EXPLORING THE EXPERIENCES OF LEARNERS IN SCIENCE CLASSES
Keywords:Critical pedagogy, Teachers experience, Science teaching, knowledge construction, Participatory learning
This paper analyzed why students’ classroom interaction is not fruitful, how science teaching become interactive, creative, collaborative and inclusive, how home and school environment is in centrality to extend science knowledge. To fulfill my objectives, a secondary level student was purposively selected with the help of the head teacher. About thirty-two minutes in-depth interview was transcribed, coded and four global themes were constructed. On the basic of global themes, the whole data were analyzed according to view of the participant comparing with the literature, shows that the science teaching of selected school is not satisfy. Science teaching is mainly affected by the pedagogical, laboratory and institutional problem. Teachers are also seen as a main problem to implement creativity in science teaching. Functional science curriculum destroyed the critical thinking culture both in students and teachers. This article underestimated the women participation and teachers voices of science teaching .
I. Acharya, K.P. (2013).Socio-cultural dynamism: critical thinking practices in science classroom in Nepal(Unpublished M Phil thesis in education) Tribhuvan University, Nepal.
II. Ahmad, J. (2009). Teaching of biological science. New Delhi: Phi Learning Private Limited.
III. Alaikbari, M., & Faraji, E.(2011). Basic principles of critical pedagogy. Second International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences. IPEDR ,17, IACSIF Press, Singapore.
IV. Bahng, E., & Lee, M.(2017). Learning experiences and practices of elementary teacher candidates on the use of emerging technology: A grounded theory approach. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education. 10(2),225-241. doi: 10.26822 / iejee. 2017236118
V. Bilgili,M.(2018).Critical theory based approaches in Geography teaching department in Turkey. Journal of Education and Training. 6(2),80-85, doi:10.11114/jets.v6i2.2956
VI. Bruner, P. (1998). Survey of instructional development models. Eric Digest. Online accessed on 5 August 2017. Available from http://www.ed.gov/.
VII. Chemail, R.J.(2011).Ten steps for conceptualizing and conducting qualitative research studies in a pragmatically curious manner. The Qualitative Report. 16(6),1715-1732, Retrieved from http:// nsuwork.noba .edu/ tqr /vol 16/iss6/13
VIII. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry research design. Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage.
IX. Grant, C., & Osanlo, A.(n.d),Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your house. Administrative issues journal. doi: 10.5929/2014.4.2.9
X. Khanal, P.(1017). Falling prey to the dominant culture? demystifying symbolic violence against ethnic minority students in Nepal. Pedagogy, Culture and Society. 25(3), doi: 10.1080/14681366.2017.1280841
XI. Rogers, R.(2011). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education(Ed). New York: Routledge.
XII. Schulze, S., & lemmer, E.(2017). Family experiences, the motivation for science learning and science achievement of different learner groups. South African Journal of Education, 37(1), 1-9. doi: 10.15700/saje.v37n1a1276
XIII. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes and individualization (third ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 International Education and Research Journal (IERJ)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.