02.+Literature+Review

=Literature Review=

The following literature review aims to compare and contrast traditional science teaching methods with those of online science education. It will focus firstly on traditional methods of science teaching and then move to examine online education methods.

Given the size and complexity of the field of science education, and education in general, this literature review is intended only to be a background overview of some of the current methods of teaching science. It will by no means include everything, instead focusing on relevant sections and demonstrating a familiarity with the area in a more general sense. The case studies explained in other sections of the wiki will go into greater depth as needed. This study will focus on science education at a tertiary level, though other levels of education may be referred to if relevant.

**Traditional Science Education**
The methodologies teachers have for teaching science are endless. The broadness of the literature available in the area of science education is a testament to this. Modeling, problem based learning, reading, research projects, role playing, case study analysis and multimedia are some of the multitude of methods that science educators have at their disposal for conveying information, attitudes, learning styles and ways of thinking to their students (Duggan-Haas //et al//. 2000). Yet the ways students are taught science differs greatly depending on the country, the state, even between universities. Why is this? A review of the literature has made it apparent that there are numerous bodies in existence concerned with standardising science education – for example the National Science Teacher Association (@http://www.nsta.org/) in America and the Australian Science Teacher’s Association (www.asta.edu.au). Yet methods of science education still vary greatly between learning environments, universities and states.

It seems apparent that one of the contributing factors determining the method of science education is the pedagogical framework with which science education is approached. This alone determines a great deal – the curriculum, the assessment, the delivery of content, the way students are to interact, the use of technology, learning objectives, the learning styles used, and so on. As such, the similarities and differences of several approaches to teaching science will now be examined.

Of interest is the work of Edelson (1997) which discusses currently available science curricula which aim to emphasise the place of science in the student's life, society and community (p. 2), thus placing course content in a context which is relevant to the student. Here, he makes mention of the situated nature of knowledge – and the importance of situated learning theory to his view of science learning. He raises the issue of situated learning by discussing the problems that students have applying science knowledge they gained in high school in a tertiary setting (Edelson 1997, p. 3). Edelson (1997) claims that this is due to the memory indices which recall knowledge being too specific to the situation in which it was learned, thus making it difficult to apply it to new contexts (p. 3).

Thus we raise the issue of the importance of context in situated learning. “If the learning context accurately reflects the context in which the new understanding will be useful…then the situated nature of the learning will benefit the learner and enable him or her to recognise opportunities to apply the learning” (Edelson 1997, p. 3). Much of tertiary science education does, and has for some time focus on marrying science education with science practice (Dewey 1964; cited in Edelson 1997, p. 1). The benefits of this include development of inquiry-based learning and thinking skills, active learning and learning in the relevant context (Edelson 1997, p. 1). However this has been difficult to implement in practice, for a number of reasons. For example, traditionally designed laboratory experiments, aiming to give students experience in authentic scientific techniques and experimental practices, remove much of the beneficial aspects of the situated, contextual-based learning described above by usually involving little more than a set of laboratory equipment and a few pages of written, recipe-like instructions (Edelson 1997, p. 5). This type of traditional experiment does not teach independent learning, inquiry or thinking skills, with the student learning an experimental technique because they are told to, not because they have deduced that it is necessary to complete the experiment (O’Connell and Penton 1975, p. 61).

Further investigation into the effectiveness of laboratory work has also suggested, as agreed upon by Edelson (1997), that though it is a crucial element of a science education, it is often not taught effectively in a manner which will teach students scientific practices and critical thinking (Jimenez Aleixandre //et al//. 2003, p. 249). Problems can arise when, for example, the teacher is more focused on the results of the experiment rather than the scientific processes which are followed, or the many ways in which students will come to the same conclusion (Jimenez Aleixandre //et al//. 2003, p. 249). Neglected also are difficulties that students may come across, whether with the procedure, understanding the theory or other (Jimenez Aleixandre //et al.// 2003, p. 249). Addressing these difficulties are necessary for the students to develop a proper understanding of scientific practices (Jimenez Aleixandre //et al.// 2003, p. 249).

**The Psychologies of Learning**
I believe it is important to briefly take an aside to explain the traditional psychologies of learning, as these form a basis for the way science (and other subject areas) are taught and are also particularly relevant to some of the theories and frameworks which are later discussed.. There are three psychologies – behaviourism, cognitivism and humanism.

Behaviourism focuses on the effect of the learning environment on the student’s capacity to learn; modifying the environment subsequently changing the student’s behaviour and their potential learning outcomes (Tomei 2005, p. 26). “Learning must be both observable and measurable and the possibility for repeating successful learning contained in the principle of reinforcement” (Tomei 2005, p. 26). The problem that may arise with this psychology, however, is the possibility of negative reinforcement. For example, a difficult question in a science subject may illicit an anxiety-based response in a student, and then that student is conditioned to fear science (Tomei 2005, p. 26). In an application to science education in general, one may see a different set of behaviours in a student taught science from a traditional lecture, in a lecture theatre, from that of the same student taught in an interactive tutorial or in the laboratory. It’s important to note, however, that there is more to consider than just this psychology in relation to the student’s behaviour in a particular learning environment. Bloom notes that alternative learning strategies are needed to accommodate the different learning styles of students. If a teaching strategy is ineffective for a particular student, then a new strategy is required – a consideration that surpasses only the environment’s effect on the student’s ability to learn (Tomei 2005, p. 29).

Cognitive theory, in contrast to behaviourism, distinguishes knowledge based on what a learner does and does not know (Tomei 2005, p. 29). “Learning takes place when information is received into the mind and processed to make some sense of it. Learning new information is possible by connecting existing information and storing it for later retrieval” (Tomei 2005, p. 29). An important aspect of cognitivism, both for student and teacher is the linking of new information to existing information (Tomei 2005, p. 29). Thus a teacher will be more effective at teaching in a cognitive style if they incorporate the prior knowledge of the student into learning the new information (Tomei 2005, p. 30).

Humanism, as a final note, suggests that learning is influenced by self-perception and that a learner will derive one’s own meaning based on personal experiences (Tomei 2005, p. 33). Education from a humanist perspective, “fosters self development, cooperation, positive communications and personalisation of information” (Tomei 2005, p. 33).


 * The Science Education Revolution**

In the last twenty years there have been significant changes to the way in which science has been taught. Research into science education is a growing field and numerous new methods which aim to better incorporate theoretical principles into teaching are creating improved, learner centred methods of science education which cater to a greater range of student needs than those previously discussed (McLoughlin and Taji 2005, p. 1). Of these learner-centred methods, many investigations have been focused on students’ metacognitive skills, learning styles and the importance of situated learning (McLoughlin and Taji 2005, p. 1).

A particular important issue which has arisen from research into science education has been a shift towards constructivist approaches, away from “instructional” schools of thought which focus on mastery of content and rote learning (McLoughlin and Taji 2005, p. 2). Erat (1975) also suggests that there needs to be a shift away from an instructional teaching scenario, with more support given to independent learning. He acknowledges, however, that this is difficult in practice. A lecture format for teaching allows the lecturer to convey information to a large volume of students without repetition (Erat 1975, p. 12). Furthermore, as a course that is taught purely from a constructivist pedagogy will have a significantly varied and most likely looser curriculum structure, he raises concern that students will have difficulty learning (Erat 1975, p. 12). His reasoning behind this lies in cognitive psychologies – knowledge is obtained faster if it is structured (Erat 1975, p. 12). However, constructivist approaches to education are still controversial. While McLoughlin and Taji (2005) herald it as an important new strategy to allow students to self-regulate their own learning, promoting efficient learning an understanding, (p. 3), others, such as Cromer (1997) criticise it harshly. Cromer argues that a constructivist view of science devalues science knowledge and he stresses his concern that an educator of science with no science background to be of equal footing to a science-trained science educator (p. 11). Ultimately, Cromer claims that a universal education framework is necessary for the creation of consistent knowledge across all individuals learning science (p. 182). He attacks constructivism's ideas that students should control their own learning and create their own frameworks, stating that this could "lead to outlandish and dangerous interpretations of events" (p. 182).

The use of problem-based learning (PBL) is one such method which is being introduced into tertiary science education, arising from the need to diversify graduate skills (Lobry de Bruyn 2005, p. 85). Aside from giving graduates a valuable set of problem solving skills, PBL teaches students how to work collaboratively and how to self-direct their learning (Lobry de Bruyn 2005, p. 85). Furthermore, this method of teaching science is an important way of allowing the student to acquire knowledge and think critically to solve real world problems, a crucial skill in the sciences (Lobry de Bruyn 2005, p. 86). Additionally, the value of utilising PBL in science is that, given that the problems proposed to students are generally unresolved and lack structure, the student is motivated to research the area further with the aim of understanding the problem (Lobry de Bruyn 2005, p. 87). This brings in a learner-centred and self-directed component to student learning (Lobry de Bruyn 2005, p. 87; McLoughlin and Taji 2005, p. 1), and also utilises elements of a constructivist pedagogy, with the teacher acting as a “guide on the side” (Saunders 2008; Tomei 2005, p. xiii).

A particular problem with science education to date is that, although the students are expected to solve problems as part of their learning requirements and in the future, part of their careers, the teaching of problem solving processes is not effectively shared with the students (McLoughlin and Hollingworth 2005, p. 117). The authors state the need for more science teachers to develop self-awareness of their own problem-solving approaches so they can better articulate these to the students, thus taking a student-centred approach to teaching (p. 117). Therefore, students can be taught to think metacognitively about their own problem-solving approaches, ultimately becoming better equipped to tackle real life problems (McLoughlin and Hollingworth 2005, p. 179).

Another issue that is currently being considered in science education is the issue of supporting students when they first begin tertiary study. Given the increasing numbers of students undertaking university courses, large numbers of first year students struggle with the expectation that they must learn independently and are able to think critically (Muldoon 2005, p. 123). Furthermore, increasing numbers of students need to balance work and study, which places further constraints on their time (p. 124). Science educators are beginning to question traditional teaching methods, such as lectures, citing that while they are effective at communicating to large numbers of students at one time, they do not necessarily mean the student will learn effectively (Muldoon 2005, p. 125). First year courses often involve repeat lecture series and multiple concurrent laboratory sessions, merely to cope with the numbers (Peat //et al//. 2005, p. 159). While other traditional teaching methods, such as tutorials, are much better equipped to cater to student needs and take on a student-centred approach, unlike lectures they are unsuitable for the large student numbers currently enrolling in university science courses (Muldoon 2005 p. 125). “Traditional teaching methods have become both necessary and anachronistic,” (Laws 1996, p. 3; cited in Muldoon 2005, p. 125). Therefore, if science is to take on a learner-centred approach, students must be supported in a way that is both specific to their learning context, but also promotes the development of tertiary-level thinking skills and social integration (Muldoon 2005, p. 136).

Quinn (2005) also touches on the need for a reform of the assessment process involved in tertiary science. She calls for assessments to be student-centred, reflect clearly the learning objectives, and perhaps most importantly, promote demonstration of deeper learning, rather than the reproduction of rote-learned information (p. 194). Here, the use of self- and peer assessment is becoming greater utilised, reflecting the importance of independent learning (p. 194).

**Science Education Online**
As a contrast and in addition to the traditional methods of teaching science, a view of teaching science with technology will also be examined, with a strong focus on teaching science online. As this is an area of research that is currently on the rise, it was discovered that there was just as much, if not more, literature on this subject area as there was on traditional education. With this in mind, this section of the review will, like the review of traditional science teaching, focus on a general examination of the area with a focus on background theory, with the case studies section of the wiki focusing on specific examples of how science is taught online.

Indeed, technology is now commonplace in the majority of classrooms. However, what is of concern is that in some cases, teachers rely on their students to give them a foundation in the technology at hand so they can effectively use it in a classroom scenario (Tomei 2005, p. xii). Tomei (2005) suggests that for effective use of technology, and in my opinion particularly online technology, teachers need to form learning communities that support their professional development in the technological realm (p. xii). Interestingly, we see an example of Lave and Wenger’s situated learning applied to the teacher as a learner here (Lave and Wenger 1991). There are also suggestions in the literature that educators who utilise technology most effectively take on a facilitator or “guide on the side” role (Saunders 2008; Tomei 2005, p. xiii), which is a particular contrast from traditional science lecture format, where the teacher serves as the “sage on the stage” (Saunders 2008; Tomei 2005, p. xii).

Bonner (2005) cites changes to tertiary science education such as increased numbers and reduced resources as necessitating an increase in online course delivery to help increase support available to students and assist in delivering course material (p. 38). There is also a need to develop asynchronously delivered science courses not only for the above reasons but also for students who cannot attend daytime classes due to work commitments (Schoenfeld-Tacher //et al//. 2001, p. 264). Online learning environments are currently being promoted as a “means to replace the loss of contact time with an instructor, particularly through the use of self-paced learning modules” (Bonner 2005, p. 38). However, the use of online learning environments must not replace contact with a lecturer or instructor, as this interaction is particularly important in facilitating learning for the student (Bonner 2005, p. 38; Thurmond and Wambach 2004, p. 14).

Numerous researchers are favouring a framework of scaffolded knowledge integration when approaching science education online (Hoadley 2000, Linn //et al//. 2004). This framework builds well on the constructivist approach taken by many face to face science institutions in that learners often have conflicting initial ideas on a concept and thus knowledge must be integrated (i.e. situated) with an appropriate learning environment for effective learning (Linn //et al//. 2004, p. xviii). The integration of science into online learning environments has come at a time in which students report they are forgetting what they have learned – they cannot form connections between concepts, nor apply skills learned in science to problems similar to what they have studied (Linn //et al//. 2004, p. 345). Clearly, these issues as well as those mentioned above must be addressed in the conception and design of any science learning environment.

In comparing a web-based learning environment to a traditional one, one of the most noticeable differences is the way that students interact with each other, the course content, and the teacher (Thurmond and Wambach 2004 p. 9). A study of students studying a histology course using online delivery reported that they felt a sense of bonding with their instructor, indicating how important this interaction is to encourage participation (Schoenfeld-Tacher //et al//. 2001, p. 263). What is also important to note when examining interactions in an online learning environment is that ultimately, a better understanding of the subject matter at hand is the aim of the interaction (Thurmond and Wambach 2004, p. 10). In a traditional science lecture, students do not interact with each other, nor the lecturer, who, as mentioned, serves in a “sage on the stage” role. As discussed by Saunders (2008) and Tomei (2005), this has been found to be an ineffective manner of allowing students to effectively learn and understand the course content.

Furthermore, a study of nursing students, which compared a group of students taught in a web-based course to those taught traditionally, found the online group’s learning to be considerably enhanced through continuous interaction with the course content (Thurmond and Wambach 2004, p. 11). Those which studied the course online interacted with the course content regularly throughout the week by way of online discussions with other group members and reading (Thurmond and Wambach 2004, p. 11). In contrast, it was found that the traditionally taught students completed assignments at the last minute and only interacted with the course content once a week at their scheduled face to face lecture (Thurmond and Wambach 2004, p. 11). Feedback from students also showed that they believed that their participation in discussions online enhanced their learning, with a correlation being found between perceived learning and actual learning (Jiang and Ting 1999).

As mentioned earlier in the review, in many cases, though ineffective, traditional science teaching methodologies such as lectures are continuing to be used to cope with increasing student numbers and decreasing teaching resources. Thus, many institutions are now turning to online technologies to help augment teaching (Bonner 2005, p. 27). Bonner (2005) classifies the information and communication technology (ICT) that makes up an online learning environment into two groups – applications that carry out teaching and learning processes that can also be performed face to face and applications that reduce the need for teaching involvement and help to support independent learning (p. 28). The benefits of using an online learning environment is that it allows the student to tailor their own learning experience by deciding how much time to spend and by allowing the learner to select from multiple avenues through which to solve a problem (Bonner 2005, p. 27). However Bonner (2005) also notes that ICT alone does not encourage students to learn (p. 29), which comes back to the importance of interaction both with other students and the instructor (Schoenfeld-Tacher //et al//. 2001, p. 263; Thurmond and Wambach 2004, p. 14).

Bonner (2005) also discusses the importance of practical laboratory skills to a science education. However, numerous techniques are unable to be taught in a laboratory exercise due to the expense of materials or equipment, the hazardous nature of many scientific compounds, or the time it takes to perform the experiment. For example, a protein purification assay or western blot experiment can take up to three days, involving multiple steps and time-courses. While very useful and important experiments, particularly to molecular research, these are not experiments which can be effectively taught in an undergraduate laboratory session. However, using online technologies, Bonner (2005) discusses how students can still experience the empirical nature of the technique without the time and resource constraints (p. 35). He refers to an application known as proteinLAB, currently being used in the UK to simulate protein purification experiments, which allows the student to conduct virtual experiments (p. 35). The package allows the student to use different protein purification techniques to construct the experiment under realistic conditions, with the success or failure of the experiment entirely determined by the student (Bonner 2005, p. 35). Furthermore, interestingly, proteinLAB is driven on what Barnard and Sandberg (1992) term a “failure driven approach,” in which the student is provided with support on an as needs basis, rather than prior to performing the experiment (Barnard and Sandberg 1992; cited in Bonner 2005, p. 35).

To conclude this section, the importance of online learning environments and ICT to teaching science is clear. Increasing student numbers and decreased content time is making it difficult for science educators to facilitate effective learning environments for students using traditional science teaching methods. Furthermore, the demands of students are changing, with students coming from a range of backgrounds, arriving at university with varying skill sets and having varying work and study commitments. As such, we are beginning to see a shift towards a range of different learning environments and modules being incorporated into university programs of study. A selection of these environments and modules will be examined further in the case studies section to demonstrate the range and variation in the way they are currently being utilised to teach science online, and a selection of pedagogical theories will be applied.