_.gif)
_.gif)
A Receptor-Oriented Approach to Overcoming Universal Challenges in Science Education
Abstract
This study explores key challenges in science education from a receptor-oriented perspective, analyzing the experiences of teachers, students, school administrators, policymakers, and community stakeholders. Findings reveal significant barriers, including inadequate resources, limited professional development for teachers, low student engagement, outdated curricula, and insufficient policy support. Teachers reported a lack of access to necessary resources and training in emerging science topics, which limits their ability to conduct hands-on, inquiry-based lessons. Students expressed a desire for more relevant, real-world applications in science, which are missing due to curriculum rigidity and emphasis on standardized testing. Furthermore, administrators identified funding constraints and digital illiteracy as obstacles to implementing modern science education. Community and industry involvement was identified as crucial yet underutilized, limiting students' exposure to STEM career pathways and practical science applications. The findings underscore the need for reform strategies that provide resource allocation, updated curricula, reduced testing pressures, digital literacy initiatives, and structured partnerships with industry. A receptor-oriented approach is recommended to tailor solutions for each group’s unique needs, ultimately supporting a more engaging, equitable, and future-focused science education system.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Archer, L., Osborne, J., DeWitt, J., Dillon, J., Wong, B., & Willis, B. (2010). "Doing" science versus "being" a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren's constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617-639.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). The teaching of science: 21st-century perspectives. NSTA Press.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (5th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. Teachers College Press.
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.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage.
Holbrook, J. & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.
Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2020). Educational technology beyond content: A model of digital literacy in practice. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(2), 171-189.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51-61.
McKnight, K., O'Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 194-211.
McLaughlin, M. W. & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. Teachers College Press.
Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: learners, contexts, and cultures. The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: critical reflections. Nuffield Foundation.
Ravitch, D. (2016). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. Basic Books.
Sadler, T. D., Coyle, H. P., & Schwartz, R. S. (2010). Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: Key elements in developing students' understanding of design. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(5), 469-479.
Sahlberg, P. (2010). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9-20.
Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia's future. Australian Council for Educational Research.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33258/birle.v7i4.7986
DOI (PDF): https://doi.org/10.33258/birle.v7i4.7986.g7859
Article Metrics
Abstract view : 6 timesPDF - 0 times
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License