THE ENGAGEMENT OF SECONDARY SCHOOL LEARNERS FOR LEARNING SCIENCE BY RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Palmira Peciuliauskiene

Abstract


The article deals with the role of responsible research and innovation (RRI) in promoting intrinsic motivation of secondary school learners. RRI is a new concept highlighted by the European Commission that refers to the process which requires a dialogue between scientists and all citizens including the young generation to align the results of research with societal needs in a better way. RRI deals with uncertain areas of knowledge, where arguments and values matter as much as facts. It gives students an opportunity for responsibility and self-expression for coming to informed decisions about the science innovation and their impact. This situation requires a deeper look into the problem of motivation for learning science from the aspect of RRI activity. The research problem is formulated as a question: how does responsible research and innovation in science education promote intrinsic motivation of secondary school learners. Learners’ intrinsic motivation was analysed on the basis of Self-Determination Theory (STD). According to STD, it is important to fulfil three basic psychological needs of learners: the need for autonomy, the need for competence and the need for relatedness. Intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI) was used to assess the participants’ intrinsic motivation related to the RRI activity in science. The article describes the results of RRI project ENGAGE in Lithuania.

Keywords


responsible research and innovation; intrinsic motivation; inquiry-based learning

Full Text:

PDF

References


Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding Students' Experiments—What kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks? International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2719-2749.

Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, P. C., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., Karikorpi, M., Lazoudis, A., Casulleras, R. P., Welzel-Breuer, M. (2015). Science Education for Responsible Citizenship. EU 26893, European Commission.

Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013a). Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 12(1), E6–E10. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852879/

Espejaa, A.G., Lagaróna, D.C. (2015). Socio-scientific issues (SSI) in initial training of primary school teachers: Pre-service teachers’ conceptualization of SSI and appreciation of the value of teaching SSI. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 196 ,80 – 88.

Evagorou, M., Jimenez-aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). “Should We Kill the Grey Squirrels?” A Study Exploring Students’Justifications and Decision-Making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401–428.

Field, A. (2000). Discovering Statistics using SPSS for Windows. London – Thousand Oaks – New Delhi: Sage publications

Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, L. (2014). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Griffiths, R. (2004). Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: the case of the built environment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 709-726.

Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the University: New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching (pp. 67–78). London: McGraw Hill and Open University Press.

Healey, M. and Roberts, J. (eds) (2004). Engaging Students in Active Learning: Case studies in geography, environment and related disciplines. Cheltenham: Geography Discipline Network and School of Environment, University of Gloucestershire.

Igwebuike, T., & Oriaifo, S. (2012). Effect of a Constructivist Instructional Strategy on Affective Outcomes by Integrated Science Students. International Review of Contemporary Learning Research. 3(1), 1–10.

Jurik, V., Gröschner , A., Seidel, T. (2014). Predicting students' cognitive learning activity and intrinsic learning motivation: How powerful are teacher statements, student profiles, and gender? Learning and Individual Differences 32, 132–139.

Mercer-Mapstone, L. & Kuchel, L. (2015) Teaching Scientists to Communicate: Evidence-based assessment for undergraduate science education, International Journal of Science Education, 37:10, 1613-1638, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1045959.

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry‐based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of research in science teaching, 47(4), 474-496.

Okada, A. (2013). Scientific Literacy in the digital age: tools, environments and resources for co-inquiry. European Scientific Journal, 4, 263–274.

Okada, A., Young, G. & Sanders, J. (2015). Fostering Communities of Practices for teachers' professional development integrating OER and MOOC, EC-TEL. The 10th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning.

Osborne , J., Simon, Sh. & Collins, S. (2003) Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications, International Journal of Science Education,25:9, 1049-1079, DOI: 10.1080/0950069032000032199

Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science & Public Policy (SPP), 39(6), 751-760. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs093

Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2013). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Academies Press.

Rietveld, T., & Van Hout, R. (1993). Statistical Techniques for the Study of Language and Language Behaviour. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Rocard M., Csermely P., Jorde D., Lenzen D., Walberg-Henriksson H., Hemmo V. (2007). Rocard report: “Science education now: A new pedagogy for the future of Europe”. EU 22845, European Commission.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: an organismic–dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester: The University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Ryan‚ R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology‚ 43‚ 450-461.

Sherborne, T. et. al. (2014). ENGAGE: Equipping the Next Generation for Active Engagement in Science. http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/111469_en.html.

Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39, 97–110. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902 2.

Von Schomberg, R. (2011). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In M. Dusseldorp, & R. Beecroft (Eds.), Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden. Wiesbaden: Vs Verlag, pp. 39–61).

Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific Issues: Theory and Practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/sie2017vol2.2249

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.