HOW FINNS LEARN MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE

HOW FINNS LEARN MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE Edited by Erkki Pehkonen, Maija Ahtee & Jari Lavonen Department Applied Sciences of Education University of Helsinki

SENSE PUBLISHERS ROTTERDAM / TAIPEI

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN ISBN

978-90-8790- (paperback) 978-90-8790- (hardback)

Published by: Sense Publishers, P.O. Box 21858, 3001 AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands http://www.sensepublishers.com Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2007 Sense Publishers No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

CONTENTS Introduction Setting the landscape Erkki Pehkonen, Maija Ahtee, Jari Lavonen

3

Part 1: General aspects 1

Finnish students’ mathematics and science results in recent international assessment studies: PISA and TIMSS Pekka Kupari, Pasi Reinikainen, Jukka Törnroos

2

Mathematics and science in Finnish comprehensive school Jarkko Lampiselkä, Maija Ahtee, Erkki Pehkonen, Matti Meri, Varpu Eloranta

3

Pre-service teacher education in chemistry, mathematics and physics Jari Lavonen, Heidi Krzywacki-Vainio, Maija Aksela, Leena Krokfors, Juha Oikkonen, Heimo Saarikko

11 35

49

4

Learning environments in mathematics and science Päivi Perkkilä, Pirjo-Liisa Lehtelä

69

5

Gender issues in Finnish mathematics and physics education Markku S. Hannula, Kalle Juuti, Maija Ahtee

85

6

Influential factors outside of school Maija Ahtee, Jari Lavonen, Pentti Parviainen, Erkki Pehkonen

97

Synthesis of part I: General aspects Yrjö Yrjönsuuri

111

Part 2: Mathematics teaching 7

Problem solving as a teaching method in mathematics education Erkki Pehkonen, Markku S. Hannula, Ole Björkqvist

119

8

Mathematics education in primary teacher program Anu Laine, Raimo Kaasila

131

9

Some alternative teaching methods in mathematics Erkki Pehkonen, Maarit Rossi

141

v

10

Mathematics teaching in primary schools Leila Pehkonen, Heidi Krzywacki-Vainio

153

11

Technology enriched mathematics education Lenni Haapasalo, Harry Silfverberg

163

Synthesis of part II: Mathematics teaching Jarkko Leino, Fulvia Furinghetti

181

Part 3: Science teaching 12

Teaching methods in science Jarkko Lampiselkä, Antti Savinainen, Jouni Viiri

189

13

Context-based approach in teaching science and technology Ossi Autio, Taina Kaivola, Jari Lavonen

199

14

Implementation of teaching methods in school science Heikki Saari, Kari Sormunen

211

15

Teaching and learning science in primary school Sari Havu-Nuutinen, Maija Ahtee

225

16

Information and communication technology in school science in Finland Veijo Meisalo, Jari Lavonen, Kalle Juuti, Maija Aksela

239

Synthesis of part III: In search of the Finnish ‘secret’ of success in science education Onno De Jong

255

Closing The evaluation of the Finnish success story Maija Ahtee, Erkki Pehkonen, Jari Lavonen Brief bibliographical notes of the authors

vi

263 269

INTRODUCTION

ERKKI PEHKONEN, MAIJA AHTEE AND JARI LAVONEN

INTRODUCTION Setting the landscape

The Finnish students’ success in the first PISA 2000 evaluation was a surprise to most of the Finns, and even people working in teacher education and educational administration had difficulties to believe that this situation would be true and continue. Finland’s second success in the next PISA 2003 comparison has been very pleasing for teachers and teacher educators, and for education policymakers. The good results on the second time waked us to think seriously on possible reasons for the success. Several international journalists and expert delegations from different countries have asked these reasons while visiting in Finland. Since we had no commonly acceptable explanation to our students’ success, we decided at the University of Helsinki to find it out in the form of a book in which Finnish teacher educators and researchers present their views on essential features of Finnish mathematics and science education, and implementation of the education policy. So far no such critical and analytic overview has been published. An overview on Finnish teacher education has been published recently (JakkuSihvonen & Niemi 2006). But there is very little rigid research done on what really happens in mathematics and science classrooms in Finland. Therefore, the chapters of the book at hand present to a certain extent only the views of Finnish teacher educators and researchers in mathematics and science education. Research done is more generally on school teaching (e.g. Komulainen & Kansanen 1981, Syrjäläinen 1990, Patrikainen 1997, Toom 2006). Up today there are only very few descriptions on teaching and learning mathematics and science in Finnish classrooms (e.g. Norris & al. 1996, Maijala 2006). Of course, there are more research done on teachers’ and pupils’ beliefs and views on teaching and learning (e.g. Perkkilä 2002) or on special teaching and learning interventions (e.g. Viiri 2000). The book “How Finns Learn Mathematics and Science?” has two aims. It tries to explain the Finnish teacher education and school system and Finnish children’s learning environment at the level of the comprehensive school. Therefore, it describes the development of 30 years of the school system, teaching methods in mathematics and science, teacher education system, and factors that might influence teachers and thus teaching. Educational research can influence school teaching only after a long delay, and therefore it is not here in the main focus. The authors represent all Finnish universities, especially the teacher education faculties. Almost all professors and docents working in mathematics and science education in Finland are involved in the writing task. The authors have also peer E. Pehkonen, M. Ahtee and J. Lavonen (Eds.), How Finns Learn Mathematics and Science, 3–7. © 2007 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

PEHKONEN, AHTEE AND LAVONEN

reviewed each others’ chapters and, therefore, the book presents a “national view” on mathematics and science education and teacher education. Furthermore, several authors have participated in the national mathematics and science curriculum development and designing of curriculum materials, like textbooks, and, therefore, are familiar with national education policy and its implementation. The editors of the book have been working as professors of mathematics and /or science education. They have been responsible also as a head of the national graduate school for mathematics and science education research and are actively participating to the activities within the Finnish mathematics and science research association. In addition, there is a synthesis on the chapters of each three parts written by well-known experts in the field. A short description of all the authors is given in Appendix. DEVELOPMENT OF FINNISH EDUCATION POLICY

What is important or what is emphasised in Finnish education policy in different time periods can be read from the programmes published by the Finnish governments or from the strategy papers published by the Ministry of Education. For example in year 1996 the government set as a target in its programme to raise the level of mathematical and scientific knowledge in Finland up to international standard (Heinonen 1996). More concrete ideas how the education policy should be implemented can be read for example from the national framework curriculum which have been renewed in recent history in 1970, 1985, 1994 and 2004. According to the educational policy documents the most important features of the policy is commitment to a vision of a knowledge-based-society. This vision can be found also in the national documents published in the 70s, where implementation of common comprehensive school (Committee Report, 1970) and university level teacher education (KATU Project, 1978) were presented. Another long-term objective of Finnish education policy has been to raise the general standard of education and to promote educational equality. Basic decisions towards this direction were made during the 1970’s with other Nordic countries when a change to a comprehensive obligatory school system was decided (Committee Report, 1970). According to this policy all kinds of students should go to common comprehensive schools and learn together as long as possible. In practice all Finnish young people complete the same nine year comprehensive school education which is provided free of charge (including school books, meals, transport and health care). Special-needs teachers help those with special educational needs and guidance counselors give advice relating to studies and careers. Although, there is a national office, Finnish National Board of Education, for the implementation of education policy, local authorities have strong autonomy, a lot of freedom, power and responsibility. In year 1985 national framework curriculum it was presented a vision according to which all schools should develop own local curriculum (NBE 1985). This movement was strengthening in year 1994 curriculum (NBE 1994). Therefore, third general education policy principle in Finland is the devolution of decision power and responsibility at the local level. For example the local education providers are responsible for organising general assessment 4

SETTING THE LANDSCAPE

and use the data for evaluating how well the goals have been achieved and education policy is working in practice. The schools and teachers are free to choose learning materials and are also responsible for their decisions, because national level inspection of learning materials was terminated in the beginning of 1990s. Moreover, there are no national or local school inspectors since late 1980s. Teachers are valued as experts in curriculum development, teaching and in assessment at all levels (NBE, 2004). THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK AT HAND

Chapters in this book are organized into three sections: General aspects, Mathematics, and Science. Each section consists of 5–6 chapters written by the teacher education specialists around Finland. After each section, there is a synthesis written by an international or national specialist who has not been involved in writing of the chapters. The first section “General aspects” contains six chapters. In chapter 1 the researchers who have participated in the PISA and TIMSS studies discuss the reasons for Finnish students’ high achievement in mathematics and science in the recent international assessment studies PISA 2000, PISA 2003 and TIMSS 1999. In chapter 2 the Finnish comprehensive school system is described in general and the educational tasks of mathematics and natural sciences in detail. The structural constraints of the education system are outlined, and the mathematics and science education curricula and the curriculum changes are introduced. In chapter 3 an overview of planning, organising and evaluating of mathematics and science teacher education in Finland is given. Both programmes emphasise a research-based approach as a main organizing theme of teacher education. In chapter 4 Finnish learning environments in mathematic and science are described that refer to social, psychological, and pedagogical contexts in which learning occurs and which affect students’ achievement, attitudes, and beliefs. The learning and teaching materials, as well as technical tools such as micro-computer based laboratories are an important part of the effective learning environment. Chapter 5 focuses on gender differences in mathematics and science education. Although in the Finnish society there is a relatively large equity between genders there are gender differences in students’ attitudes towards these subjects, and differential career choices as soon as mathematics and science are no longer compulsory. In chapter 6 the authors consider the additional factors that influence school teaching and learning in a more restrictive way like INSET training for mathematics and science teachers and the extensive science and mathematics program (LUMA1) launched by the Finnish Ministry of Education. The second section “Teaching and learning mathematics” includes five chapters. In chapter 7 it is first introduced what is meant with problem solving in mathematics education and how it is manifested in the Finnish curricula, textbooks, lessons and assessment. Also a solution for the use of open-ended problems is proposed. In chapter 8 the authors tell about the special characters of Finnish primary teacher education and also about its development during last decades. They describe the 5

PEHKONEN, AHTEE AND LAVONEN

contents of basic studies and specialization in mathematics, teaching practice, and the master thesis. In chapter 9 some alternative teaching methods are introduced that have been delivered for more than twenty years for mathematics teachers of the comprehensive school. They are, as follows: Models from everyday life, Activity tasks, Mathematical modelling, Learning games, Problem solving, Investigations, Project work. In chapter 10 some essential features of the mathematics teaching and assessment in Finnish primary classrooms are outlined. Also some facts about teacher’s profession in primary school are introduced and the role of textbooks in mathematics teaching and learning is discussed in some detail. In chapter 11 it is given an overview of technology-based activities in the Finnish mathematics education based on official documents that illustrate measures that have been trigged by more or less administrative projects, and research articles made in the university within mathematics teacher education. Section three “Teaching and learning science” is a compound of five chapters. In chapter 12 it is concentrated mainly in analysing the teaching methods of chemistry and physics, and discusses on what has actually been going on in the science classrooms. Some general trends in Finnish science education are described as well as in science education research that might have had some influence in the science education in schools. Chapter 13 focuses on how to meet the challenge of making science and technology more attractive by introducing them in context-based educational settings. One of the guiding principles in Finland for selection of contexts is the use of cross-curricular themes, like the individual and technology or responsibility for environment, mentioned in the national framework curriculum. Chapter 14 concentrates on modelling and practical work as instructional approaches at lower secondary level. Examples from the work booklet related to a physics and chemistry textbook are given. Chapter 15 focuses on the science teaching at primary level and on the class teacher as teaching science. Some elements related to science lessons are described: the lessons based on the textbooks, examples of field work, small explorative cases and integrated projects. In chapter 16 the national ICT strategies from 1986 to 2000 and their implementation are analysed and related to core curriculum development, development of software and learning environment, teacher education, as well as research activities in the field of ICT use in science education in Finland. Three different approaches as research and development projects are described to concretize how pedagogy of science rather than use of computers has been in the focus of development. NOTES 1

6

The acronym LUMA comes from Finnish language terms: Luonnontieteet [Natural Sciences] and Matematiikka [Mathematics])

SETTING THE LANDSCAPE

REFERENCES Committee Report (1970). Peruskoulun opetussuunnitelmakomitean mietintö I [Report of the Committee of Comprehensive School Curriculum I]. Komiteamietintö 1970:A4. Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus. Heinonen, O.-P. (1996). Finnish know-how in mathematics and natural sciences in 2002. National joint action. Koulutus- ja tiedepolitiikan julkaisusarja 38. Helsinki: Opetusministeriö. Jakku-Sihvonen, R. & Niemi, H. (Eds.) (2006). Research-based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Research in Educational Sciences 25. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association. KATU Project (1978). Luokanopettajan koulutusohjelman yleinen rakenne. [General Structure of the Class Teacher's Education.] Opetusministeriö. Korkeakoulu- ja tiedeosaston julkaisusarja n:o 27. Komulainen, E. & Kansanen, P. (Eds.) (1981). Classroom analysis: concepts, findings, applications. DPA Helsinki Investigations III. University of Helsinki. Institute of Education. Research Bulletin 56. Maijala, H. (2006). How does classroom teaching in mathematics look like? University of Turku. Department of Teacher Education. A manuscript. NBE (1985). Peruskoulun opetussuunnitelman perusteet 1985 [Basics for the curriculum of the comprehensive school 1985]. Kouluhallitus. Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus. NBE (1994). Framework Curriculum for the Comprehensive School 1994. National Board of Education: Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus. Norris, N., Asplund, R., MacDonald, B., Schostak, J. & Zamorski, B. (1996). An independent evaluation of comprehensive curriculum reform in Finland. Helsinki: National Board of Education. Patrikainen, R. (1997). Ihmiskäsitys, tiedonkäsitys ja oppimiskäsitys luokanopettajan pedagogisessa ajattelussa. [Conception of man, conception of knowledge, and conception of learning in primary teachers’ pedagogical thinking.] Joensuun yliopisto. Kasvatustieteellisiä julkaisuja 36. Perkkilä, P. (2002). Opettajien matematiikkauskomukset ja matematiikan oppikirjan merkitys alkuopetuksessa. [Teachers’ Mathematics Beliefs and Meaning of Mathematics Textbooks in the First and the Second Grade of Primary School.] University of Jyväskylä. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research, 195. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Printing House. Syrjäläinen, E. (1990). Oppilaiden ja opettajien roolikäyttäytyminen luokkahuoneyhteisössä. Etnografinen tapaustutkimus peruskoulun ja steinerkoulun ala-asteen 4. vuosiluokalta. [The Role Behaviour of Pupils and Teachers in the Classroom. An Ethnographical Case Study in the Finnish Comprehensive School and in the Steiner School at the Fourth Grade Level.] Helsingin yliopisto. Opettajankoulutuslaitos. Tutkimuksia 78. Toom, A. (2006). Tacit Pedagogical Knowledge At the Core of Teacher’s Professionality. University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Research Report 276. Viiri, J. (2000). Vuorovesi-ilmiön selityksen opetuksellinen konstruktio. [Educational reconstruction of the explanation of tides.] University of Joensuu. Publications in Education No. 59. Joensuusuu: Joensuun yliopistopaino.

7

Part I General Aspects

PEKKA KUPARI, PASI REINIKAINEN AND JUKKA TÖRNROOS

CHAPTER 1 Finnish students’ mathematics and science results in recent international assessment studies: PISA and TIMSS

ABSTRACT

The chapter discusses Finnish students’ performances in mathematics and science based on the international assessment studies at the turn of the new millennium. What is the performance level of Finnish comprehensive school students in mathematics and science in the light of these international surveys? What kind of competence they have in view of active membership in knowledge intensive society? What are the strengths of our students and where are the greatest development needs? Are there any gender differences in student performance? What about regional differences within Finland? What kinds of background factors seem to have the strongest explanatory power for student performance in these subjects? The results of the assessment studies will produce both answers to these questions and arouse new questions and challenges to the society of mathematics and science education. The results from three studies – PISA 2000, PISA 2003 and TIMSS 1999 - tell indisputably that the Finnish comprehensive school yields high achievement in mathematics and science and has also successfully met the objectives of educational equity. Gender differences in performance are very small and equity seems to have been achieved also between different regions and language groups in the country. Alongside students’ high overall achievement the results also reveal many development challenges. A major challenge to future mathematics teaching in Finland is in developing such attitudes and learning strategies that would support students’ learning. Especially, we should seek to increase girls' interest in mathematics, raise confidence in their own learning potential, and also help them find the joy of learning mathematics. Furthermore, the Finnish system has been quite successful in supporting the learning of weaker students both in science and mathematics. At the same time, the percentage of top performers is not as high as it could be. The high overall standard of our mathematics and science education is an asset that allows providing support for the low achievers while also motivating the top performers to use their potential to the full.

E. Pehkonen, M. Ahtee and J. Lavonen (Eds.), How Finns Learn Mathematics and Science, 11–34. © 2007 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

KUPARI, REINIKAINEN AND TÖRNROOS

INTRODUCTION

In Finland in the mid-1990s, both the governmental plan and a development programme for mathematics and science education (LUMA1 programme) set the objective that student achievement in this area was to be raised to a high international standard and Finland was to reach a place among the best quarter of OECD countries in international assessments in 2002. In the period from 1999 to 2005 Finland has participated in three major international surveys focusing on mathematics and science. The first one of these studies was the Third International Mathematics and Science Study Repeat (TIMMS) in 1999. After this Finland has taken part in both the OECD/PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) surveys in 2000 and 2003. This chapter will present central national findings from these studies. The PISA and TIMSS results will be dealt with separately, starting from the most recent ones. The results of Finnish students will be compared, in particular, to those of other Nordic countries as well as to the OECD average. Connections between student performance and various background factors will be examined by means of an explanatory model based on the TIMSS data. In order to make interpretation easier, we will first shortly describe the approaches of the PISA and TIMSS studies. These studies and their respective results have been discussed more thoroughly in a number of national and international reports (e.g. Martin et al., 2000; Mullis et al., 2000; Kupari, Reinikainen, Nevanpää & Törnroos, 2001; OECD, 2001; Välijärvi & Linnakylä, 2002; OECD, 2004; Kupari & Välijärvi, 2005). ASSESSMENT APPROACHES APPLIED IN PISA AND TIMSS

PISA studies The PISA programme aims at assessing young people's skills, knowledge and competencies from the perspective of future learning demands. PISA assesses 15year-olds' performance in three main domains: reading literacy, mathematical literacy and scientific literacy. There is also interest to find out what factors relative to student background, school characteristics, and organisation of teaching influence student achievement. The PISA programme involves surveys to be conducted every three years with alternating prime domains. In 2003 this prime domain was mathematics and in 2000 it was reading literacy. In both years the proportion of science items has been smaller, i.e. 1/6 of all tasks. In PISA mathematical literacy refers to students' ability to analyse, explain, and communicate their thoughts effectively when defining, formulating, solving and interpreting mathematical problems in various situations. Mathematical literacy is defined as an individual's capacity to identify and understand the role that mathematics plays in the world, to make well-founded mathematical judgements and to engage in mathematics, in ways that meet the needs of that individual's current and future life as a constructive, concerned and reflective citizen (OECD 2003, p. 24). 12

MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE RESULTS

PISA puts emphasis on the application of mathematical knowledge in different contexts that call for understanding, reflection and argumentation. This requires, of course, also basic mathematical competence with reference to mathematical facts, terminology, and concepts as well as computational and problem solving methods. The definition of mathematical literacy includes thus both the narrower functional use of mathematics and preparedness for further studies, and also the aesthetic and entertaining elements of mathematics. In both studies the design of the mathematics items accounted for three conceptual elements: mathematical content, mathematical processes and the situations in which mathematics is applied. From the literacy point of view, mathematical content plays an essential role. In 2003 the content was defined by means of four broad areas, which are quantity, space and shape, change and relationships as well as uncertainty. In 2000 the content areas were space and shape as well as change and growth. Mathematical processes were defined in terms of mathematical competencies including, for example, the use of mathematic language and operations, cognitive skills as well as representation and problem-solving skills. In 2003 these competencies were divided further into three broad categories or clusters: reproduction (knowledge and basic operations), connections (combining and interpreting information), and reflection (explanation and generalisation). Furthermore, the test items were embedded in various mathematical situations pertaining to young people's life. In 2000 there were in total 31 mathematics items in the test. In 2003 this number was 85, of which two thirds were open-ended tasks while the rest were multiple-choice items. In addition, student attitudes to mathematics learning were explored from various angles. Scientific literacy, as defined in the PISA framework, is considered an important skill for every citizen's life. It highlights a student's own role in active acquisition and communication of scientific knowledge. Scientific literacy is defined as the capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify questions and to draw evidencebased conclusions, in order to understand and help make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it through human activity. This also emphasises a critical approach to information so that a distinction is made between opinions and statements based on scientific evidence. PISA is concerned with young people's capability to master scientific concepts and phenomena in real-life situations and in solving tasks and problems that may arise from future needs. The design of the PISA science items was guided by three framing dimensions: scientific concepts and phenomena, scientific processes (investigation), and scientific areas of application (situations). Concepts were selected from the four major fields of physics, chemistry, biology, and earth and space science. The tasks were designed so that they also provided information about the process-related competencies of students. Three processes were identified: describing, explaining and predicting scientific phenomena; understanding scientific investigation; and interpreting scientific evidence and conclusions. The three broad situations in which individuals apply scientific processes were identified as science in life and health, science in earth and environment, and science in technology with reference to the 13