 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 15, Issue 2, Article 9 (Dec., 2014) |
Relations of Pedagogy, cognitive performance and attitudes
To understand how pedagogy in science impact learning, Lau, Ho and Lam (in press) used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to explore the associations of the four kinds of pedagogy with student performance and attitudes at both student and school levels. The school level variables include the socioeconomic and academic status of the students of a school, and the school pedagogies. The results at student levels are shown in Table 8 .
Table 8. HLM analysis of the student level associations of pedagogies with overall scores, self-concept and enjoyment of science learning of the five East Asian regions in PISA 2006
*p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001
Application
Interaction
Hands on activity
Investigation
Science activity
Overall score
Self-concept in science
Enjoyment of science learning
Overall score
Self-concept in science
Enjoyment of science learning
Overall score
Self-concept in science
Enjoyment of science learning
Overall score
Self-concept in science
Enjoyment of science learning
Overall score
Self-concept in science
Enjoyment of science learning
HK
17.39***
.170***
.172***
-5.47*
.097**
0.042
4.76*
.053*
0.015
-25.25***
-0.032
-.145***
15.96***
.323***
.501***
Taipei
13.05***
.054***
.063***
-2.86**
.028*
0.013
-5.28***
.040*
-0.014
-17.96***
0.02
-.053***
10.14***
.417***
.561***
Macau
23.18***
.123***
.107***
-9.43***
-0.015
-0.032
0.2
.041*
-.047*
-25.10***
.070**
-.069***
13.09***
.291***
.528***
Korea
16.61***
.100***
.124***
-14.45***
-0.015
-.049**
-2.06
-0.014
-0.005
-18.27***
0.013
-.058**
17.79***
.394***
.536***
Japan
7.13***
.102***
.087***
-15.31***
-0.026
-0.025
1.92
0.034
0.029
-10.47***
0.037
-.056*
18.52***
.351***
.601***
Application was the only pedagogy that was positively associated with cognitive performance in all East Asian regions(Table 8). Hong Kong students increased by an average of 23 points in total scores for each additional unit of application in class, whereas it was only about 7 points for Japanese students. Besides scores in cognitive tasks, application was also positively correlated with self-concept and enjoyment of science in all East Asian regions. It suggests that more application of science concepts in class can facilitate science learning through enhancing the motivation of students. This would be particularly important for East Asian regions since they were less application-focused as compared to the western ones (Table 7).
In most of the East Asian regions, hands on activity did not significantly associate with good performance or attitudes. Worse still, investigation showed negative associations with performance in all East Asian regions; every additional unit of investigation saw a drop of as high as 25 points in total scores. Investigation was also found negatively associated with enjoyment of science learning. These findings are in line with other secondary analyses of PISA data (Seidel et al., 2007; Taylor et al., 2009).
Hands on activity and investigation are generally seen as the crucial part of science instruction, but the findings of PISA have cast doubt on their importance, at least in the East Asian classrooms. Investigation, in particular, should be an important way to learn about the process and nature of science, so it is puzzling why it has large negative relationships with performance and attitudes. A review of the effects of practical work concludes that "most of the evidence does not support the argument that typical laboratory experiences lead to improved learning of science content" (Singer et al., 2006, p.88). One probable reason is that hands on activities and investigation actually done in science class are far from desirable to produce the effects they purport to have on understanding about the content, process and nature of science. Much of the practical work done in science class only involves manipulation of materials rather than ideas, and does not interweave with other learning activities such as lecture and class discussion to form an integrated learning unit (Singer et al., 2006, p. 82). The TIMSS 1999 Video Study found that the US classrooms were filled with a variety of activities that were not much connected with the learning of science ideas (Roth et al., 2006), which partly accounted for the unsatisfactory performance of the US in the international assessments on science. On the other hand, typical laboratory work often stresses procedure and manipulation skills more than the complex scientific inquiry processes such as formulating investigative questions and hypothesis, designing experiment, and critically evaluating the conclusion (Klopfer, 1990, in Singer et al., 2006). This kind of recipe-type experiments is limited in fostering the scientific reasoning skills of students. In addition, regarding the learning about the nature of science, the implicit approach through merely doing investigation has been shown to be largely ineffective in enhancing one's understandings about the nature of science (Lederman, 2007). Finally, even when experiments and scientific investigations are done properly, it seems that it is not the more the better (Taylor et al., 2009). A case in point was France, which was found relatively strong in knowledge about science in PISA 2006 due to its curricular and instructional emphases on investigation, but France was not ranked high in overall scientific literacy as a result of its low performance in knowledge of science (Olsen & Lei, 2009). It is probable that doing experiments and learning contents are competing for the precious class time: extended, open-ended scientific investigation, when heavily conducted in class, may come at the expense of the time for content learning.
Investigation and practical activities in class are also not necessarily enjoyed by students. Studies using the Science Laboratory Environment Inventory revealed that students' positive perceptions of laboratory experiences were strong associations with cohesiveness (students are supportive of each another) and integration (laboratory work is integrated with theory learning) (Singer et al., 2006, pp. 95-98). Therefore, how the laboratory work is done seems more important than its quantity in impacting students' attitudes.
Interaction in classroom also showed negative relationships with performance in all East Asian regions. Japan and Korea not only had the least interactive lessons, but also the largest negative associations with performance: for every one additional unit of interaction in class, there was a drop of about 15 points in overall scores. Interaction was also found not positively related to self concept and enjoyment of science learning in most of the East Asian regions.
It would be difficult to interpret why interaction in class, a widely valued pedagogy, would relate to learning negatively in all of the East Asian regions. One possible answer is that interaction, measured by PISA as student expression of ideas in class, may not necessarily lead to effective learning, particularly when it is not explicitly connected with conceptual change pedagogies. There exists a huge gap between actual classroom practices and practices as informed by the conceptual change theory (Duit & Treagust, 2003). Research on classroom talk also reveals that interaction in class is often authoritative rather than dialogic, not probing into and working on students’ ideas adequately for concept construction (Scott, 1998; Mortimer & Scott, 2003). Even worst, interaction in class is sometimes not connected with any content learning but used as a means of engaging and disciplining students. Interaction in these manners would at best enhance motivation, but risks rendering learning nonsystematic and inefficient. In the East Asian classrooms that emphasize obedience, teacher authority and diligence, too much interaction may therefore be construed as unnecessary impediment to learning by both teacher and students. Nonetheless, the interpretation can be the other way around: teachers tend to teach more interactively when faced with the less-disciplined, lower ability students in order to get them motivated in class.
