Background and theoretical frameworks
I soon discovered that my teaching and learning goals embody the idea of scientific literacy. Scientific literacy, as defined in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (2013), is “the ability to engage with science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as reflective citizens” (p. 7). To accomplish this, students must master three distinct competencies: explain phenomena scientifically, evaluate and design scientific enquiry, and interpret data and evidence scientifically (PISA, 2013). I believe that building science competencies such as explaining, evaluating, designing and interpreting requires students to have the opportunities to work at times independently and at times collaboratively. Accommodating both of these instructional strategies requires a student-centered classroom. As the National Research Council (NRC) (2001) explains "if students are to do science, not solely verbalize major facts and principles, they should engage in activity" (p. 25). And, I believe, students should also engage in discussion and collaboration. However, as my comfort with the use of direct instruction favored a teacher-centered rather than student-centered environment in the classroom, I consciously turned to balancing direct instruction with a constructivist approach to teaching and learning: providing students opportunities to spend time collaborating and discussing ideas with each other.
As Ormrod notes, "[i]n recent decades, it has become increasingly apparent that learners don't just absorb information as they encounter it. Instead, people do a great deal with the information they acquire, actively trying to organize and make sense of it" (p. 164). In my initial theory of learning, I recognized learning as "an active process that requires cognitive, willing engagement on behalf of the learner...The process of learning includes encountering and engaging information, internalizing the information, processing and thinking critically about the information, and potentially forming an opinion about and using the information in everyday life." In the time since composing my initial theory of learning, I have furthered developed it; I have come to believe that people learn best when they construct knowledge specifically with the input of others, through discussion and collaboration. "Students [in particular] who collaborate on a learning task create scaffolding for one another's efforts and may co-construct more sophisticated ideas and strategies than any single group member might be able to construct alone" (Ormrod, 2006, p. 437). And for students of science in particular, "[d]iscussions are one of the best ways to help students learn to 'talk science' and construct understanding in a social context" (Schwartz, 2009, p. 44). From these multiple learnings, theories, and experiences, I arrived at my inquiry question: Does implementation of collaboration and discussion in the classroom help to build student scientific literacy skills?
As Ormrod notes, "[i]n recent decades, it has become increasingly apparent that learners don't just absorb information as they encounter it. Instead, people do a great deal with the information they acquire, actively trying to organize and make sense of it" (p. 164). In my initial theory of learning, I recognized learning as "an active process that requires cognitive, willing engagement on behalf of the learner...The process of learning includes encountering and engaging information, internalizing the information, processing and thinking critically about the information, and potentially forming an opinion about and using the information in everyday life." In the time since composing my initial theory of learning, I have furthered developed it; I have come to believe that people learn best when they construct knowledge specifically with the input of others, through discussion and collaboration. "Students [in particular] who collaborate on a learning task create scaffolding for one another's efforts and may co-construct more sophisticated ideas and strategies than any single group member might be able to construct alone" (Ormrod, 2006, p. 437). And for students of science in particular, "[d]iscussions are one of the best ways to help students learn to 'talk science' and construct understanding in a social context" (Schwartz, 2009, p. 44). From these multiple learnings, theories, and experiences, I arrived at my inquiry question: Does implementation of collaboration and discussion in the classroom help to build student scientific literacy skills?