Research on the Influence of Linking Natural Science Conceptions to Real Life Situations to Basic School Students in Winneba; A Case of Central Region of Ghana
Author(s)
Bonah Emmanuel Obeng , Joshua Agyekum ,
Download Full PDF Pages: 62-73 | Views: 506 | Downloads: 126 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5066273
Abstract
The main purpose of the study is to examine the effect of linking Natural Science concepts to real life situations to basic school students in Winneba, the Central region of Ghana. Precisely using an activity-based method in the learning environment to enhance better understanding, increase performance and to relate concepts in science to real life situations. The study adopted an action research design to improve practice at a single local setting. This is intended to bring about a positive change or improvement of a situation. The implemented strategies used is referred to as intervention. The accessible population comprised all pupils in lower primary of St. John Anglican Primary ‘A’. The sample population was all Basic three pupils of St. John Anglican Primary ‘A’. The study employed a stratified random sampling technique since the ultimate objective of the research is to improve the performance of pupils offering natural science. Basic school students in Winneba, the Central region of Ghana do not participate actively and consequently performed poorly during Natural Science lessons. The study adopted a diagnostic technique from the perceived problem identified. This depicts the inadequacy of exposing pupils to practical activities and real-life situations, rendering the teaching method teacher centred. The study found out that pupils-centred approach together with relating topics to real life situations can be effective tool in enhancing efficiency in teaching-learning situation. The use of different teaching techniques helped reduce individual differences among pupils. The study findings will be beneficial to basic schoolteachers and school heads to become aware of how they can possibly relate Natural Science topics to real life situations. Further studies can be conducted on the topic by involving a larger sample in order to generalize the findings of the study to a large population which was a limitation for this study.
Keywords
Natural Science, Real life Situations, Action Research, Activity-based teaching
References
i. Aikenhead, G. (2011). Towards a cultural view on quality science teaching. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The professional knowledge base of science teaching (pp. 107–127). New York: Springer.
ii. Ash, D. (2004). Reflective scientific sense-making dialogue in two languages: the science in the dialogue and the dialogue in the science. Science Education, 88(6), 855–884.
iii. Bailey, J.M., Coble, K., Cochran, G., Larrieu, D., Sanchez, R., & Cominsky, L.R. (2012). A multi-institutional investigation of students’ preinstructional ideas about cosmology. Astronomy Education Review. AER, 11, 010302-1,10.3847/AER2012029.
iv. Bar, V., Zinn, B., & Rubin, E. (1997). Children’s ideas about action at a distance. International Journal of Science, 19(10), 1137–1157.
v. Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(5/6), 513–562.
vi. Blown, E. J., & Bryce, T. G. K. (2006). Knowledge restructuring in the development of children’s cosmologies. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1411– 1462.
vii. Blown, E. J., & Bryce, T. G. K. (2010). Conceptual coherence revealed in multi-modal representations of astronomy knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 31–67.
viii. Blown, E. J., & Bryce, T. G. K. (2012). Thought experiments about gravity in the history of science and in research into children’s thinking. Science and Education, 22(3), 419– 483.
ix. Bowie, B. (Producer) & Finnegan, S. (Director). (2013). Hawking [Film and TV Documentary]. England: Channel 4.
x. Brown, B. A., & Ryoo, K. (2008). Teaching science as a language: a “content-first” approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 529–553.
xi. Brown, B. A., & Spang, E. (2008). Double talk: synthesizing every day and science language in the classroom. Science Education, 92(4), 708–732.
xii. Brown, B. A., Ryoo, K., & Rodriguez, J. (2010). Pathway towards fluency: using “disaggregate instruction” to promote science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1465–1493.
xiii. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
xiv. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
xv. Bryce, T. G. K., & Blown, E. J. (2006). Cultural mediation of children's cosmologies: A longitudinal study of the astronomy concepts of Chinese and New Zealand children. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1113--1160.
xvi. Bryce, T. G. K., & Blown, E. J. (2007). Gender effects in children’s development and education. International Journal of Science Education, 29(13), 1655--1678.
xvii. Bryce, T. G. K., & Blown, E. J. (2012). The novice-expert continuum in astronomy knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 34(4), 545–587.
xviii. Bryce, T. G. K., & Blown, E. J. (2013). Children’s concepts of the shape and size of the Earth, Sun and Moon. International Journal of Science Education, 35(3), 388–446.
xix. Bryce, T. G. K., & Blown, E. J. (2016). Manipulating models and grasping the ideas they represent. Science and Education, 25(1), 47–93.
xx. Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. Glasgow: William Collins and Sons.
xxi. Driver, R. H. (1981). Pupils’ alternative frameworks in science. European Journal of Science Education, 3(1), 93–101.
xxii. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
xxiii. Edelman, G. M. (2005). Wider than the sky: a revolutionary view of consciousness. London: Penguin.
xxiv. Fleer, M. (2009). Understanding the dialectical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts within play-based programs. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 281–306.
xxv. Fleer, M., & Ridgway, A. (2007). Mapping the relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts within playful learning environments. Research Online. http://ro.uow.edu.au/llrg/vol1/iss1/2
xxvi. Foley, J. (1994). Scaffolding. ELT Journal, 48(1), 101–102.
xxvii. Frick, A., Duan, M. M., Wilson, M., & Wilkening, F. (2009). Effects of action on children’s and adult’s mental imagery. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 34–51.
xxviii. Funk, M., Brugger, P., & Wilkening, F. (2005). Motor processes in children’s imagery: the case of mental rotation of hands. Developmental Science, 8, 402–408.
xxix. Akpan, O. E. (1992). Towards creative science teaching and learning in West African alike. The Science Teacher, 58(7), 45-49.
xxx. Amoatey, T. (2001). Methods of teaching. Accra: Rainbow Publishing.
xxxi. Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools:Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 3-16.
xxxii. Applin, D. (1995). Keys in science. London: Thomas Stone Publishers.
xxxiii. Atiku, Y. K. (2004). The key to your success in education studies examination. Accra:Good Name Computers and Photocopy Services.
xxxiv. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Grune and Stratton
xxxv. Avoka, C. A. (2000). Poverty and the environment. In F. Dodds (Ed.), Earth Summit
2002: A New Deal. London: Earthscan.
xxxvi. Balugun, S. (1984). Techniques of teaching junior science. London: MacMillan Publishers.
xxxvii. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. London: Cambridge University Press.
xxxviii. Best, J. W., & Khan, J.V. (1993). Research in education (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice – Hall Booth, W.C.
xxxix. Bigge, M. L., & Shermis, S. S. (1998). Learning theories for teachers (6th ed.). New York: Anderson Wesley Longman, Inc.
xl. Birke, J. P., J. Foster (1993). The importance of lecture in general chemistry course performance. Journal of Chemical Education. 70(1), 180-182.
xli. Blough, G. O., & Schwartz, J. (1990). Elementary school science and how to teach it (8thed.). New York: FertWorth Holt, Rinehart and Winstory Inc.
xlii. Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction, (6th ed.). White Plains, N.Y: Longman Publishers.
xliii. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
xliv. Brown, K. (1985). How to teach children science. Takoradi: Brown Publishing Company.
xlv. Brown, R. N., Oke, F. E., & Brown, D. P. (1982). Curriculum and Instruction: An introduction to methods of teaching. London. Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
xlvi. Carvin, A. A. (1985). Teaching modern science (4th ed.). Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company.
xlvii. Cohen, L, Marion, L., & Morrison, K. (2003). Research methods. (5th ed.). New York: Routledge Falmer.
xlviii. Cresswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research planning; Conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson and Merrill Prentice Hall.
xlix. Danmole, B. T., & Femi-Adeote, K. O. (2004). Effects of Concept Mapping Technique on Senior Secondary School Students’ Achievement and Retention of Ecology.
Journal of Science Teachers’ Association of Nigeria, 3(1&2), 32-38.
l. Davis, K. S. (2003). Chicago is hard: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3-30.
li. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
lii. Driver, R., Guesne, F., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
liii. Duit, R., & Confrey, J. (1996). Reorganizing the curriculum and teaching to improve learning in science and mathematics. In D.F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp.79-93). New York: Teachers Press College Press.
liv. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science- from behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In K Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education, Part 1. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
lv. Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational charge: Developing teachers and
teaching. Philadelphia: Open University.
lvi. Eminah, J. K. (2004). Rationale and approaches for improvisation in science. UMYU
Journal of Educational Research 1(1), 131-134.
lvii. Erinosho, S.Y. (2008). Teaching science in secondary schools: A methodology evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson Education.