CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

The authors were able to develop the design elements for a socio-scientific issue curriculum unit to promote students’ argumentation for persuasion based on the instructional model proposed by Friedrichsen et al. (2016). The next step of this research is to implement an SSI curriculum unit that incorporates these design elements and to evaluate whether such a unit can improve students’ argumentation for persuasion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17H01979.

Figure 1 An example of the matrix in this curriculum

Figure 3 An example of proposal review sheet

132

REFERENCES

Berland, L. K., and Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation.

Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.

Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., and Park, J. –Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(5), 1–12.

Friedrichsen, P. J., Sadler, T. D., Graham, K., and Brown, P. (2016). Design of a socio-scientific issue curriculum unit: Antibiotic resistance, natural selection and modelling.

International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(1), 1–18.

Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.

Lee, M.–H., Wu, Y.–T. and 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.

Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. (2011). For appropriate treatment of hay fever.

Retrieved from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-10900000-Kenkoukyoku/0000077514.pdf

Presley, M. L., Sickel, A. J., Muslu, N., Merle-Johnson, D., Witzig, S. B., Izci, K., and Sadler, T. D. (2013). A framework for socio-scientific issues based education. Science Educator, 22(1), 26–32.

Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., and Topçu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues-based instruction: A multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1622–1635.

Zeidler, D. (2015). Socio-scientific issues. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 28–31). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

133

Koh Chee Kiang and Pang Jeng Heng: Using Effective Learning Experiences In Physics To Develop the 21st Century Competencies and Student Outcomes

Using Effective Learning Experiences in Physics To Develop the 21st Century Competencies and Student Outcomes

Koh Chee Kiang ^a*, Pang Jeng Heng

a. Victoria School Siglap Link, Singapore 448880

* Corresponding author e-mail address: koh_chee_kiang@moe.edu.sg

Abstract

To make the learning of Physics more authentic, engaging and visible for the students, they are exposed to investigative group hands-on activities. This align with studies that suggest that concrete learners make greater improvement in subject mastery with more reflective (Saunders & Sheperdson, 1987) and positive attitude (Lawson, 1995) in Science learning. We designed activities where students work in groups cooperatively, to facilitate discussion and presentation using White boarding. The process of the activities fits into the 5E Learning Cycle Model. To help students relate to circuit design questions and make their learning more visible and achieve deeper understanding, we built the circuitry for the Foutan board activities. This activity is an adaptation of the Foutan board activity used by Cornell University “Xraise Outreach for CLASSE” Wilson Lab (CNS Institute for Physics Teachers 2011 Revised). Our data-logging activities expose students to technology that are being adapted pervasively in our work place and homes. The students use sensors, semiconductors and electronic data analysis gadget, developed in Singapore, to capture the physical data and processed the collected data. This aligned with the information skills of the 21st Century Competencies. Students are more confident in forming and communicating explanations and display a higher level of academic self-efficacy through keener interest and motivation. Students’ survey feedback showed on average above 3.2 of 4 where 4 is highly agreeable, with standard deviation of 0.55-0.65. 91.7% of the responses agree favourably to the survey. Our survey thus shows that our students felt more confident to question, clarify and reflect on their learning; the hands-on activities helped to spur their interest in the topics; they can relate better to real world application and the activities help them have a clearer understanding of the Physics concept than through the usual approach to learning these topics.

Keywords: 21st Century Competencies and Student Outcomes; concrete learners; cooperative learning; multiple intelligences; 5E Learning Cycle Model

INTRODUCTION

Our research study used a mixed method approach. With both quantitative and qualitative data, we aim to be able to provide both a statistical analysis of findings as well as to tap into participants’ perspectives. Data was collected through a questionnaire administered to Secondary 3 students (n = 155) and Secondary 4 students (n = 139). This questionnaire consists of six questions grouped into three domains related to the research focus of ‘joy of learning’ to foster engaged learners, life-long learners and learners involved in meaning-making. Two focus group interviews with six students were also conducted to collect students’ perspectives on their learning experiences.

Procedure: Inquiry-based activities and whiteboarding

A total of nine inquiry-based activities will be carried out by our Upper Secondary students over 2 years (three activities in Secondary 3 and six activities in Secondary four). After performing a series of three of these inquiry-based activities, the students will do whiteboarding as a learning process and as a presentation format of their findings. Pictures with brief descriptions of six of the inquiry-based activities: ‘Faraday’s law of electromagnetic induction’,

134

‘Bouncing ball’, ‘D.C. motor’, ‘Tension Protractor’, ‘Speed of sound’ and ‘Light-dependent resistor’ are in Annex A. Student worksheet examples for three inquiry-based activities:

‘Cartesian diver’, ‘Transformer’ and ‘Force on cart’ are in Annex B.

The students worked in collaborative groups of four to carry out the tasks as specified in the inquiry-based activity worksheets. As mentioned above, the students will present their findings and explanations to the class at the last session after three activities via whiteboarding (Yost, 2003). The instructional sequence of the inquiry-based activities follows closely the BCSE 5E inquiry model to enhance student learning (Bybee, 2006).

The Engagement phase was already done for students as they can make connections between their past and current learning experiences, from their prior conceptions. The students were taught the concepts in earlier lessons.

For Exploration phase, each task provides experiences for students so as to probe student's prior understanding, to generate new ideas, explore questions, and conduct an investigation. Here the members in a group would jointly perform the task and note their observations.

The Explanation phase focuses students’ attention on a particular aspect of their engagement and exploration experiences and provides opportunities to demonstrate their conceptual understanding and process skills.

As the students show the class their whiteboards and explain their findings from data collected or problem solution, they are immersed in the Explanation, Elaboration and Evaluation phases.

In the Elaboration phase, the subsequent questions in the tasks challenge and extend students’

conceptual understanding and skills. Through new experiences, the students develop deeper and broader understanding, more information, and adequate skills. Students apply their understanding of the concept and abilities by conducting additional activities. During their presentation, they are to share their responses to the deeper probing questions.

The Evaluation phase encourages students to assess their understanding and abilities and allows peers and teachers to evaluate their classmate presenters’ progress toward achieving the learning outcomes. The students listening to presenters can post questions or their viewpoints to encourage deeper probing. The teacher may occasionally ask questions, probing the student's understanding and directing the student's learning process.