Learners First

What differences, if any, are there with respect to how students are taught science in other countries?

Since the United States is always being compared unfavorably with respect to comparison of students’ level of learning science.  I thought this would be a great question for my Learners First assignment.

The first article that I came across related to teaching science in other countries was titled What Science Teaching Looks Like: An International Perspective.[1]   The article summarized a study of teaching practices in 5 countries: the United States, the Czech Republic, Japan, Australia, and the Netherlands. The latter 4 countries were chosen because they outperformed the United States in science achievement on the 1999 Trends in Mathematics and Science (TIMSS) assessment.   One hundred 8^th grade science lessons were randomly chosen for the study from each of the 6 countries. 

The following is a summary of the observations that were made:

• The Czech Republic.  The Czech Republic teaching strategy included challenging the students with theoretical science topics.  The students were responsible for learning and understanding the content via public discussions.  The teacher would begin the class by providing a review.  The students would be called upon to answer questions of their understanding of not only the immediate subject but of other topics as well.  The students would be graded on these answers.   Teachers minimally provided students with “hands on” activities.   This type of teaching was sited in the article as “Learning Challenging Content.”

• Japan.  The Japanese teaching strategy included presenting more conceptual content than theoretical.  Similar to the inquiry-based teaching that we have been learning about, the Japanese classroom taught via inquiry methods.  The students would be presented with one or two main ideas which were developed via inquiry, data collection, observations, discussions, “hands on” activities and followed by more classroom discussions.   The lesson was summarized by the teacher to drive home the main purpose of the exercise.   This type of teaching was sited in the article as “Using Evidence to Develop Concepts.”

• Australia.  The Australian teaching strategy was similar to the Japanese strategy, but differed by providing “real life” applications to their science lessons and used activities such as games, puzzles, comedy, and exciting demonstrations to keep the students focused.   Interestingly, the Australian lessons often ended in “tentative conclusions” with a question for the students to further ponder.  This type of teaching was sited in the article as “Using Evidence and Real-Life Connections.

• The Netherlands.  The Netherlands teaching strategy was more of a “self-learn” strategy.  Students were presented with reading and writing assignments.  The teacher would go over assignments and clarify content as students required.   Class discussions and short demonstrations/lectures would follow to supplement the student’s independent learning.  This type of teaching was sited in the article as “Learning Science Content Independently.”

• The United States.  The good, the bad and the ugly.  The United States teaching strategy included a plethora of methods including “hands on” activities, independent learning, and classroom discussions.  The problem with the United States teaching strategy is that it neglected to connect the activities, and content to “real life” issues, or to actual scientific ideas.  The question, “Why are we learning this?” was never answered.   The United States teaching strategy was rich in activities and poor in tying the activities to actual scientific concepts.  This type of teaching was sited in the article as “Including More Varied Activities.”

The article continues with suggestions for the United States to achieve scientific excellence.  The bottom line was to link the scientific inquiry and activities to the content or purpose of the lesson and to real-life scenarios.  The lesson must be pertinent to the student not only to engage the student, but to provide a foundation for continual learning. 

It is interesting to me that there is such an array of teaching strategies.  The independent learning for the students of the Netherlands somehow is working better than the hands-on activity-oriented learning strategy of the United States.  It seems counter intuitive,  but as the article suggests, perhaps it doesn’t matter how the material is presented as long as it can be linked to the science behind it and is applicable to real life issues (i.e. make it pertinent to the students).

I found a copy of the April 2006, 271-page document prepared by the National Center for Education Statistics, Teaching Science in Five Countries: Results from the TIMMS 1999 Analyses Report, (United States Department of Educations, Institute of Education Sciences NCES 2006-011).  Once I get through the document, I will provide additional commentary. 

---

[1] Roth, K., and Garnier, H. December 2006/January 2007. What Science Teaching Looks Like: An International Perspective.  Science in the Spotlight, Pages 16-23, Volume 64, Number 4.