas et al.
• Become able to teach science efficiently by using a variety of learning and teaching strategies and also to develop metadidactical competencies, such as the awareness of what understanding of the NoS, NoT, and NoL they present to their students.
Appendix 1: A sample of the questionnaire Part 2: The nature of science 1. What, in your view, is science? Please read from 1 to 9, and then choose (darken) one statement that fits better to your opinion. Science is a truth-seeking process. It is not a collection of unquestionable "truths." Science is an objective, logical, and repeatable attempt to understand the principles and forces operating in the natural universe. Science can prove anything, solve any problem, or answer any question. Science is primarily concerned with understanding how the natural world works. Science involves dealing with many uncertainties. Science is a self -correcting discipline. Such corrections may take a long time but as scientific knowledge accumulates the chance of making substantial errors decreases. I don’t understand. I don’t know enough about this subject to make a choice. None of these choices fits my basic viewpoint.
3. When scientists investigate nature, it is said that they follow the scientific method. The scientific method is: Please read from 1 to 9, and then choose (darken) one statement that fits better to your opinion. Controlling experimental variables carefully, leaving no room for interpretation. Considering what scientists actually do, there really is no such thing as the scientific method. Testing and retesting — proving something true or false in a valid way. Postulating a theory then creating an experiment to prove it. Questioning, hypothesizing, collecting data and concluding. A logical and widely accepted approach to problem solving. I don’t understand. I don’t know enough about this subject to make a choice. None of these choices fits my basic viewpoint.
7. Scientists should NOT make errors in their work because these errors slow the advance of science. Please read from 1 to 8, and then choose (darken) one statement that fits better to your opinion. A B
C D E F G H
Errors slow the advance of science. Misleading information can lead to false conclusions. If scientists don’t immediately correct the errors in their results, then science is not advancing. Errors slow the advance of science. New technology and equipment reduce errors by improving accuracy and so science will advance faster. Errors CANNOT be avoided: So scientists reduce errors by checking each others’ results until agreement is reached. Some errors can slow the advance of science, but other errors can lead to a new discovery or breakthrough. If scientists learn from their errors and correct them, science will advance. Errors most often help the advance of science. Science advances by detecting and correcting the errors of the past. I don’t understand. I don’t know enough about this subject to make a choice. None of these choices fits my basic viewpoint.
123
The Case of Falling Bodies
625
Part 3: Teaching and Learning in science classrooms 8. Please darken the statement that you agree the most
Learning is a search for meaning. Learning is the acquisition of new behavior. Learning is a process of building cognitive structures Learning is an act of membership in a “community of practice”. Learning is a process of peoples’ changing participation in sociocultural activities of their communities. Learning is a co-construction (or reconstruction) of social meanings emerging from socially negotiated and discursive activity Learning is a process of social apprenticeship Learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge.
10. Please indicate how well prepared you currently feel to do each of the following in your science instruction. (Darken one oval on each line.)
Not Somewhat Fairly Very Well Adequately Prepared Well Prepared Prepared Prepared
a. Take students’ prior understanding into account when planning curriculum and instruction b. Make connections between science and History of Science c. Have students work in cooperative learning groups d. Use the textbook as a resource rather than as the primary instructional tool e. Teach groups that are heterogeneous in ability f. Guide a class of students using investigative strategies g. Recognize and respond to students cultural diversity h. Use computers for simulations and demonstration of scientific principles
13. How frequently do you use the following teaching strategies in your class? (Darken one oval on each line.)
Very Frequently
Frequently
Sometimes
Seldom
Never
a. Laboratory activities b. Debates – Argumentation activities c. Problem solving d. Drama activities e. Field trips in Museums f. Group work h. Role Playing i. Telling Stories j. Open ended investigations k. Guided investigations l. Simulations m. Concept maps n. Library search o. Utilization of events of the History of science
14. Think about your plans for a physics course. You plan to teach the subject of ‘‘falling bodies’’.
123
626
P. Kokkotas et al.
A. Please indicate to what extent you have stable background knowledge on the following. (Darken one oval on each line.)
None
Minimal Moderate Heavy Emphasis Emphasis Emphasis
The history of the evolution of theories of falling bodies About the nature of science Physics of falling bodies Strategies that relate the science education with the History of science
B. Please indicate how well informed you currently feel about aspects that concern history of the evolution of falling bodies. Not Somewhat Fairly Very Well Adequately Prepared Well Prepared Prepared Prepared Aristotle’s view of falling bodies Galileo’s view of falling bodies Newton’s view of falling bodies Einstein’s view of falling bodies
Appendix 2 Worksheet 3: Aristotle views about the falling bodies In order to answer the following questions of the worksheet you need to study first Aristotle’s contribution in Physics constitution. For your information attached to the worksheet is a relevant text. 1. What is Aristotle’s view about the causes of falling bodies? What role does the material of the falling body play? ……………………………………………………………………….…………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2. According to Aristotle, what are the positions of the Earth and the Sun in the Universe? ……………………………………………………………………….…………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3. The falling bodies were studied by Aristotle, who formulated specific “laws”. According to the attached text, which are they? ……………………………………………………………………….…………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4. What is the difference between the interpretation of falling bodies that Aristotle suggests and the one you have been taught in school? Discuss in your group and argue about the rationale of Aristotle’s interpretation. ……………………………………………………………………….…………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
123
The Case of Falling Bodies
627
After you have finished the above work each group is expected to present its answers to the above questions in the whole class in one of the following ways: • • • •
Poster drawing/construction (one to three) that will be hung up and presented Slide creation for overhead projector Report presentation Presentation of an interview with the philosopher (Aristotle).
References Abd-El-Khalick F, Lederman NG (2000) The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 37:1057–1095 Aikenhead GS (1988) An analysis of four ways of assessing student beliefs about STS topics. J Res Sci Teach 25(8):607–627 Aikenhead SG, Ryan GA (1992) The development of a new instrument: ‘‘Views on Science-TechnologySociety’’ (VOSTS). Sci Educ 76(5):477–491 Aikenhead GS, Ryan AG, Fleming RW (1989) Views on science-technology-society (form CDN.mc.5). University of Saskatchewan, Department of Curriculum Studies, Saskatoon, Canada Akerson VL, Abd-El-Khalick F, Lederman NG (2000) The influence of a reflective activity based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 37(4):295–317 Bartholomew H, Osborne J, Ratcliffe M (2004) Teaching students ‘‘Ideas-About-Science’’: five dimensions of effective practice. Sci Educ 88(5):655–682 Bell B, Gilbert J (1996) Teacher development: a model from science education. Falmer Press, London Bell RL, Lederman NG, Abd-El-Khalick F (2000) Developing and acting upon one’s conceptions of the nature of science: a follow-up study. J Res Sci Teach 37:563–581 Bevilaqua F, Giannetto E (1998) The history of physics and European physics education. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 981–999 Bruner J (1996) The culture of education. Harvard University Press Cole M (1996) Culture in mind. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Driver R (1995) Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In: Steffe L, Gale J (eds) Constructivism in education. LEA, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 385–400 Driver R, Asoko H, Leach J, Mortimer E, Scott P (1994) Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educ Res 23(7):5–12 Driver R, Leach J, Millar R, Scott P (1996) Young people’s images of science. Open University Press, Buckingham, England Duffy MT, Cunningham JD (1996) Constructivism: implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In: Jonassen LDH (ed) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Prentice Hall International, London, pp 170–198 Fletcher MA (2002) Reciprocity in professional partnerships: outcomes for everyone. In: Searle J, Roebuck D (eds) Envisioning practice – implementing change: 10th annual international conference on postcompulsory education and training. Australian Academic Press, Brisbane Heering P (2000) Getting shocks: teaching secondary school physics through history. Sci & Educ 9:363–373 Hodson D (1988) Towards a philosophically more valid science curriculum. Sci Educ 72(1):19–40 Jenkins E (1996) The ‘‘nature of science’’ as a curriculum component. J Curriculum Stud 28(2):137–150 Kokkotas P (2003a) Didactics of science education (Part II) – Contemporary trends for teaching science: constructivism in science teaching and learning. Athens (in Greek language) Kokkotas P (2003b) The nature of science as a determinant shaping factor of science curricula. In: Skordoulis K, Chalkia Kr (eds) Proceedings of 2nd Pan-Hellenic conference entitled: the contribution of history and philosophy of science in the science education. Leader Books, Athens, pp 87–98 Kokkotas P, Vlachos I, Chantzi M (1998) Developing the concept of the material nature of air through laboratory experiences at the Primary school level. In: Proceedings ‘‘practical work in science education’’, international conference. Copenhagen, 20–23 May 1998, pp 122–135 Lave J (1996) Teaching, as learning in practice. Mind Cult Activity 3:149–164 Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Lazarowitz R, Hertz-Lazarowitz R (1998) Cooperative learning in the science curriculum. In: Fraser B, Tobin K (eds) International handbook of science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 449–471
123
628
P. Kokkotas et al.
Leach J, Millar R, Ryder J, Siri M-G (2000) Epistemological understanding in science learning: the consistency of representations across contexts. Learn Instruct 10(6):497–527 Lederman NG (1992) Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research. J Res Sci Teach 29(4):331–359 Lederman NG, Wade PD, Bell RL (1998) Assessing understanding of the nature of science: a historical perspective. In: McComas W (ed) The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 331–350 Lemke JL (2001) Articulating communities: sociocultural perspectives on science education. J Res Sci Teach 38:296–316 Matthews MR (1994) Science teaching. The role of history and philoshophy of science. Routledge, New York, London Matthews M (1998) The nature of science and science teaching. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 981–999 Matthews MR, Bevilacqua F, Giannetto E (eds) (2001) Science education and culture: the role of history and philosophy of science. Kluwer Academic Publishers Matusof E, Hayes R (2002) Building a community of educators versus effecting conceptual change in individual students: multicultural education for pre-service teachers. In: Wells G, Claxton G (eds) Learning for life in the 21st century: sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. Blackwells, London, pp 239–251 McComas W (1996) Ten myths of science: reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Sci Math 96:10–16 McComas WF, Clough MP, Almazroa H (1998) The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In: McComas WF (ed) The nature of science in science education. Rationales and strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 3–39 Moreno A (2001) ‘‘Weighing’’ the earth: a Newtonian test and the origin of an Anachronism. Sci & Educ 10(6):515–543 Mortimer E, Scott PH (2003) Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press, Maidenhead-Philadelphia Newton P, Driver R, Osborne J (1999) The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. Int J Sci Educ 21:553–576 Nott M, Wellington J (1998) Eliciting, interpreting and developing teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Sci & Educ 7(6):579–594 Nystrand M, Gamoran A, Kachur R, Pendergast C (1997) Opening dialogue. Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. Teachers College Press, New York Paleopoulou-Stathopoulou R, Koukopoulou-Arnellou G (1999) Cosmologica: the acquaintance of the cosmological thinking of 2500 years’ period. Typothito, Athens (in Greek language) Riess F (2000) History of physics in science teacher training in Oldenburg. Sci & Educ 9:399–402 Rogoff B (2003) The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press, Oxford Rogoff B, Matusov E, White C (1996) Models of teaching and learning: participation in a community of learners. In: Olson D, Torrance N (eds) Handbook of education and human development: new models of learning, teaching, and schooling. Blackwell, London, pp 388–414 Ryan AG, Aikenhead GS (1992) Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Sci Educ 76:559–580 Seroglou F (2002) Science for the education of the citizen: development and evaluation of a teacher-training programme. A transdisciplinary approach of the teaching of pendulum. Proceedings of the international pendulum project, Sydney, 16–19 October 2002, pp 231–237 Seroglou F, Koumaras K (2001) The contribution of the history of physics in physics education: a review. Sci & Educ 10(1–2):153–172 Solomon J (1993) The social construction of children’s scientific knowledge. In: Black PJ, Lucas AM (eds) Children’s informal ideas in science. Routledge, New York Tobin K (ed) (1993) The practice of constructivism in science and mathematics education. AAAS Press, Washington, DC Von Glasersfeld E (1995) A constructivist approach to teaching. In: Steffe L, Gale J (eds) Constructivism in education. LEA, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 3–16 Wells G (1999) Dialogic inquiry: towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press, New York Wells G (2002) Inquiry as an orientation for learning, teaching and teacher education. In: Wells G, Claxton G (eds) Learning for life in the 21st century: sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 197–210
123
The Case of Falling Bodies
629
Wells G, Claxton G (2002) Introduction: sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. In: Wells G, Claxton G (eds) Learning for life in the 21st century: sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 1–17 Weiss IR, Banilower ER, McMahon KC, Smith PS (2001) Report of the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Horizon Research, Inc, Chapel Hill, NC
Author Biographies Panos Kokkotas is professor at the Pedagogical Department of University of Athens. He teaches Science Education, Multimedia (audio, visual etc.) teaching tools and Museum Education to both initial and in-service teachers. He is also coordinator of the Comenius 2.1 projects entitled (i) ‘‘The MAP project’’ (two years duration—2004–2006) and (ii) ‘‘The STeT project (Science Teacher e-Training) (2006–2008). He has a degree in Physics from the University of Athens. His Ph.D. is on science education from the University of Wales. He has taught science in high school, he has been a school consultant for science teachers. He has mainly published in science education. His recent books include Science Education I (Athens, 2000), Science Education II—The constructivist approach to teaching and learning science (Athens, 2002). Additionally he has edited Teaching Approaches to Science Education (Athens, 2000); as wells as he has edited the Greek translations of the book: Words, Science and Learning by Clive Sutton, (Athens, 2002) and also of the book Making Sense of Secondary Science by Driver et al. (Athens, 2000). He is also writer of the following science textbooks: (1) Science textbook for 5th grade of primary school based on constructivism, (2) Science textbook for 6th grade of primary school based on constructivism, Physics Textbooks for students of Upper Secondary Schools as follows: (3) Physics textbook for 16 years old, (4) Physics textbook for 17 years old student, (5) Physics textbook for 18 years old student. He is the Foundation president of the ‘‘The Hellenic Union for Science Education (EDIFE)’’. Till now the Union has organized two large Conferences with international participation and also many small conferences in Greece. The 2nd Conference of EDIFE organized together with the 2nd IOSTE Symposium in Southern Europe. He is Foundation Editor of the Greek journal: Science Education: Research & Practice. This year he is responsible for the organisation of the 7th International Conference on History of Science in Science Education (Workshop of Experts), having as theme ‘‘Adapting Historical Knowledge Production to the Classroom’’ from Monday July 7th to Friday July 11th, 2008 in Athens. Panagiotis Piliouras is a Ph.D. holder and in 1984 he got his degree in primary education and in 1993 he got his degree in Mathematics. He attended postgraduate studies (M.Sc.) in Science Education at the Pedagogical Department of Primary Education at the University of Athens. From 1985 until 1998 he taught in a primary school. Since 1999 he has been working in the Pedagogical Department of Primary Education at the University of Athens. His current work involves laboratory teaching, in-service teacher-training and design and development educational material and educational multimedia. His research interest is focused on teaching science in a collaborative inquiry mode, social interaction in learning and instruction, methodological questions in the analysis of social activity, sociocultural perspectives to learning and development, and applications of the educational technology. Katerina Malamitsa is a Ph.D. holder from Pedagogical Department of Primary Education at the National University of Athens in the field of ‘‘Critical Thinking and Science Education in Primary School’’. She got her Bachelor’s Degree as a Teacher in Primary Education in 1984. From 1986 until 1999 she taught in primary schools of Greece. In 2002 she got her Master’s Degree in ‘‘Science Education’’ at the Pedagogical Department of Primary Education at the National University of Athens. From 2006 till now she is a director in a Greek Primary School in Athens. She has participated in national and international conferences in topics concerning Science Education and teaching. She has published papers in Greek scientific journals. She is author of the Science textbooks which are used in the 3rd & 4th grades of Greek Primary School in national level (after evaluation from a scientific committee). Recently she has translated and standardized the ‘‘Test of Everyday Reasoning (TER)’’ & ‘‘The California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3)’’ (levels 2&3) for the Greek population [Insight Assessment/California Academic Press LLC, 217 La Cruz Avenue, Millbrae, CA 94030, http://www.insightassessment.com/]. Her main research interests focus on the critical thinking, the Science Education in Primary School, the use of aspects of History of Science in Teaching Science, the teacher training and education, the reflective teacher, the professional development of teachers etc. Efthymios Stamoulis is a PhD Student in the Pedagogical Department of Primary Education at the University of Ioannina. His current work involves laboratory teaching, in-service teacher-training and design and development educational material and educational multimedia. He is a director in primary school in Athens, Greece.
123
