An Analysis of Science Textbooks
for Grade 6: The Electric Circuit
Lesson

Pavinee Sothayapetch; Jari Lavonen; Kalle Juuti

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2013.916a

An Analysis of Science Textbooks for Grade 6: The Electric Circuit Lesson

Full Text (PDF)

Pavinee Sothayapetch ¹ ^* , Jari Lavonen ¹, Kalle Juuti ¹

More Detail

¹ University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Textbooks are a major tool in the teaching and learning process. This paper presents the results of an analysis of the Finnish and Thai 6th grade science textbooks: electric circuit lesson. Textual and pictorial information from the textbooks were analyzed under four main categories: 1) introduction of the concepts, 2) type of knowledge, 3) representations, and 4) contexts. The analysis revealed that the Thai textbook emphasized procedural knowledge, while conceptual knowledge was emphasized mostly in Finnish textbook. Physics concepts are introduced typically through describing the relation between the new and earlier introduced concepts. Both textbooks employed rather traditional contexts, such as technical applications, technology in society, and the ideal context.

Keywords

electric circuit
science textbook
primary level
content analysis

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.916a

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2013 - Volume 9 Issue 1, pp. 59-72

Publication date: 27 Jan 2013

Article Views: 1593

Article Downloads: 616

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & An-Phong, L. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835–855.
Aikenhead, G. (1994). What is STS teaching? In J. Solomon, G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS Education: International Perspectives On Reform (pp. 52-53). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for Learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Bennett, J. (2005). Bringing science to life: the research evidence on teaching science in context. Retrieved January 3, 2012, from The University of York, Department of Educational Studies Website http://www.york.ac.uk/media/ educationalstudies/documents/research/Contextsbookl et.pdf
Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., & Lubben, F. (2003). A systematic review of the effects of context-based and science-Technology (STS) approaches in the teaching of secondary science: Review summary. University of York, UK.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.C. (eds.) (2000). How People learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Cantell, H., Jutila, H., Laiho, H., Lavonen, J., Pekkala, E., & Saari, H. (2008). Pisara 6: Fysiikka ja kemia. Helsinki, Finland: WSOY.
Carolan, J., Prain, V., & Bruce, W. (2008). Using representations for teaching and learning in science. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 54(1), 18-23.
Casteel, P. C., & Isom, A.B. (1994). Reciprocal processes in science and literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 47(7), 538-545.
Chiappetta, L. E., & Fillman, A. D. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the united states for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1874-1868.
de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M.G. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 105-113.
Dimopoulos. K., Koulaidis. V., & Sklaveniti. S. (2003). Towards an Analysis of Visual Images in School Science Textbooks and Press Articles about Science and Technology. Research in Science Education, 33(2), 189–216.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75, 649-672.
Duit, R., & Rhöneck, V. C. (2001). In Tiberghien, A., Jossem, L. E., & Barojas, J. (Eds), Connecting research in physics education with teacher education. Retrieved from http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~jossem/ REF/57.pdf
Gott, R., & Duggan S. (1995). Investigative work in the science curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness--A neglected variable in discourse processing. Cognitive Science, 10, 179-194.
Hoffman, L. (2002). Promoting girls’ interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and Instruction, 12, 447–465.
Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (2009). Science Basic Strand Textbook: science learning area for grade 6 (6th ed.) (หนงสั อสาระการเร ื ยนร ี พู้ ้นฐานว ื ทยาศาสตร ิ ์ กลุมสาระการเร ่ ยนร ี วู้ทยาศาสตร ิ ์ ชนประถมศ ั้ กษาป ึ ีที่ 6) Bangkok: SorKorSorKor Ladproa Publisher.
James, M.C., & Scharmann, L.C. (2007). Using analogies to improve the teaching performance of preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 565 – 585.
Juuti, K., Lavonen. J., Uitto. A., Byman, R., & Meisalo. V. (2004). Boys and girls interest on physics in different context. In A. Laine, J. Lavonen, V. Meisalo (Eds.), The proceedings of the XXI Annual Symposium of the Finnish Association of Mathematics and Science Education Research (pp.55-79). Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki.
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1980). Models of Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383– 409.
Kärnä, P., Hakonen, R., & Kuusela, J. (2012) Luonnontieteiden osaaminen perusopetuksen 9. luokalla 2011: Koulutuksen seurantaraportit 2012:2. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
Leavitt, M. (n.d.) Learning from visuals: how visuals can help students learn white paper on the Wiley Visualizing [White paper]. Retrieved from http://media.wiley.com/assets/2103/ 43/Wiley%20Visualizing%20White%20Paper.pdf
McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 141–159.
Mintzes, J.J., & Wandersee J.H. (1989). Research in science teaching and learning: A human constructivistic view. In J.J. Mintzes, J.H. Wandersee J H & J.D. Novak (Eds.). Teaching Science for Understanding: A Human Constructivistic View (pp. 82-83). San Diego: Academic Press.
Mohammad, F. R., & Kumari, R. (2007). Effective Use of Textbooks: A Neglected Aspect of Education in Pakistan. Journal of Education for International Development, 3(1), 1-11.
Nersessian, N.J. (1995). Should Physicists Preach What They Practice? Science & Education, 4(3), 203-206.
Neuendorf, K. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
OECD. (2006). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World (Volume 1): Analysis. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2009). PISA 2009: Assessment framework-key competencies in reading, mathematics and science, (Volume 1). Paris: OECD.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079.
Park, M., Park, Do-Yong, & Lee, E. R. (2009). A comparative analysis of earth science curriculum using inquiry methodology between Korean and the U.S. textbooks. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(4), 395-411.
Plass, J.L., Homer, B.D., & Hayward, E. (2009). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 31-61.
Prain, V., & Waldrip. B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843-1866.
Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35-59.
Simon, S. (2000). Students’ attitudes towards science. In M. Monk, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (pp. 104–119). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Strangman, N., & Hall, T. (2003). Text transformations. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved September 20, 2011 from http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/ backgroundpapers/text_transformations
Swanepoel, S. (2010). The assessment of the quality of science education textbooks: conceptual framework and instruments for analysis. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4041/t hesis_swanepoel_s.pdf?sequence=1
Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tobias. S., & Duffy. M. T. (Eds). (2009).Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York, NY: Routledge
Weber, R. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Yager, E. R., & Akcay, H. (2008). Comparison of student learning outcomes in middle school science classes with an STS approach and a typical textbook dominated approach. Research in Middle level Education online, 7(31).Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ EJ801103.pdf
Yousoof, M., Sapiyan, M., & Kamaluddin, K. (2007). Measuring cognitive load - A solution to ease learning of programming. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 26, 216-219.
Zambo, M. D. (2006). Learning from picture book characters in read aloud sessions for students with adhd. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 2(4), Article 4.

How to cite this article

APA

Sothayapetch, P., Lavonen, J., & Juuti, K. (2013). An Analysis of Science Textbooks for Grade 6: The Electric Circuit Lesson. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.916a

Vancouver

Sothayapetch P, Lavonen J, Juuti K. An Analysis of Science Textbooks for Grade 6: The Electric Circuit Lesson. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2013;9(1):59-72. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.916a

AMA

Sothayapetch P, Lavonen J, Juuti K. An Analysis of Science Textbooks for Grade 6: The Electric Circuit Lesson. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2013;9(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.916a

Chicago

Sothayapetch, Pavinee, Jari Lavonen, and Kalle Juuti. "An Analysis of Science Textbooks for Grade 6: The Electric Circuit Lesson". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2013 9 no. 1 (2013): 59-72. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.916a

Harvard

Sothayapetch, P., Lavonen, J., and Juuti, K. (2013). An Analysis of Science Textbooks for Grade 6: The Electric Circuit Lesson. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(1), pp. 59-72. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.916a

MLA

Sothayapetch, Pavinee et al. "An Analysis of Science Textbooks for Grade 6: The Electric Circuit Lesson". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 9, no. 1, 2013, pp. 59-72. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.916a