Analysis of the Implementation of Practical Work in the Area of Early Science Education of Primary School Pupils in the Republic of Slovenia

The article presents the results of a comprehensive study (N = 497) among Slovene primary school teachers with the aim of examining practical work in Primary Science courses (age 9-11). The study examined the attitude towards practical work and obstacles. The aim was also to find out whether the level of socio-economic development impacts on attitudes and obstacles. The main obstacles to the implementation of practical work at class level are: lack of material support, oversized classes, poor spatial conditions and a need for assistants. Surprising results followed an analysis of differences in the development of the environment: primary school teachers from less developed regions show a more positive attitude towards practical work compared to those from more developed regions. In addition, obstacles are perceived similarly regardless of the socio-economic situation.

REFERENCES:

• Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 32, 393-410.
• Appleton, K., & Asoko, H. (1996): A case study of teacher´s progress toward using a constructivist view of learning to inform teaching in elementary science. Science Education, 80(5), 165-180.
• Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Currebt Directions in Psyhological Science, 9, 75-78.
• Bell, G.L. (1999). An investigation of professional development model in science education. A system approach. The university of Texas-Austin. UMI Dissertation Services 9947171.
• Bencze, J. (2010). Promoting student-led science and technology project in elementary teacher education: entry into core pedagogical practices through technological design. International Journal of Technology & Design Education; Vol. 20 Issue 1, p43-62.
• Bennett, J. (2003): Teaching and Learning Science: a guide to recent research and its applications. London: Barth.
• Chatoney, M. (2006). The Evolution of Knowledge Objects at the Primary School: A Study of the Material Concept as it is Taught in France. International Journal of Technology & Design Education; Vol. 16 Issue 2, p143-161.
• Davis, R., Ginns, I., McRobbie, C. (2002). Elementary school students’ understanding of technology concepts. Journal of Technology Education, 14(1), 35-50.
• Dow, Wendy (2006). The Need to Change Pedagogies in Science and Technology Subjects: A European Perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, v16 n3 p307-321
• Duschl, A. Richard, Schwingruber, A. Heidi, Shouse W. Andrew (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Washington: Board on Science Education.
• Fošnarič, S., Planinšec, J., Črčinovič R., J. (2007). Model of narration and evaluation work of the trainee in the field of education and training. Partnership between the Faculty and Educational Institutions: Education - Practical Work - Research. Maribor: Faculty of Education.
• Gibson, K. (2009). Technology and Design, at Key Stage 3, within the Northern Ireland curriculum: teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Technology & Design Education; Vol. 19 Issue 1, p37-54.
• Hayes, M.T. & Deyhle, D. (2001). Constructing difference: A comparative study of elementary science curriculum differentiation. Science Education, 85, 239-262.
• Hill, A.M., & Smith, H.A. (2005). Research in purpose and value for the study of technology in secondary schools: A theory of authentic learning. In J. Dakers & M. de Vries (Eds.), Creating communities in technology education: Special edition. The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 19-32.
• Hipkins, R. & Barker, M. (2005). Teaching the ‘nature of science’: modest adaptations or radical reconceptions? International Journal of Science Education, 27 (2), 243-254.
• Hunt, J. & Appleton, K. (2003). Professional development in primary science: Teacher mentoring. In B. Knight &A. Harrison (Eds.), Research perspectives and education for future (p.p.165-187). Flaxton, Australia: Post Pressed.
• Jarvis, T. & Pell, A. (2004). Primary te achers’ changing attitudes and cognition during a two-year science in-service programme and their effect on pupils. International Journal of Science Education; 26 (14), 1787-1811.
• Key, D.L. (1998). Teacher interns´ changing perceptions during internship. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
• Kimble, L.L. & Yager, R.E., & Yager, S.O. (2006). Success of a professional-development model in assisting teachers to change their teaching to match the more emphasis conditions urged in the National Science Education Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 309-322.
• Kruger, C. & Summers, M. (2000). Developing primary school children’s understanding of energy waste. Research in Science & Technological Education, 18(1), 5-21.
• Mance, A. (2008). Teaching Science in U.S. Public School. Research Starters.
• Meichtry, Y., Smith, J. (2007). The Impact of a Place-Based Professional Development Program on Teachers’ Confidence, Attitudes, and Classroom Practices. Journal of Environmental Education; Vol. 38 Issue 2, p15-32
• Milner, A., Sondergeld, T., Demir, A., Johnson, C., Czerniak, C. (2012). Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs about Teaching Science and Classroom Practice: An Examination of Pre/Post NCLB Testing in Science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23 (2), 111-132.
• Monk, M., Osborne, J. (2000). Good practice in science teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Mork, S.M. (2005). Argumentation in science lessons: Focusing on the teacher’s role. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1, 17-30.
• Murphy, C, Beggs, J. (2005). Primary science in the UK: a scoping study. London: Wellcome Trust.
• Murphy, C., Neil, P., Beggs, J. (2007). Primary teacher confidence revisited: ten years on. Educational Research, 46(4), 415-430.
• Newton, L.D., Newton, D.P., Blake, A., & Brown, K. (2002). Do primary school science book for children show a concern for explanatory understanding. Research in science & Technological Education, 20(2), 227-240.
• Osborne, J., Dillon, J. (2010). Good practice in science teaching: what research has to say. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• Palmer, David (2006). Durability of Changes in Self-efficacy of Preservice Primary Teachers. International Journal of Science Education; Vol. 28 Issue 6, p655-671.
• Parkinson, E. (2001). Teacher knowledge and understanding of design and technology for children in the 3-11 age group: A study focusing on aspects of structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 13, 44-58.
• Paulík, Karel (2012). Job Satisfaction and Stress among Teachers. The New Educational Review, 30, 138-149.
• Pell, T. & Jarvis, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of ages from five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education 33(8), 847-862.
• Peters, M., Joseph, Stout, L., David (2002). Methods for Teaching Elementary School Science. Ohio, Columbia: Pearson Education Ltd.
• Píšová, M. (2005). Teacher Professional Development. The New Educational Review, 30, 171-185.
• Piwowarski, R. (2010) Preconditions for Effective Teaching (in the Light of Data from the TALIS 2008 Project - Polish Perspective). The New Educational Review, 22, 205-217.
• Posnanski, T.J. (2010). Developing Understanding of the Nature of Science within a Professional Development Program for Inservice Elementary Teachers: Project Nature of Elementary Science Teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, v21 n5 p589-621.
• Taber, K. (2007). Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: a guide for teachers. Los Angeles [etc.]: Sage
• Taber, K. (2009). Progressing science education: constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Science & Technology Education Library 37.
• Wilson, V., & Harris, M. (2003). Designing the best: A review of effective teaching and learning of design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 223-241.