Styles of teaching Science compared to job seniority and teacher’s education. The student’s perspective12

• Authors: Małgorzata Czapla , Agata Rataszewska

Title variants

DE

Styles of teaching Science compared to job seniority and teacher’s education. The student’s perspective12

PL

Styles of teaching Science compared to job seniority and teacher’s education. The student’s perspective12

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Czapla Małgorzata, Rataszewska Agata, Styles of teaching Science compared to job seniority and teacher’s education. The student’s perspective. Culture – Society – Education no 2(16) 2019, Poznań 2019, pp. 95–114, Adam Mickiewicz University Press. ISSN 2300-0422. DOI 10.14746/kse.2019.16.7.The article presents the manner of work of science teachers on the basis of students’ opinions. The research included 870 6th grade primary school students, whose teachers had different work experience and level of education. The authors used the diagnostic survey as the research method. Flander’s analysis category system was used for the analysis of classroom interactions. In order to establish the relationship between the pairs of quality variables, the chi-square test of independence was used. It has been found that the teaching style is consistent with an adopted teaching model. There are two main types of teaching models: a model based on cognitive psychology and behavioural psychology. The model is reflected in the teacher’s teaching style, which might be reactive or directive. In the students’ opinion science teachers, particularly those with the shortest work experience, most often transmit their knowledge to students during classes (directive style). Those with more seniority and experience encourage students to perform certain tasks more frequently (reactive style). Science teacher’s education does not influence the teaching style and the majorityof teachers prefer a syncretic style. Students of the teacherspreferring a directive style revealed lower interest in sciencethan those who were taught in reactive style.As a result of this disinterest, the studied students only occasionallyperformed activities in direct contact with nature.

PL

Czapla Małgorzata, Rataszewska Agata, Styles of teaching Science compared to job seniority and teacher’s education. The student’s perspective. Culture – Society – Education no 2(16) 2019, Poznań 2019, pp. 95–114, Adam Mickiewicz University Press. ISSN 2300-0422. DOI 10.14746/kse.2019.16.7. The article presents the manner of work of science teachers on the basis of students’ opinions. The research included 870 6th grade primary school students, whose teachers had different work experience and level of education. The authors used the diagnostic survey as the research method. Flander’s analysis category system was used for the analysis of classroom interactions. In order to establish the relationship between the pairs of quality variables, the chi-square test of independence was used. It has been found that the teaching style is consistent with an adopted teaching model. There are two main types of teaching models: a model based on cognitive psychology and behavioural psychology. The model is reflected in the teacher’s teaching style, which might be reactive or directive. In the students’ opinion science teachers, particularly those with the shortest work experience, most often transmit their knowledge to students during classes (directive style). Those with more seniority and experience encourage students to perform certain tasks more frequently (reactive style). Science teacher’s education does not influence the teaching style and the majorityof teachers prefer a syncretic style. Students of the teacherspreferring a directive style revealed lower interest in sciencethan those who were taught in reactive style.As a result of this disinterest, the studied students only occasionallyperformed activities in direct contact with nature.

DE

Czapla Małgorzata, Rataszewska Agata, Styles of teaching Science compared to job seniority and teacher’s education. The student’s perspective. Culture – Society – Education no 2(16) 2019, Poznań 2019, pp. 95–114, Adam Mickiewicz University Press. ISSN 2300-0422. DOI 10.14746/kse.2019.16.7. The article presents the manner of work of science teachers on the basis of students’ opinions. The research included 870 6th grade primary school students, whose teachers had different work experience and level of education. The authors used the diagnostic survey as the research method. Flander’s analysis category system was used for the analysis of classroom interactions. In order to establish the relationship between the pairs of quality variables, the chi-square test of independence was used. It has been found that the teaching style is consistent with an adopted teaching model. There are two main types of teaching models: a model based on cognitive psychology and behavioural psychology. The model is reflected in the teacher’s teaching style, which might be reactive or directive. In the students’ opinion science teachers, particularly those with the shortest work experience, most often transmit their knowledge to students during classes (directive style). Those with more seniority and experience encourage students to perform certain tasks more frequently (reactive style). Science teacher’s education does not influence the teaching style and the majorityof teachers prefer a syncretic style. Students of the teacherspreferring a directive style revealed lower interest in sciencethan those who were taught in reactive style.As a result of this disinterest, the studied students only occasionallyperformed activities in direct contact with nature.

Keywords

EN

teaching style; science education; primary school teacher; students; teaching style; science education; primary school teacher; students

DE

teaching style; science education; primary school teacher; students

PL

teaching style; science education; primary school teacher; students

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Kultura-Społeczeństwo-Edukacja
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 2

Dates

published

2020-06-30

Contributors

author

Małgorzata Czapla

• Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1781-8362

author

Agata Rataszewska

• Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3883-6036

References

• Andrukowicz W. (1999), Różnojedność komunikacyjna w procesie kształcenia, [in:] K. Denek, F. Bereźnicki (eds.), Tendencje w dydaktyce współczesnej, Toruń.
• Arciszewska E. (2008), Wybrane determinanty rozwoju nauczycielskiego profesjonalizmu, czyli konteksty bycia nauczycielem – nowatorem, [in:] D. Klus-Stańska (ed.), Dokąd zmierza polska szkoła?, Warszawa, pp. 295–306.
• Bales R.F. (1950), Interaction Process Analysis: A method for the study of small groups, Chicago.
• Benade L. (2016), The Role of Trust in Reflective Practice, https://www.tandfonline.com.
• Bennett N.S. (1976), Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress, London.
• Bentley K. (2010), The TKT Teaching Knowledge Test, Course CLIL Module Content and Language Integrated Learning, Cambridge.
• Brzezińska A. (1999), Refleksja w dzialalności nauczyciela, [in:] A. Brzezińska (ed.), O nowe podejście w kształceniu nauczycieli, Warszawa.
• Czapla M. (2012), Style nauczania i niektóre ich uwarunkowania, [in:] E. Żmijewska (ed.), Kształcenie nauczycieli – modele – tendencje – wyzwania wielokulturowej rzeczywistości, Kraków.
• Czapla M. (2015), Zarządzanie wiedzą w szkole przyszłości, Studia Edukacyjne 35, pp. 101–112.
• Dale L., Tanner R. (2012), CLIL Activities, A resource for subject and language teachers, Cambridge.
• Dryden G., Vos J. (2000), Rewolucja w uczeniu, Poznań.
• Escotet M.A. (2018), Teaching Beyond the Transmission of Knowledge, http://miguelescotet.com.
• Fenstermacher G.D, Soltis J.F. (2000), Style nauczania, Warszawa.
• Flanders N.A. (1970), Analyzing Classroom Behavior, New York.
• Gołębniak B.D. (2004), Nauczanie i uczenie się w klasie, [in:] Z. Kwieciński, B. Śliwerski (eds.), Pedagogika. Podręcznik akademicki, vol. 2, Warszawa.
• Gołębniak D., Teusz G. (1999), Edukacja poprzez język. O całościowym uczeniu się, Warszawa.
• Janowski A. (1980), Psychologia społeczna a zagadnienia wychowania, Wrocław.
• Kincheloe J. (2004), The knowledges of teacher education: developing a critical complex epistemology, Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795234.pdf, pp. 49–66
• Klus-Stańska D. (2008), Dokąd zmierza polska szkoła? – pytania o ślepe uliczki, kierunki, konteksty, Warszawa.
• Klus-Stańska D. (2012), Konstruowanie wiedzy w szkole, Olsztyn.
• Kwiatkowska H. (1997), Edukacja nauczycieli. Konteksty, kategorie, praktyki, Warszawa.
• Kwieciński Z. (1998), The tact of teaching. The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. Ontario 1993, Review in: Forum Oświatowe vol. 10, 1.
• Kwieciński Z. (ed.) (1991), Nieobecne dyskursy vol. 1, Toruń.
• Lindgren H.C. (1962), Psychologia wychowawcza w szkole, Warszawa.
• Michalak M. (2010), Korczakowskie prawo do społecznej partycypacji dziecka. Dziecięce obywatelstwo, Dzieci w Europie, 17 (5), http://www.frd.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DwEnr-17.pdf, pp. 27–29.
• Michalak R. (2004), Aktywizowanie ucznia w edukacji wczesnoszkolnej, Poznań.
• Mieszalski S. (1997), O przymusie i dyscyplinie w klasie szkolnej, Warszawa.
• Mizerek H. (1999), Dyskursy współczesnej edukacji nauczycielskiej, Olsztyn.
• Nalaskowski A. (1995), Szanse szkoły z wyboru: studium eksploracyjne, Toruń.
• Niemierko B. (2007), Kształcenie szkolne. Podręcznik skutecznej dydaktyki, Warszawa.
• Nowak-Dziemianowicz M. (2014), Oblicza edukacji. Między pozorami a refleksyjną zmianą, Wrocław.
• Palka S. (1989), Teoria pedagogiczna a praktyczne doświadczenia nauczycieli, Warszawa.
• Piotrowski E. (1998), Koncepcja kształcenia wielostronnego a problem operatywności wiedzy uczniów, Studia Edukacyjne 3, pp. 165–174.
• Pyżalski J. (2007), Nauczyciele – uczniowie: dwa spojrzenia na dyscyplinę w klasie, Kraków.
• Raczyńska M. (2010), Zmienia się szkoła – zmienia się nauczyciel, Kwartalnik Pedagogiczny 1, pp. 166–178.
• Solomon D., Kendall A.J. (1979), Children in classrooms: An investigation of person-environment interaction, [in:] N. Entwistle (1998), Styles of Learning and Teaching, New York, pp. 232–233.
• Sowińska H. (ed.) (1996), Integracja w pracy z dziećmi w wieku wczesnoszkolnym, Poznań.
• Wragg E.C. (2001), Co i jak obserwować w klasie? Warszawa.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/kse.2019.16.7