Science Teachers’ Practices During the Pandemic in Portugal

  • Mónica Baptista Institute of Education, University of Lisbon, Portugal
  • Estela Costa Institute of Education, University of Lisbon, Portugal
  • Iva Martins Institute of Education, University of Lisbon, Portugal
Keywords: pandemic context, science teachers, online teaching and learning, pedagogical skills, technological skills

Abstract

This paper aims to examine how science teachers adapted their practices to the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and what they learned during the period of confinement.

The participants are fifteen science teachers who currently collaborate on a STEM research project. To collect the data, we used two techniques (individual interviews and teachers’ individual written reflections), which have been analysed using an inductive content analysis approach. The results reveal that adjustments have been made in the design and management of classes. Synchronous classes using digital platforms and other communication infrastructure have been held; experimental distance activities have been implemented, and online courses based on a television programme have been taught. In addition, during the period of confinement, to enable distance learning, teachers developed pedagogical skills using technological skills. Finally, this study highlights the importance of teachers’ role in crisis management, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ainsworth, S. (2006). Deft: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracing online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group LLC.

Ambusaidipictorial, A., Musawi, A. A., Al-Balushi, S., Al-Balushi, K. (2017). The impact of virtual lab learning experiences on 9th grade students’ achievement and their attitudes towards science and learning by virtual lab. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15(2), 13–29.

Anderson, A., Kollmann, E. K., Beyer, M., Weitzman, O., Bequette, M., Haupt,G., & Velázquez, H. (2021). Design strategies for hands-on activities to increase interest, relevance, and self-Efficacy in Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(6), 1841−1851. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00193

Azhari, B., & Fajri, I. (2021). Distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: School closure in Indonesia. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1875072

BabincÌŒaÌkovaÌ, M., & Bernard, P. (2020). Online experimentation during COVID-19 secondary school closures: teaching methods and student perceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3295−3300. https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00748

Baran, E., Correia, A.-P., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.610293

Barbour, M. K. (2012). Training teachers for a virtual school system: A call to action. In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. Persichitte (Eds.), Creating technology-rich teacher education programs: Key issues (pp. 499–517). IGI Global.

Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2004). Becoming an online teacher: Adapting to a changed environment for teaching and learning in higher education. Educational Media International, 41(3), 231–248. ttps://doi.org/10.1080/09523980410001680842

Bruder, R., & Prescott, A. (2013). Research evidence on the benefits of IBL. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(6), 811–822. ttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0542-2

Burkett, V. C., & Smith, C. (2016). Simulated vs. hands-on laboratory position paper. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 8–24.

Bybee, R., McCrae, B., Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20333

Chadwick, R., & McLoughlin, E. (2020). Impact of the COVID-19 crisis on science teaching and facilitation of practical activities in Irish schools. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/vzufk

Clary, R. M., & Wandersee, J. H. (2010). Science curriculum development in online environments: A SCALE to enhance teachers’ science learning. In L. Kattington (Ed.), Handbook of curriculum development (pp. 367–385). Nova Science Publishers.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: The Goâ€Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561â€014â€0003â€6

DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582:AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L

Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371

Education group (n.d.). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED576762.pdf

Evangelista, I., Farin, J. A., Pozzo, M. I., Dobboletta, E., Alves, G. R., García-Zubía, J., Hernandez, U., Marchisio, S.T., Concaris, S. B., & Gustavsson, I. (2017). Science education at high school: a VISIR remote lab implementation. IEEE Proceedings of the 4th Experiment@ International Conference. https://recipp.ipp.pt/handle/10400.22/11371

Fischer, C., Zhou, N., Rodriguez, F., Warschauer, M., & King, S. (2019). Improving college student success in organic chemistry: impact of an online preparatory course. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(5), 857–864. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed. 8b01008

Gachago, D., Morkel, J., Hitge, L., van Zyl, I., & Ivala, E. (2017). Developing eLearning champions: A design thinking approach. International Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0068-8

Gemin, B., & Pape, L. (2016, November 30). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning, 2016. Evergreen Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED576762

Hill, M., Sharma, M. D., & Johnston, H. (2015). How online learning modules can improve the representational fluency and conceptual understanding of university physics students. European Journal of Physics, 36(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/36/4/045019

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The Meaning of Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.

Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on Activities and Their Influence on Students’ Interest. Research in Science Education, 40(5), 743–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9142-0

Johnson, M. (2002). Introductory biology on-line. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(5), 312–317.

Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 4–29.

Khlaif, Z. N., Salha, S., Affouneh, S., Rashed, H., & ElKimishy, L. A. (2020). The Covid-19 epidemic: teachers’ responses to school closure in developing countries, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1851752

Liebowitz, D., González, P., Hooge, E., & Lima, G. (2018). OECD Reviews of School Resources: Portugal 2018. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264308411-en

Marshall, J. C., Smart, J. B. & Alston, D. M (2017). Inquiry-Based Instruction: A Possible Solution to Improving Student Learning of Both Science Concepts and Scientific Practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(5), 777–796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9718-x

NRC (National Research Council). (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press.

OECD (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. OECD.

Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage Publications.

Puntambekar, S., Gnesdilow, D., Tissenbaum, C., Narayanan, N.H., & Rebello, N.S. (2021). Supporting middle school students’ science talk: A comparison of physical and virtual labs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(3), 1–28, 392– 419. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21664

Ramlo, S.E. (2016). Students’ views about potentially offering Physics courses online. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 489–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9608-6

Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 729–779). Erlbaum.

Sadi, O., & Cakiroglu, J. (2011). Effects of hands-on activity enriched instruction on students’ achievement and attitudes towards science. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(2), 97–97.

Son, J., Narguizian, P., Beltz, D., & Desharnais, R. (2016). Comparing physical, virtual, and hybrid flipped labs for general education biology. Online Learning, 20(3), 228–243.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications.

Sullivan, S., Gnesdilow, Puntambekar, S., & Kim, J.-S. (2017). Middle school students’ learning of mechanics concepts through engagement in different sequences of physical and virtual experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 39(12), 1573–1600. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1341668

Swinnerton, B. J., Morris, N. P., Hotchkiss, S., & Pickering, J. D. (2017). The integration of an anatomy massive open online course (MOOC) into a medical anatomy curriculum. American Association of Anatomists, 10(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1625

Tho, S. W., & Yeung, Y. Y. (2014). Remote laboratory (RL) system for technology-enhanced science learning: The design and pilot implementation in undergraduate courses. In C. C. Liu, H. Ogata, S. C. Kong, & A. Kashihara (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2014, pp. 260–262.

Tho, S.W., & Yeung, Y.Y. (2018). An implementation of remote laboratory for secondary science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 629–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12273

Venkateswaran, R. (2016). Evaluating the use of learn smart and connect in introductory general chemistry classes: The pros and cons of an online teaching and learning system. In M. Schultz, S. Schmid, & T. Holme (Eds.), Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry; ACS Symposium Series 1235 (pp. 83–599). American Chemical Society: Washington, DC.

Walters, S., Grover, K. S., Turner, R. C., & Alexander, J. C. (2017). Faculty perceptions related to teaching online: A starting point for designing faculty development initiatives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 4–19.

Zacharia, Z. C., & Anderson, O. (2003). The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students’ conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 71(6), 618–629.

Zacharia, Z. C., & de Jong, T. (2014). The effects on students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits of introducing virtual manipulatives within a physical manipulatives-oriented curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 32(2), 101–158.

Published
2022-05-31
How to Cite
Baptista, M., Costa, E., & Martins, I. (2022). Science Teachers’ Practices During the Pandemic in Portugal. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 13(2), 31-56. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1143