Scientific education for elementary school children: case of biology lessons at the children’s academy Futurum
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32405/2309-3935-2024-2(93)-94-99Keywords:
наукова освіта, критичне мислення, дослідницький метод, Мала академія наукAbstract
In today’s world, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of scientific literacy and critical thinking. Scientific education plays a crucial role in fostering these skills from an early age. While science subjects are traditionally begun being studied in secondary school, there is compelling evidence to suggest that introducing them in elementary education can significantly enhance learning outcomes in later years.
Children’s Academy FUTURUM is an extracurricular educational institution established under the auspices of the National Center “Junior Academy of Sciences of Ukraine” since 2017, exemplifies a pioneering institution committed to advancing scientific education for primary school students. Through innovative teaching methods and a research-oriented curriculum, FUTURUM has successfully implemented guided inquiry-based learning in teaching science to primary school children.
This article elucidates the techniques and methodological approaches employed at FUTURUM, providing examples of tasks and activities designed to stimulate curiosity, foster collaborative learning, and deepen conceptual understanding in biology education. Insights from FUTURUM’s experience offer valuable guidance for educators seeking to implement inquiry-based approaches in elementary science education.
By embracing inquiry-based learning, educators can empower young learners to become active participants in their own learning journey, equipping them with the skills and knowledge necessary to navigate an increasingly complex and interconnected world. This article serves as a resource for educators and educational scientists interested in promoting scientific literacy and critical thinking among elementary school students, ultimately contributing to the cultivation of a scientifically literate and intellectually curious society.
Downloads
References
Використані літературні джерела
1. Aflalo E. Students generating questions as a way of learning / E. Aflalo // Active Learning in Higher Education. – 2021. – Vol. 22. – No. 1. – Р. 63–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418769120.
2. Akmalovna A. C. Innovative methods used in biological science teaching / A. C. Akmalovna, M. S. M. Qizi // Scholastic: Journal of Natural and Medical Education. – 2022. – Vol. 1. – No. 2. – Р. 5–11. – URL: https://univerpubl.com/index.php/scholastic/article/view/66.
3. Apugliese A. Impact of instructional decisions on the effectiveness of cooperative learning in chemistry through meta-analysis / A. Apugliese, S. E. Lewis // Chemistry Education Research and Practice. – 2017. – Vol. 18. – No. 1. – Р. 271–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00195E.
4. Caiman C. The Role of Art Practice in Elementary School Science / C. Caiman, B. Jakobson // Science & Education. – 2019. – Vol. 28. – P. 153–175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00036-2.
5. Gardiner P. Learning to think together: Creativity, interdisciplinary collaboration and epistemic control / P. Gardiner // Thinking Skills and Creativity. – 2020. – Vol. 38. – Article 100749. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100749.
6. Gasparatou R. Scientism and Scientific Thinking / R. Gasparatou // Science & Education. – 2017. – Vol. 26. – P. 799–812. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9931-1.
7. Hughes J. Age and connection to nature: when is engagement critical? / J. Hughes, M. Rogerson, J. Barton, R. Bragg // Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. – 2019. – Vol. 17. – No. 5. – Р. 265–269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2035.
8. Jeronen E. Teaching methods in biology education and sustainability education including outdoor education for promoting sustainability – A literature review / E. Jeronen, I. Palmberg, E. Yli-Panula // Education Sciences. – 2016. – Vol. 7. – No. 1. – Р. 1–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010001.
9. Mirosavljević A. A Case Study of Biology Teaching Practices in Croatian Primary Schools / A. Mirosavljević, B. Bognar, M. Sablić // Open Education Studies. – 2024. – Vol. 6. – No. 1. – Article 20220229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2022-0229.
10. Peels, R. Ten reasons to embrace scientism / R. Peels // Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. – 2017. – Vol. 1. – No. 63. – Р. 11–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.04.001
11. Peterson E. G. Supporting curiosity in schools and classrooms / E. G. Peterson // Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. – 2020. – Vol. 35. – P. 7–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.05.006.
12. Poldberg M. M. Rocking your writing program: Integration of visual art, language arts, & science / M. M. Poldberg, G. Trainin, N. Andrzejczak // Journal for learning through the arts. – 2013. – Vol. 9. – No. 1. – Р. 3–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21977/D9912659
13. Porozovs J. Evaluation of the teaching methods used in secondary school biology lessons / J. Porozovs, L. Liepniece, D. Voita // Signum Temporis. – 2015. – Vol. 7. – No. 1. – P. 60–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sigtem-2016-0009.
14. Saavedra A. R. Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching / A. R. Saavedra, V. D. Opfer // Phi Delta Kappan. – 2012. – Vol. 94. – No. 2. – P. 8–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209400203
15. Tella A. The impact of motivation on students’ academic achievement and learning outcomes in mathematics among secondary school students in Nigeria / A. Tella // Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. – 2007. – Vol. 3. – No. 2. – Р. 149–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75390
16. Zion M. The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices / M. Zion, S. Cohen, R. Amir // Research in Science Education. – 2007. – Vol. 37. – No. 4. – Р. 423–447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9034-5
17. Županec V. The effectiveness of an interdisciplinary approach in biology teaching in primary school: A comparison with monodisciplinary approach / V. Županec, T. Lazarević, V. Sekulić, & T. Pribićević // International Journal of Educational Methodology. – 2023. – Vol. 9. – No. 1. – Р. 169–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.9.1.169.
References
1. Aflalo, E. (2021). Students generating questions as a way of learning. Active Learning in Higher Education. 22 (1), P. 63–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418769120.
2. Akmalovna, A. C., & Qizi, M. S. M. (2022). Innovative methods used in biological science teaching. Scholastic: Journal of Natural and Medical Education. 1 (2), P. 5–11. Retrieved from: https://univerpubl.com/index.php/scholastic/article/view/66.
3. Apugliese, A., & Lewis, S. E. (2017). Impact of instructional decisions on the effectiveness of cooperative learning in chemistry through meta-analysis. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 18 (1), P. 271–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00195E.
4. Caiman, C., & Jakobson, B. (2019). The Role of Art Practice in Elementary School Science. Science & Education. 28, P. 153–175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00036-2.
5. Gardiner, P. (2020). Learning to think together: Creativity, interdisciplinary collaboration and epistemic control. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 38, Article 100749. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100749.
6. Gasparatou, R. (2017). Scientism and Scientific Thinking. Sci & Educ. 26, P. 799–812. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9931-1
7. Hughes, J., Rogerson, M., Barton, J., & Bragg, R. (2019). Age and connection to nature: when is engagement critical? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 17(5), P. 265–269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2035.
8. Jeronen, E., Palmberg, I., & Yli-Panula, E. (2016). Teaching methods in biology education and sustainability education including outdoor education for promoting sustainability – A literature review. Education Sciences. 7 (1), P. 1–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010001.
9. Mirosavljević, A., Bognar, B., & Sablić, M. (2024). A Case Study of Biology Teaching Practices in Croatian Primary Schools. Open Education Studies. 6 (1), 20220229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2022-0229.
10. Peels, R. (2017). Ten reasons to embrace scientism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 1 (63), P. 11–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.04.001.
11. Peterson, E. G. (2020). Supporting curiosity in schools and classrooms. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 35, P. 7–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cobeha.2020.05.006.
12. Poldberg, M. M., Trainin, G., & Andrzejczak, N. (2013). Rocking your writing program: Integration of visual art, language arts, & science. Journal for learning through the arts. 9 (1), P. 3–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21977/D9912659.
13. Porozovs, J., Liepniece, L., & Voita, D. (2015). Evaluation of the teaching methods used in secondary school biology lessons. Signum Temporis. 7(1), P. 60–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sigtem-2016-0009.
14. Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan. 94 (2), P. 8–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209400203.
15. Tella, A. (2007). The impact of motivation on students’ academic achievement and learning outcomes in mathematics among secondary school students in Nigeria. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 3 (2), P. 149–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75390.
16. Zion, M., Cohen, S., & Amir, R. (2007). The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices. Research in Science Education. 37 (4), P. 423–447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9034-5.
17. Županec, V., Lazarević, T., Sekulić, V., & Pribićević, T. (2023). The effectiveness of an interdisciplinary approach in biology teaching in primary school: A comparison with monodisciplinary approach. International Journal of Educational Methodology. 9 (1), P. 169–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.9.1.169
