Framework for Reducing Teaching Challenges Relating to Improvisation of Science Education Equipment and Materials in Schools

Abstract

The science education budget of many secondary schools has decreased, while shortages and environmental concerns linked to conventional Science Education Equipment and Materials (SEEMs) have emerged. Thus, in some schools, resourceful educators produce low-cost equipment from basic materials and use these so-called improvised SEEMs in practical work. However, scattered in the literature are diverse challenges linked to the production and/or use of improvised SEEMs. Thus, the purpose of the literature review presented here was to design a framework useful in the reduction of these challenges. In this regard, we systematically gathered, characterised and clarified the challenges, in addition to collecting and reflecting on ways of reducing them. This enabled us to design the framework which focuses on educator learning and practice in the improvisation of SEEMs under specified conditions. Regarding the implementation of the framework, we have discussed the role that stakeholders including professional development providers and researchers may play.

A systematic review characterizing and clarifying intrinsic teaching challenges linked to inquiry‐based practical work

“…However, these gaps in teacher competencies are not linked to specific intrinsic teaching challenges as is the case in this study. Also, though there have been studies (such as Davis, Petish, & Smithey, ; Nivalainen et al, ; Ramnarain, ) involving the intrinsic teaching challenges that teachers face in science classrooms in secondary schools, few of these studies (including Akuma & Callaghan, ) have characterized the intrinsic challenges. In this study, as reflected in Table , we systematically characterized and clarified specific intrinsic teaching challenges associated with the design and implementation of IBPW.…”

“…The theory-based implication of this study lies in the extension of the categorization of intrinsic teaching challenges of Akuma and Callaghan (2016) with the elaboration of the three of the categories that they identified. For example, their preparation-phase challenges category has been split in this study into the initiation-and planning-phase challenges categories.…”

“…Based on the SLID model, a possible category of intrinsic challenges not included in Akuma and Callaghan () is feedback‐phase challenges. Also, considering this model, the preparation‐phase challenges category of intrinsic challenges in Akuma and Callaghan, can be split into initiation‐ and planning‐phase challenges.…”

“…Though many categorizations of teaching challenges exist (e.g., Akuma & Callaghan, 2017;Lee, Tan, Coh, Chia, & Chin, 2000;Zion et al, 2007), categorizations of intrinsic teaching challenges are scarce. In one of the few readily available categorizations of intrinsic teaching challenges, Akuma and Callaghan (2016) identified preparation-phase, implementation-phase, and assessment-phase challenges. This categorization which can be extending for the purposes of this study uses an instructional design perspective.…”

“…Thus, our purpose was to characterize and clarify the challenges. In a similar effort, Akuma and Callaghan () characterized intrinsic teaching challenges linked to the improvisation of science education equipment and materials in schools. The characterization was from the point of view of the systematic planning of instruction (i.e., from an instructional design perspective).…”