Arnold, Julia

Lade...
Profilbild
E-Mail-Adresse
Geburtsdatum
Projekt
Organisationseinheiten
Berufsbeschreibung
Nachname
Arnold
Vorname
Julia
Name
Arnold, Julia

Suchergebnisse

Gerade angezeigt 1 - 7 von 7
  • Publikation
    The three-talk model. Getting both evidence and preferences into a pre-service teacher health workshop
    (MDPI, 16.12.2021) Zeyer, Albert; Arnold, Julia [in: Sustainability]
    We describe a pre-service teacher workshop about sustainable health decisions in school. This one-week workshop had two goals: to improve the ability of students to cope with health and illness as teachers in daily school life, and to improve scientific literacy in health contexts. In this way, the workshop aimed at creating a situation of mutual benefit between science education and health education, as it is suggested in the new science pedagogy called Science|Environment|Health. To reach this aim, the workshop was structured by the evidence-preference approach and the three-talk model, both originally developed for shared-decision making in medicine. In the evidence-preference approach, the experts (the physician, here the teacher) provide the best evidence available, while the laypersons (the patient, here the teacher students) bring in their preferences and, together with the experts, find their personal standpoint. This process is structured by the three-talk model, which is conceived as a characteristic succession of choice talk, option talk, and decision talk. We describe how the pre-service teacher workshop embraced this new approach, compare it to a scientific literacy point of view, and suggest how it could be applied in many other educational contexts, particularly in many issues of education for sustainability.
    01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
  • Publikation
    Exploring core ideas of procedural understanding in scientific inquiry using educational data mining
    (Routledge, 18.05.2021) Arnold, Julia; Mühling, Andreas; Kremer, Kerstin [in: Research in Science & Technological Education]
    Background: Scientific thinking is an essential learning goal of science education and it can be fostered by inquiry learning. One important prerequisite for scientific thinking is procedural understanding. Procedural understanding is the knowledge about specific steps in scientific inquiry (e.g. formulating hypotheses, measuring dependent and varying independent variables, repeating measurements), and why they are essential (regarding objectivity, reliability, and validity). We present two studies exploring students’ ideas about procedural understanding in scientific inquiry using Concept Cartoons. Concept Cartoons are cartoon-like drawings of different characters who have different views about a concept. They are to activate students’ ideas about the specific concept and/or make them discuss them. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to survey students’ ideas of procedural understanding and identify core ideas of procedural understanding that are central for understanding scientific inquiry. Design and methods: In the first study, we asked 47 students about reasons for different steps in inquiry work via an open–ended questionnaire using eight Concept Cartoons as triggers (e.g. about the question why one would need hypotheses). The qualitative analysis of answers revealed 42 ideas of procedural understanding (3-8 per Cartoon). We used these ideas to formulate a closed-ended questionnaire that contained the same Concept Cartoons, followed by statements with Likert-scales to measure agreement. In a second study, 64 students answered the second questionnaire as well as a multiple-choice test on procedural understanding. Results: Using methods from educational data mining, we identified five central statements, all emphasizing the concept of confounding variables: (1) One needs alternative hypotheses, because there may be other variables worth considering as cause. (2) The planning helps to take into account confounding variables or external circumstances. (3) Confounding variables should be controlled since they influence the experiment/the dependent variable. (4) Confounding variables should be controlled since the omission may lead to inconclusive results. (5) Confounding variables should be controlled to ensure accurate measurement. Conclusions: We discuss these ideas in terms of functioning as core ideas of procedural understanding. We hypothesize that these core-ideas could facilitate the teaching and learning of procedural understanding about experiments, which should be investigated in further studies.
    01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
  • Publikation
    Digitale Medien selbst gemacht. AppLaus – ein Kooperationsprojekt zwischen Biologie- und Informatikdidaktik
    (Waxmann, 2021) Mahler, Daniela; Mühling, Andreas; Arnold, Julia; Kubsch, Markus; Sorge, Stefan; Arnold, Julia; Graulich, Nicole [in: Lehrkräftebildung neu gedacht. Ein Praxishandbuch für die Lehre in den Naturwissenschaften und deren Didaktiken]
    04A - Beitrag Sammelband
  • Publikation
    Lehrkräftebildung neu gedacht. Ein Praxishandbuch für die Lehre in den Naturwissenschaften und deren Didaktiken
    (Waxmann, 2021) Kubsch, Markus; Sorge, Stefan; Arnold, Julia; Graulich, Nicole
    03 - Sammelband
  • Publikation
    Wissenschaftliches Denken. Die Rolle von prozeduralem Wissen und Methodenwissen beim Forschenden Lernen
    (Waxmann, 2021) Arnold, Julia; Meier, Monique; Wulff, Claudia; Ziepprecht, Kathrin [in: Vielfältige Wege biologiedidaktischer Forschung. Vom Lernort Natur zur Naturwissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisgewinnung in die Lehrerprofessionalisierung. Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Jürgen Mayer]
    04A - Beitrag Sammelband
  • Publikation
    01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
  • Publikation
    Unterricht digital: Das TPACK-Modell als Planungsrahmen
    (2020) Arnold, Julia; Mahler, Daniela [in: Newsletter NatSpot]
    01B - Beitrag in Magazin oder Zeitung