=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2555/paper0
|storemode=property
|title=What is new in teaching science structured around the notion of ‘scientific
competence’?
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2555/paper0.pdf
|volume=Vol-2555
|authors=Klinge Orlando Villalba-Condori,Agustín Adúriz-Bravo,Francisco José García-Peñalvo,Jari Lavonen
}}
==What is new in teaching science structured around the notion of ‘scientific
competence’?==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2555/paper0.pdf
What is new in teaching science structured around the
notion of ‘scientific competence’?
Klinge Orlando Villalba-Condori 1 , Agustín Adúriz-Bravo 2, Francisco José
García-Peñalvo 3 and Jari Lavonen 4
1 Universidad Católica de Santa María, PERU,
2 CONICET/Universidad de Buenos Aires, Instituto CeFIEC, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas
y Naturales., Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA,
3 Computer Science Department, Research Institute for Educational Sciences, University of
Salamanca, GRIAL Research Group, University of Salamanca, SPAIN,
4 National Teacher Education Reform Program, University of Helsinki, FINLAND.
1 kvillalba@ucsm.edu.pe, 2 aadurizbravo@cefiec.fcen.uba.ar 3 fgarcia@usal.es, 4
jari.lavonen@helsinki.fi
Prologue
The notion of ‘competence’, very much cited in the current international science
education research literature and policy documents, brings new opportunities and, at
the same time, challenges.
In spite of challenges related to the notion of ‘competence’, several countries have
started to use the notion “competence” in order to describe “learning outcomes” in
curriculum documents. However, the notion of ‘competence’ is a contradictory
concept and there are several hundreds of definitions or interpretations of the notion
of ‘competence’. Actually, in the English language, the concept “competence” does
not exist, instead there are the concepts “competent” and “competency”. In Germany
several researchers interpret the notion of ‘competence’ in a similar way to the
concept “skill”. Researchers in education point out that the discourse around
competences probably constitutes a most welcome movement towards curriculum
reform, but with the risk of being reduced to a new wave of void educational jargon.
Part of the problem with the use of the notion competence emerges from the
descriptions’ economic origins, which should not be totally overruled. For example,
European Union Lifelong Learning document recognizes eight key competences
needed for personal fulfilment, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment
[7]. [2] document Definition and Selection of Competencies (DeSeCo) analyzes
competences, which individuals need in the 21st century in order to be able to use a
wide range of tools—including socio-cultural (language) and digital (technological)
ones—to interact effectively with the environment, to engage and interact in a
heterogeneous group, to perform inquiry-oriented work and problem solving, to take
responsibility for managing their own lives, and to act autonomously. Also, UNESCO
analyzes in its Universal Learning document, what kind of competences are important
for all children and youth for the 21st century and for a good life. Consequently,
various competence descriptions have different connotations and describe in a
Copyright c 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons
License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
different way the competences needed in future and the reasons why these
competences are needed, for example, for good life or employability. The possibility
for the idea of competence to be seen as a step forward in educational practice then
depends of a theoretical re-signifying, under the principles of a quality education for
all, democratic and equitable.
The idea of scientific competence emerges around thirty years ago as an attempt of
‘reorienting’ science education towards a more meaningful contribution to the
preparation of children for future real life. Today, the idea can be understood as
referring to a set of skills, abilities or capacities based on knowledge, experience and
values. Scientific competences have a ‘transversal’ character directed towards the
preparation of individuals for work, professional development and the exercise of
citizenship. Such a ‘foundations-based’ approach to competences, although extremely
fruitful, may divorce them from the disciplinary modes of understanding reality (in
our case, the natural sciences).
Most well-known description of scientific competences is done in the PISA
documents. The original 2006 PISA science framework [3] defines three competence
fields that describe the use of subject matter knowledge of science and knowledge
about science and, moreover, willingness to use this knowledge (attitude) in three
situations: in identifying scientific issues, in explaining scientific phenomena, and in
drawing evidence-based conclusions. Scientific competence also was the primary
domain of the 2015 PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) cycle,
which means that items related to this skill occupied most of both the competency
tests and the non-cognitive results of the context questionnaires. Scientific
competence is defined in the framework of PISA [4] as the ability to deal with
science-related issues as a reflective citizen. A scientifically literate person is willing
to participate in a reasoned discourse on science and technology, which requires skills
for:
• Explain phenomena scientifically: recognize, offer, and evaluate
explanations for a variety of natural and technological phenomena.
• Evaluate and design scientific research: describe and evaluate scientific
research and propose ways to approach questions from a scientific point of view.
• Interpreting data and evidence scientifically: analyzing and evaluating data,
statements and arguments presented in various representations and drawing
appropriate scientific conclusions.
These PISA science competences are based on the DeSeCo document [1][2]. The
descriptions of competences in the DeSeCo and PISA documents have been utilized
in the curriculum work of various countries. [5][7]. For example, the Australian
science curriculum regards the PISA framework in terms of the competencies
dimension: identify and investigate scientific questions, draw evidence-based
conclusions and explanations about phenomena to teach students. In several European
curricula, motivation and interest as the attitudinal dimension are emphasized in the
curriculum to arouse students’ interest science learning and to encourage them to act
responsibly toward natural resources and their environments. The knowledge
dimension could be met in the science curricula of all countries either as integrated or
separate fields, like physics, chemistry, biological science and earth and space
science. Finally, the contexts dimension, especially everyday contexts, is typically
introduced in science curricula of various countries. Accordingly, an operational,
‘content-anchored’ definition of scientific competences is perhaps needed for
teachers, politicians and researchers; it might be useful to consider that competence is
a rather formal capacity to operate on scientific content in a meaningful context of
performance.
Such a more concrete conception of the scientific competences could be of course
more easily connected to the notion of ‘scientific models’: we would be seeking in
students for the competent application of models to well-defined, relevant problems.
From a competence-based perspective, the most important aim of science education
would be that students give meaning to natural phenomena or make sense of
phenomena through the use of robust abstract ideas or scientific concepts and models
that become meaningful for them. Another important view the competence-based
thinking offers to science education is the emphasis on the use of knowledge in
various situations where scientific knowledge is met and used. Theoretical ideas,
abstract languages to express them, and the corresponding know-how to intervene on
the world would be at the core of this potentially valuable notion of competence.
The community of researchers in science education studies the question of what the
essential competences for science classes in compulsory science education are; a wide
range of responses to this crucial question is being generated. Proposals can be
located in a continuum with two very recognizable ends: considering competences
that are ‘privative’ for the natural sciences and help distinguish these disciplines from
common-sense thinking or other human activities, and competences that are ‘generic’,
belonging to general education, for which science would be a tool or a context just
like any other. For example, in the PISA scientific literacy competence descriptions,
both views are present: they describe, first, competences needed while making sense
of phenomena and, second, they describe competences needed in continuous learning.
The later view is easy to understand because the PISA competences have been
designed based on the competence descriptions of the DeSeCo documents [1] As a
third way in between these two poles, we could define ‘paradigmatic scientific
competences’ through identifying, with the aid of the history and philosophy of
science, core capacities in science. Paradigmatic competences in school science
would then satisfy two complementary requirements: retrieving the most central and
fruitful aspects of scientific activity and helping students understand the nature of
science. PISA scientific literacy competence descriptions include also this view
because the knowledge dimension emphasizes both knowledge of science but also
knowledge about science.
According to our view, students will be ‘scientifically competent’ when they can
operate not only in school situations, but also in a variety of conditions, demonstrating
the autonomous applicability of the PISA skills. Scientific literacy competence
descriptions include also this view because it emphasizes contexts, like personal local
and global contexts. However, this would not mean, of course, defending the need to
teach capacities that are deprived of recognizable scientific purposes, which suggest
contents and contexts to work. Or, on the contrary, that it is necessary to adhere to an
‘ultra-specific’ view of competences that reduces scientific education to the technical
issue of achieving efficient performance, in which creativity, critical thinking, values
and emotions are absent [6].
References
1. Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new
millennium learners in OECD countries: OECD Education Working Papers, 41. Paris:
OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/218525261154
2. OECD (2005). Definition and selection of competencies (DeSeCo): Executive summary.
Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf
3. OECD (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world, volume 1:
Analysis. Paris: OECD.
4. OECD (2017). Analytical and Assessment Framework. Paris: OECD.
5. Reimers, F. M., & Chung, C. K. (2016). A comparative study of the purposes of education
in the twenty-first century. In F. M. Reimers & C. K. Chung (Eds.), Teaching and learning
for the twenty-first century: Educational goals, policies, and curricula from six nations (pp.
1-24). Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
6. Villalba-Condori, K. O., García-Peñalvo, F. J., Lavonen, J., & Zapata-Ros, M. (2019).
What Kinds of Innovations Do We Need in Education? In K. O. Villalba-Condori, F. J.
García-Peñalvo, J. Lavonen, & M. Zapata-Ros (Eds.), Proceedings of the II Congreso
Internacional de Tendencias e Innovación Educativa – CITIE 2018 (Arequipa, Perú,
November 26-30, 2018) (pp. 9-15). Aachen, Germany: CEUR-WS.org.
7. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N.P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for
21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299-321. doi:10.1080/00220272.2012.668938