As science teachers, do we evaluate our practice?
Abstract
The title of this article is intended to invite science teachers to reflect on why, what and how we evaluate our teaching practice. We live immersed in an educational context where a lot is said about educational innovations, methodological, organizational, and assessment changes, etc. However, it is not found the same level of debate on whether evaluation of teachers’ efforts to design, rethink and adapt school practices and experiences is needed – and how to carry it out. An analytical framework for the evaluation of teaching proposals and educational interventions is presented, together with an exemplification focused on the case of an evaluation of a school project about air pollution contextualised in the problem of Cerdanyola’s crematorium. The aim of this educational reflection is, therefore, engage sci-ence teachers in this necessary debate on how to appraise the quality of teaching practice.
Keywords
evaluation, educational innovation, teaching competencies, instruments, school project, second-ary school, air pollution,References
-Bennett, J., Holman, J., Millar, R., & Waddington, D. (2005) Making a difference: Evaluation as a tool for improving science education. Germany: Waxmann.
-Black, P. (2017). Assessment in Teaching and Lear-ning. Conferència via telemàtica al seu acte de reconeixement a la Facultat de Ciències de l’Educació de la UAB.
-Blanco-López, A., Martínez-Peña, B. & Jiménez-Liso, R. (2018). ¿Puede la investigación iluminar el cambio educativa? Ápice. Revista de Educación Cientí-fica, 2(2), 15-28.
-Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (2004). Learning and Transfer. In: How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
-Couso, D. (2017). Per a què estem a STEM? Un intent de definir l’alfabetització STEM per a tothom i amb valors. Ciències, 34, 22-30.
-Domènech, J. (2014). ¿Qué profesorado queremos (ser)? Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 450.
-Domènech, J. (2018). Aprendizaje basado en proyectos en el marco STEM. Componentes didácticas para la competencia científica. Ápice. Revista de Educación Científica, 2(2), 29-42.
-Ferrer, S. (2018). Educación basada en la evidencia: ¿qué pedagogías han probado que funcionan? Sinc. Retrieved from: https://www.agenciasinc.es/Reporta-jes/Educacion-basada-en-la-evidencia-que-pedago-gias-han-probado-que-funcionan
-Freixa, M. (2017). Professorat novell: competències do-cents a l’inici de l’exercici professional. AQU. Retrieved from: http://www.aqu.cat/doc/doc_39746465_1.pdf
-Hernández, M.I. & Pintó, R. (2016). The Process of It-erative Development of a Teaching/Learning Se-quence on Acoustic Properties of Materials. A: D. Psillos & P. Kariotoglou (Eds.). Iterative Design of Teaching-Learning Sequences: Introducing the Science of Materials in European Schools, 129-166. Springer.
-McDermott, L.C. (2001). Oersted Medal Lecture 2001: “Physics education research – the key to student learning”, American Journal of Physics, 69, 11, 1127-1137.
-Millar, R., Le Maréchal, J.F. & Tiberghien, A. (1999). ‘Mapping’ the domain: Varieties of practical work. In J. Leach & A. Paulsen (Eds.), Practical work in sci-ence education—Recent research studies (pp. 33–59). Roskilde/Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Roskilde University Press/Kluwer.
-Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: me-eting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 177 – 196.
-Pintó, R. (1983). Anàlisi de programes de Física per a l'ensenyament elemental. Publicacions de la UAB.
-Sanmartí, N. & Márquez, C. (2017). Aprendizaje de las ciencias basado en proyectos: del contexto a la acción. Ápice. Revista de Educación Científica, 1(1), 3-16.
-Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for sci-entific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessi-ble and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.
Simon, Erduran & Osborne (2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: R&D in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28:2-3, 235-260.
-Stanley, G., MacCann, R., Gardner, J., Reynolds, L., Wild, I. (2009). Review of teacher assessment: what works best and issues for development. Oxford Uni-versity Centre for Educational Development.
-van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, et al. (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1-14). Boston: Kluwer.
Fonts electròniques
-Sanmartí N., Prat i Pla, A., Pigrau, T., Mas i Ferrer, M., Al·lès, G., Tresor de recursos. Avaluar per aprendre. (5 de Desembre, 2018). Recuperat de: https://www.tresorderecursos.com/
-Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament d’ensenyament, Xarxa de Competències bàsiques. Full d’indicadors per a l’ensenyament. És competencial aquesta unitat o seqüència didàctica?. (5 de Desembre, 2018). Retrieved from:
-Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament d’ensenyament. Full d’indicadors de valoració de les proves d’avaluació. “Cap a una avaluació més autèntica, més propera a la vida real”. (5 de Desembre, 2018). Retrieved from
Published
Downloads
Copyright (c) 2018 María Isabel Hernández Rodríguez
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
