Análise de possíveis influenciadores do nível de Proficiência Científica de egressos do Ensino Médio ao interpretar a Física do Trânsito

Abstract

Todos fazemos parte do trânsito, seja na função de condutor, passageiro, seja na de pedestre. Esse tema é rico em situações que podem ser analisadas sob a ótica da Física. Compreender as relações entre Física e Trânsito, além de possuir um grande potencial problematizador dentro do Ensino de Física, pode levar a desenvolver nos cidadãos uma cultura de cuidado e responsabilidade. Além disso, por ser um contexto presente no cotidiano da maioria, acredita-se que a temática possa servir de meio para verificar se os alunos conseguem transpor os saberes supostamente estudados no Ensino Médio a um contexto específico no qual esses conhecimentos encontram-se aplicados. A presente pesquisa buscou averiguar se egressos do Ensino Médio com diferentes características socioeconômicas demonstram desempenhos semelhantes ou diferentes em dois testes: um para medir o nível de Alfabetização Científica e outro para verificar suas habilidades de relacionar a Física escolar com o cotidiano do trânsito. Nossas conclusões remetem à defesa da importância de considerar os conhecimentos prévios, assim como da utilização de situações cotidianas como objetos de contextualização e problematização das aulas de Física. Palavras-chave: Física aplicada ao trânsito; alfabetização científica; pesquisa quantitativa; proficiência científica.

Scientific Literacy Assessment Instruments: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Of those that applied the TBSL and its versions, all revealed that the best results were identified in the subtest of the science content knowledge. At the same time, the worst were evidenced in the subtest of the nature of science by Sousa (2019b), Nascimento-Schulze et al (2006), Özdem et al (2010), Rivas et al (2017), Vizzotto and Mackedanz (2018) and on the subtest of the impact of science and technology on society by Coppi and Sousa (2019a), Lima and Garcia (2015), Vizzotto (2019) and Vizzotto and Del Pino (2020a). Camargo et al (2011) found that first-year students and teachers scored worse on the nature of science subtest, while for final-year students this occurred on both subtests.…”

“…Among the 18 studies that adopted the TBSL and its versions-TACB, TACB-S, TACB-R, and adapted -, Camargo et al (2011), Gresczysczyn et al (2018), Laugksch and Spargo (1996a), Lima and Garcia (2015), Oliveira and Silva-Forsberg (2012), Rivas et al (2017), Vizzotto andDel Pino (2020a, 2020b), and Vizzotto and Mackedanz (2018) revealed that most of the students assessed are scientifically literate. The studies of Sousa (2019a, 2019b), Laugksch and Spargo (1999), Lima and Garcia (2013), Nascimento-Schulze (2006), Vizzotto (2019), and Vizzotto et al (2020, on the other hand, revealed that the majority of the students assessed did not reach the minimum number of hits required to be considered scientifically literate. The research of Özdem et al (2010) showed moderate scientific literacy scores of the investigated students, while that of Nascimento-Schulze et al (2006) indicated that there is a relationship between satisfactory performances on the TACB-R and high interest in scientific topics, as well as good grades and school attendance.…”

“…With regard to the comparison of the results of the scientific literacy assessment between the different groups of individuals analyzed, differences with statistical significance were identified in several aspects assessed in 16 of the 43 studies: ethnicity (Fives et al, 2014;Laugksch & Spargo, 1999;Mun et al, 2013;Shaffer et al, 2019); education level (Laugksch & Spargo, 1999;McKeown, 2017;Mun et al, 2015;Rundgren et al, 2010); year/grade (Özdem et al, 2010); gender (Laugksch & Spargo, 1999;Mun et al, 2013Mun et al, , 2015Shaffer et al, 2019); number of science subjects taken (Čipková et al, 2020;Laugksch & Spargo, 1999); type of institution-public/private- (Gormally et al, 2012;Nascimento-Schulze, 2006;Vizzotto, 2019); pre-test/post-test (Cartwright et al, 2020;Gormally et al, 2012); socioeconomic level (Fives et al, 2014); initial training/continuing training (Gomes & Almeida, 2016); number of failures (Vizzotto, 2019); concurrent work and study (Vizzotto, 2019); post-secondary studies (Vizzotto, 2019); continuity in studies (Vizzotto, 2019); 1st year higher education students/last year higher education students (Vizzotto & Del Pino, 2020b).…”

“…Of those who proceeded with the validation process, the studies by Atta et al ( 2020 Finally, of the studies that performed only the application of already developed and validated instruments, Camargo et al (2011), Sousa (2019a, 2019b), Gresczysczyn et al (2018), Lima and Garcia (2015), Lima and Garcia (2013), and Rivas et al (2017) used the TACB; Čipková et al (2020), Gomes and Almeida (2016), Shaffer et al (2019), Souza (2019), Utami andHariastuti (2019), andWaldo (2014) applied the TOSLS, Vizzotto (2019) and Vizzotto andDel Pino (2020a, 2020b) As for the level of education, 32 studies (74.4%) assessed the scientific literacy of students of only one level and 11 (25.6%) assessed individuals of different levels and even teachers. It can be noticed that there is a predominance of research conducted in order to assess the level of scientific literacy of secondary and higher education students, followed by those that assess students in the 3rd cycle of basic education, as shown in Figure 1.…”

“…),Fives et al (2014),Gormally et al (2012), Jannah et al (2020,Jufri et al (2019),Koedsri and Ngudgratoke (2018), McKeown (2017), and Mun et al (2015 published the process of developing new instruments for assessing scientific literacy, Nascimento-Schulze (2006) translated the TBSL into the Portuguese language, originating the TACB, andVizzotto andMackedanz (2018) andNascimento-Schulze et al (2006) reduced and simplified the TACB, deriving the TACB-S and TACB-R, respectively.…”