Does History of Science Contribute To The Construction of Knowledge In The Constructivist Environments of Learning?

Kokkotas, Panagiotis; Rizaki, Aikaterini

doi:10.1007/978-94-6091-349-5_5

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 This includes affective aspects like imagination, aesthetic experience, sense of wonder and personal involvement, completing conceptual and logical modes of thinking in science learning in an important way (Hadzigeorgiou 2005;Hampp and Schwan 2015). These aspects have been widely discussed in the context of science education, in particular for younger children (Girod and Wong 2002;Kokkotas and Rizaki 2011;Murmann and Avraamidou 2016), and even shown to be at work in secondary-level students (Hadzigeorgiou and Schulz 2017). While an investigation of this line of thought was not in the scope of the present study, we feel that it represents an important approach for further research and development of interventions like Valentina and Leo.…”

Section: Affective Domain and Appreciationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning About Archaeology and Prehistoric Life

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is about an intervention introducing prehistoric life in primary education. Its objectives were to foster openness and interest for prehistory and archaeology, as well as content knowledge and conceptual learning with a focus on four main facets: basic knowledge about prehistoric life; conceptual learning/change regarding prehistory; learning about archaeologists and archaeology as a scientific discipline; and learning about interactions of archaeology and other disciplines (interdisciplinarity). Students participated in two workshops about the creation of a prehistoric object, highlighting the close interaction between the natural sciences and humanities within archaeology. The workshop emphasised dialogue between students, teachers and researchers, as well as active participation by the students. The educational effects of the workshops were studied using a pre-post design (N = 439, ages 8-10 years). Results show that the workshops had sizeable positive effects on both affective and cognitive variables. The appreciation of the workshops ranged from ≈ 70 to 90% (of maximum value) for interest, perceived educational value and further aspects. We also found a positive impact of the intervention on cognitive variables, e.g. for several elements of key knowledge about prehistory (such as where prehistoric people lived and with what resources; medium to large effect sizes: d > 0.9 and d = 0.46, respectively). Regarding conceptual learning, we found improved understanding of the link between climate change and long-term changes in wildlife in a given area (medium to large effect sizes, d = 0.5-0.8). A positive impact was also found for the understanding of archaeology encompassing both humanities and the natural sciences (e.g. understanding of climate change as inferred from archaeological knowledge, d = 0.3-0.5). No differences of the various outcomes were found between girls and boys; the workshops appear suitable for both genders. We conclude with a discussion of the interpretation of our findings, of some limitations and possible improvements, and of future perspectives, in particular for further classroom implementation.

show abstract