Abstract
In the present paper, we report on the idea of exchanging educational innovations across European countries aiming to shed light on the following question: how feasible and useful is it to transfer an innovation across different national educational settings? The innovation, in this case, Inquiry-Based Teaching Learning Sequences, is recognized as a crucial component of renewal science teaching in European countries. Two local working groups from two different Universities, in Finland and Greece, were created consisting of researchers and experienced primary teachers. The transfer from Greece to Finland was rather challenging because of the differences between the two educational contexts. The initial, as well as the revised Teaching Learning Sequence, were implemented for 11–12-year-old students including the content to be taught, that is Floating-Sinking phenomena and density, and the learning environment aspects such as learning Control of Variables Strategy. A combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods was implemented in order to formulate concrete recommendations on feasible and useful aspect. The feasible aspect adduces answers to the query of “how” this transfer worked in practice. Concerning this aspect, the recognition of what is innovative for each national partner was recognized as a crucial factor for the design and revision of both Teaching Learning Sequences. The useful aspect illuminates students’ improvement in the achievement of conceptual as well as procedural knowledge. The results revealed that the psychological paths that bring about this success are ecumenical and independent of the history of the educational group.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexandrou, A., Field, K. & Mitchell, H. (Eds.). (2005). The continuing professional development of educators: Emerging European issues. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
Autio, E. & Laamanen, T. (1995). Measurement and evaluation of technology transfer: Review of technology transfer mechanisms and indicators. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(7-8), 643–664.
Boudreaux, A., Shaffer, P., Heron, P. & McDermott, L. (2008). Student understanding of control of variables: Deciding whether or not a variable influences the behavior of a system. American Journal of Physics, 76(2), 163–170. doi:10.1119/1.2805235.
Chen, Z. & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Darr, E. D. & Kurtzberg, T. R. (2000). An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on knowledge transfer. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 28–44.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.
Elton, L. (2003). Disseminations of innovations in higher education: A change theory approach. Tertiary Education and Management, 9(3), 199–214.
Enders, J. (2005). Border crossings: Research training, knowledge dissemination and the transformation of academic work. Higher Education, 49, 119–133.
EACEA/Eurydice (2008). Levels of autonomy and responsibilities of teachers in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice.
EACEA/Eurydice (2011). Science education in Europe: National policies, practices, and research. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice.
Fassoulopoulos, G., Kariotoglou, P. & Koumaras, P. (2003). Consistent and inconsistent pupils’ reasoning about intensive quantities: The case of density and pressure. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 71–87.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gagnon, M. L. (2011). Moving knowledge to action through dissemination and exchange. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64, 25–31.
Goh, S. G. (1997). Managing effective knowledge transfer: An integrative framework and some practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 23–30.
Greenhouse, S. W. & Geiser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrica, 4, 95–112.
Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2005). Examining young children’s conceptual change process in floating and sinking from a social constructivist perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 259–279.
Hsieh, H. & Shanon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Hutchinson, R. J. & Huberman, M. (1994). Knowledge dissemination and use in science and mathematics education: A literature review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(1), 27–47.
Justi, R. & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Science teachers’ knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modeling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1273–1292. doi:10.1080/09500690210163198.
Lavonen, J. & Laaksonen, S. (2009). Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: Reflections on PISA 2006 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 922–944.
Lavonen, J., Byman, R., Loukomies, A., Meisalo, V., Constantinou, C., Kyratsi, T., et al. (2010). Students’ motivation on learning material science teaching modules in five countries. In G. Cakmakci & M.F. Tasar (Eds.), Contemporary science education research: Learning and assessment (pp. 51–56). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Lijnse, P. L. (1995). Developmental research’ as a way to an empirically based didactical structure of science. Science Education, 79(2), 189–199.
Matthews, M. R. (2007). Models in science and in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 16, 647–652.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do—student performance in reading, mathematics and science, (volume I). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Perkins, D. N. & Grotzer, T. A. (2005). Dimensions of causal understanding: The role of complex causal models in students’ understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 41, 117–166. doi:10.1080/03057260508560216.
Pinto, R. (2005). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers’ transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89, 1–12.
Rocard, M. (2007). Science education NOW: A renewed Pedagogy for the future of Europe, Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-onscience- education_en.pdf.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Smith, C., Snir, J. & Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of weight-density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 221–283. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0903_3.
Song, M., Berends, H., van der Bij, H. & Weggeman, M. (2007). The effect of IT and co-location on knowledge dissemination. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 52–68.
Sothayapetch, P., Lavonen, J. & Juuti, K. (2013). A comparative analysis of PISA scientific literacy framework in Finnish and Thai science curricula. Science Education International, 24(1), 78–97.
Spyrtou, A., Zoupidis, A. & Kariotoglou, P. (2008). The design and development of an ICT enhanced module concerning density as a property of materials applied in floating-sinking phenomena. Ιn C.P. Constantinou & N. Papadouris (Eds.), Girep International Conference, Physics Curriculum Design, Development and Validation, Selected Papers (pp. 391–407). Nicosia, Cyprus: University of Cyprus.
Straus, E. S., Tetroe, M. J. & Graham, D. I. (2011). Knowledge translation is the use of knowledge in health care decision making. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64, 6–10.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tiberghien, A., Vince, J. & Gaidioz, P. (2009). Design-based research: Case of a teaching sequence on mechanics. International Journal of Science Education, 31(17), 2275–2314.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. & Mamiala, L. T. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 357–368. doi:10.1080/09500690110066485.
Vosniadou, S. (2010). Instructional considerations in the use of external representations. In L. Verschaffel, E. de Corte, T. de Jong & J. Elen (Eds.), Use of representations in reasoning and problem solving (pp. 36–54). New York, NY: Routledge.
Zoupidis, A., Spyrtou, A., Malandrakis, G. & Kariotoglou, P. (2016). The evolutionary refinement process of a teaching learning sequence for introducing inquiry aspects and density as materials’ property in floating/sinking phenomena. In D. Psillos & P. Kariotoglou (Eds.), Iterative Design of Teaching-Learning Sequences (pp. 167–199). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Spyrtou, A., Lavonen, J., Zoupidis, A. et al. Transferring a Teaching Learning Sequence Between Two Different Educational Contexts: the Case of Greece and Finland. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 16, 443–463 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9786-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9786-y