Search

The basis for this study is to use students' creative texts in science as a mean to gain insight into their conceptual ideas. Eight grade students' creative writing tasks (n = 26) were analyzed with respect to the conceptual metaphors that were used to describe the abstract concept chemical bonding. The conceptual metaphors were identified and sorted into two main categories; location event-structure conceptual metaphors and object event-structure conceptual metaphors. Results show that most metaphors can be categorized as location event-structure conceptual metaphors. Embodied concepts and everyday language rooted in senso-motoric experiences from students’ daily life as well as from former science education seem to play a central role when they attempt to make meaning of the abstract concept ‘chemical bonding’ within a creative writing context. Creative writing tasks in science may have an unutilized potential for both uncovering and developing understanding of abstract phenomena on sub-microscopic level, such as chemical bonding.

This paper reports from a study where a teacher and researchers collaborated on designing science teaching promoting scientific inquiry (processes of science) and science content (product of science) for a group of students (age 11 – 13). A wide range of data from students’ performance in combining science product and processes were collected during a two year period. Results indicate that students combined product (matter and change of matter) and processes of science (making hypotheses, suggesting research design and evaluating evidence) and that these aspects support each other in science learning. The ability of linking product and process differed among students and varied from one scientific method to the other. To succeed in linking science content and processes of science it is important to scaffold student understanding, like providing templates and asking rich and relevant questions.

Prosjektet ”Bedre læringsstrategier i realfag”, et samarbeidprosjekt mellom Nes kommune i Akershus og Høgskolen i Hedmark, startet som et skole-foreldreinitiativ for å oppnå bedre læringsresultater og utjevne sosiale forskjeller i Nes-skolen. Initiativet kom som følge av gjentatte nedslående resultater fra de internasjonale undersøkelsene PISA (OECD, 2003) og TIMSS (Grønmo, Bergem, Kjærnsli, Lie, & Turmo, 2004). Prestasjonene til norske elever i naturfag og matematikk er nå under det gjennomsnittlige OECD-resultatet (Kjærnsli, Lie, Olsen, & Roe, 2007). Tidligere har det blitt rapportert at elevene har et begrenset repertoar av læringsstrategier (Kjærnsli, Lie, Olsen, Roe, & Turmo, 2004; Lie, Kjærnsli, Roe, & Turmo, 2001). Som følge av funn i disse internasjonale undersøkelsene har begrepet læringsstrategier fått aktualitet og blitt løftet frem som en mulig vei til bedre læring (Elstad & Turmo, 2006). Den siste PISA-undersøkelsen (Kjærnsli et al., 2007) gir bare svak støtte til at bedre oppøving av gode læringsstrategier vil fremme elevenes læring i faget. Hvordan læringsstrategier tilpasset situasjoner og fag vil kunne fremme læring, er noe av det vi vil studere nærmere i dette prosjektet.

In this paper we suggest a method for analysing curriculums in science, and we use this to investigate how the present Norwegian science curriculum prepares students for scientific informed citizenry. Science is both a body of knowledge that represents current understanding of natural systems and the process where that body of knowledge has been established and is being continually extended, refined, and revised. Both elements are truly essential, a student cannot understand science without being competent in both. Thus, there are clear recommendations about how to teach science in school, described as four strands of learning. The method analyses competence descriptions both according to the four strands and taxonomic level (depth of knowledge). The analysis shows that the Norwegian curriculum only to a certain degree correlates to recommendations about how science should be taught. Moreover, it seems like the method has potential beyond science curriculum analysis.