 |
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 10, Issue 2, Article12 (Dec., 2009) |
All of the experts have stated that the model might be used to teach NOS and the model has a potential for teaching NOS in biology courses at the level of university although they have critisized some aspects of the model. Their evaluation will be presented in the following sections.
The experts have stated that time and effort requirements of the model should be thought when using the model for instructional purposes. For example, based on the question for utility aspect, E2 has pointed out that, “preparing instructional materials for different contents might not be an easy task every time with the load of developing appropriate strategies”. Then, E1 (Expert 1) has added that, “novice implementers might experience restrictions for the frequent feedback process and correction, and the time might also be another restrictive factor”. With a different focus, E3 has explained that the model might be appropriate only for the faculties of education. The expert has given reason for this by stating that, “the model is appropriate for education faculties of universities, since implementers should be knowledgeable about instructional design”. E6 has extended the criticism by stating that, “every instructional design process seems as like only ‘a schema on a paper’ without applying it; negative and positive sides of the design can not be seen without application and expense analysis”. In spite of these negative opinions, the experts have also provided positive opinions on the utility aspect of the model. E1 has stated that “the model has been providing a systematic approach to biology teaching and detailed design of the steps and process in addition to frequent control-feedback system that might prevent probable problems before the instruction. The model is also providing appropriate order of actions to be implemented in teaching”. E2 has emphasized the different aspect of the model by writing that, “[the model] is providing a way to reach the goals on scientific literacy in a planned manner. Separate considerations of the biology content and NOS will increase the utility of the model in terms of teaching on these subjects”. E4 has stated that the model can easily be used at the university level. E5 has also added that the model might provide integration between content, instruction and learner. Additionally, selection of the systematic model increases the utility. E6 approves that “the model has been reflecting the basic components of a model based on systematic instructional design”. So, utility of the model for biology courses have also been supported by the experts.
For the adaptability aspect, E3 has pointed out, without providing any negative opinion that, “the model is constructed with a general model approach so it might be adapted into other courses,” while E4 stated that adaptation of the model requires care and experience. E6 suggested that the model might include a part for adaptation into other science courses, by providing such a part at the planning phase, the adaptability of the model might be increased. In contrast to these opinions, E1 has stated that, “the model is hard to adapt it into the other courses in which content are not as homogenic as biology course content”. E-2 explained as a different aspect that, “the novice implementers might not have appropriate adaptation skills”. Also, E5 has stated that, “if we consider the adaptation of human being into new process, it might be a problem for adapting the model that implementers should pay more time and effort”.
On the feasibility aspect of the model, E1 has criticized the model, saying that “the implementers might develop resistance to use the model in common traditional approach dominated contexts”. E2 has emphasized the implementer’s characteristics in consideration with the feasibility saying that, “the activity and strategy development parts have been requiring a certain knowledge base and skills” whereas the expert has written that “such an approach [the model] is feasible at the level of university but not in elementary level”. E1 has also added that, “the model is feasible for the instruction provided in university or higher levels”. Similarly, E4 has seen the model as feasible to use in university level courses. E5 has noted that, “the implementers in university level might use such a model in a shorter time than any other group of implementers since they have more experience and knowledge about it [instructional design model]”. E6 thought the model is feasible for undergraduate biology courses in science teacher education programs.
Understandability of the model
For the last aspect; understandability, E2 commented that, “the implementer might not understand how to organize all of the components of the model,” while E1 suggested to add some components for increasing “understandability” that “the appropriate examples and explanations should be provided for each step in addition to the figure”. E1 has positively stated that, “individuals who experience teaching-learning process might easily understand the model, especially; researchers in education will use the model more effectively.” E4 has emphasized requirement of a guide to understand the model due to different lines and arrivals in the model. E5 has also stated a need to explain the model in a linear approach to increase understandability of the model. Similarly, E6 explained a need to provide a guide or map to increase understandability of the model.
Apart from all of these opinions, E3 provided detailed analysis of the model in terms of the instructional design process. The expert has emphasized requirement for a “reflective evaluation” phase and follow-up “implementation” phase. The reflective evaluation phase is requirement for assessing the phases before the implementation to change appropriate parts. Again, the model needs to have an implementation phase before the formative evaluation, which is based on application in implementation. The other two factors recommended by E3 are, “determination and integration of the contents for both biology and NOS” and “integration of the strategies for biology content and NOS” phases. These two phases are very important for explicitly embedding or integration of biology content and the NOS aspects due to their planned nature to approach on both of the contents together.
As a result of the third round, the experts have stated the most important factors to consider in the model. Their answers have shown that “use by novice implementers,” “requirement for a guide,” “lack of reflective evaluation,” “too much time and effort consumption” and “complexity of the model to understand” have been regarded as most important factors to implement the model in biology courses .
During the final round, experts were asked about the revised model. E6 wanted to add “expense analysis” into the model. After that, consensus on the final form of the model was provided.
