Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond “Having Fun” As Evidence of Learning: A Longitudinal Case Study of a Teacher’s Evolving Conception of Hands-On Science Activities

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Science education reform initiatives have been implemented worldwide in recent years focusing on the integration of science and engineering practices into science learning. In this context, one promising area to explore is how the resources provided by makerspaces can promote more meaningful, contextualized, and practice-based ways of teaching and learning science. Nonetheless, there are few studies, and even fewer from the Global South, that analyze how teachers perceive the potential of these resources and integrate them into their lesson plans. Using an in-depth case-study methodology, this paper investigates results from a project that engages teachers in co-designing curricular units integrating new resources and practice-based approaches to science learning. In particular, we study how one science teacher developed new understandings about the role of “hands-on” science activities as he participated in a professional development program over 4 years. Based on our findings, we suggest strategies for the design of programs aimed at integrating science practices and makerspace resources into school curricula.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

References

  • ACARA. (2016). The Australian curriculum: Learning areas: Science. Retrieved from http://acara.edu.au/curriculum_1/learning_areas/science.html

  • Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first-year elementary teacher’s specialized practices and knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 965–986. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassoli, F. (2014). Atividades práticas e o ensino-aprendizagem de ciência(s): Mitos, tendências e distorções. Ciência & Educação (bauru), 20(3), 579–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P., Fuhrmann, T., Greene, D., & Salehi, S. (2012). Bifocal modeling: mixing real and virtual labs for advanced science learning. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 296–299). https://doi.org/10.1145/2307096.2307150.

  • Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors (pp. 1–21). Transcript Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Children are not hackers: Building a culture of powerful ideas, deep learning, and equity in the maker movement. In E. Halverson, K. Peppler, & Y. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology (pp. 64–79). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726519-7

  • Blikstein, P., Fuhrmann, T., & Salehi, S. (2016). Using the bifocal modeling framework to resolve “discrepant events” between physical experiments and virtual models in biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9623-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brasil. (2018). Ministério da Educação. Base Nacional Comum Curricular. Retrieved from http://basenacionalcomum.mec.gov.br/

  • Brasil. (2020). Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira (Inep). Censo da Educação Básica 2019: notas estatísticas. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/3jea089

  • British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2017). BC’s new curriculum. Victoria, BC. Retrieved from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/science

  • Buechley, L. (2013, October). Thinking about making. Keynote speech presented at FabLearn Conference, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

  • Bullock, S. M., & Sator, A. J. (2015). Maker pedagogy and science teacher education. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 13(1), 60–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, S. L., Garcia, B., Deuermeyer, E., Deady, S., & Quek, F. (2019). An investigation of relevance from curriculum-aligned making in the elementary school science classroom. In Proceedings of FabLearn 2019 (pp. 1–9). https://doi.org/10.1145/3311890.3311891

  • Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. J., & Peter, A. (1993). Modelling teacher change. In B. Atweh, C. Kanes, M. Carss, & G. Booker (Eds.), Contexts in mathematics education. Proceedings of the 16th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA). Queensland: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.

  • Coenders, F., & Terlouw, C. (2015). A model for in-service teacher learning in the context of an innovation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(5), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9432-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • da Ramos, L. B., & C., & Rosa, P. R. da S. (2008). O Ensino de Ciências: Fatores intrínsecos e extrínsecos que limitam a realização de atividades experimentais pelo professor dos anos iniciais do ensino Fundamental. Investigações Em Ensino De Ciências, 13(3), 299–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • DBRC, T. D.-B. R. C. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Research, 32(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Andrade, M. L. F., & Massabni, V. G. (2011). O desenvolvimento de atividades práticas na escola: Um desafio para os professores de ciências. Ciência & Educação (bauru), 17(4), 835–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolfing, R., Prins, G. T., Bulte, A. M. W., Pilot, A., & Vermunt, J. D. (2021). Strategies to support teachers’ professional development regarding sense-making in context-based science curricula. Science Education, 105(1), 127–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duckworth, E., Easley, J., & Harkines, D. (1990). Science education: A minds-on approach for the elementary years. Routledge.

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(March), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falloon, G., Forbes, A., Stevenson, M., Bower, M., & Hatzigianni, M. (2020). STEM in the making? Investigating STEM learning in junior school makerspaces. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09949-3

  • Fernandez, C., Hochgreb-Haegele, T., & Blikstein, P. (2020). Toward a sustainable model for maker education in public education: Teachers as co-designers in an implementation of educational makerspaces. In Proceedings of the FabLearn 2020-9th Annual Conference on Maker Education (pp. 46–53).

  • Fishman, B., Penuel, W., Allen, A. R., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. O. R. A. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. Teachers College Record, 115(14), 136–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4451-8_12

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., & Penuel, W. R. (2019). Coming to terms: Addressing the persistence of “hands-on” and other reform terminology in the era of science as practice. Science Education, 103(1), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015005005

  • Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heineke, A. J., Smetana, L., & Carlson Sanei, J. (2019). A qualitative case study of field-based teacher education: One candidate’s evolving expertise of science teaching for emergent bilinguals. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(1), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1537058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochgreb-Haegele, T., Fernandez, C., & Blikstein, P. (2022). Addressing challenges in changing science teaching in the Global South: an integrative model for science education reform in Brazil. In Chinn, C., Tan, E., Chan, C., & Kali, Y. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the Learning Sciences - ICLS 2022. Hiroshima, Japan: International Society of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1433–1436).

  • Hollingsworth, H. (1999). Teacher professional growth: A study of primary teachers involved in mathematics professional development. Ph.D. thesis, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.

  • Justi, R., & Van Driel, J. (2006). The use of the interconnected model of teacher professional growth for understanding the development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and modelling. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(4), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.11.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketelhut, D. J., Mills, K., Hestness, E., Cabrera, L., Plane, J., & McGinnis, J. R. (2020). Teacher change following a professional development experience in integrating computational thinking into elementary science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09798-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowell, B. R., Cherbow, K., & McNeill, K. L. (2021). Redesign or relabel? How a commercial curriculum and its implementation oversimplify key features of the NGSS. Science Education, 105(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascimento, R. M. L. L., & Mól, G. S. (2020). A formação de professores de ciências: Uma análise da sua atuação frente aos desafios e inovações do mundo moderno. Brazilian Journal of Development, 6(3), 15834–15845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165

  • OECD. (2019). Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris,. https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of educational research, 81(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311413609

  • Peel, A., Dabholkar, S., Anton, G., Wu, S., Wilensky, U., & Horn, M. (2020). A case study of teacher professional growth through co-design and implementation of computationally enriched biology units. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, p.1950–1957. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2020.1950.

  • Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11421826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., & Fishman, B. J. (2012). Large-scale science education intervention research we can use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, H., & Bell, P. (2013). How designing, making, and playing relate to the learning goals of K-12 science education. In Design, Make, Play (pp. 35–51). Routledge.

  • Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., Sumner, T., & Leary, H. (2016). Organizing for teacher agency in curricular co-design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 531–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1207541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sipitakiat, A., Blikstein, P., & Cavallo, D. P. (2004). GoGo Board: Augmenting programmable bricks for economically challenged audiences. In Kafai, Y. B., Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Nixon, A. S., & Herrera, F. (Eds.), International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2004: Embracing Diversity in the Learning Sciences (pp. 481–488). Santa Monica, CA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2004.481

  • Tan, M. (2019). When makerspaces meet school: Negotiating tensions between instruction and construction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(2), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9749-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vossoughi, S., Hooper, P. K., & Escudé, M. (2016). Making through the lens of culture and power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 86(2), 206–232. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.86.2.206 

  • Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322(5902), 682–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Fifth edition. Sage Publications.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all teachers who participated in the project.

Funding

Partial funding for this work was provided by the Lemann Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Transformative Learning Technologies Lab, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, NY, USA

    Cassia Fernandez, Tatiana Hochgreb-Haegele, Adelmo Eloy & Paulo Blikstein

Authors
  1. Cassia Fernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tatiana Hochgreb-Haegele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adelmo Eloy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paulo Blikstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adelmo Eloy.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. All of the participants voluntarily participated in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fernandez, C., Hochgreb-Haegele, T., Eloy, A. et al. Beyond “Having Fun” As Evidence of Learning: A Longitudinal Case Study of a Teacher’s Evolving Conception of Hands-On Science Activities. J Sci Educ Technol 32, 241–255 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10012-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10012-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation