Shared goals in science education: youth agency across three national systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2026.14.1.2bKeywords:
science curriculum, youth agency, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, comparative educationAbstract
Loodusteadusliku hariduse puhul puutuvad eri riigid pidevalt kokku probleemiga, kuidas säilitada noorte huvi loodusainete vastu, tagades samas, et nende ainepõhised nõuded saaksid rangelt täidetud. Artiklis käsitletakse loodusteaduste õppekava kui struktuuri, mille kaudu saab suunata noorte osalemist õppeaine mõtestamises, anda neile võimalus kogeda tunnustust ja tutvustada võimalikke tulevasi karjäärivalikuid. Colombia, Eesti ja Ameerika Ühendriikide riiklike loodusteaduste õppekavade kvalitatiivse võrdleva analüüsiga uurime, kuidas neis käsitletakse ainepõhist õpet, toetatakse noorte agentsust uurimistööde, praktilise ja projektõppe kaudu ning kuidas teeb hindamisprotsess õppimise nähtavaks. Õppekava käsitlevate teooriate kohaselt ja sotsiokultuurilisest vaatenurgast lähtudes ei ole agentsus õpilase individuaalne omadus, vaid õppekava juhendiga tagatud ülesannete struktuurist, osalemisvõimalustest ja tunnustamisviisidest sõltuv tulem. Kõigi kolme riigi õppekavasid ühendab keskendumine uurimisele ja õppimise seostamine igapäevaeluga, kuid neid tegevusi viiakse ellu erineval viisil: Ameerika Ühendriikide õppekavad rõhutavad osalemist teadustegevuses kolmemõõtmelise õppimise kaudu, Eesti rõhutab autonoomsust ja isereguleeritud uurimistegevust kui teadusliku kirjaoskuse omandamise peamist meetodit ning Colombia rõhutab loodusainete õppimist igapäevaelu ja kogukonna probleemide lahendamise kaudu. Meie väidame, et heade tulemust poole pürgimine eeldab kaasamist: õppekavad, mis on ehitatud järjepidevale tegevuse mõtestamisele sidusate projektide, kaasamist võimaldavate osalemistingimuste ja kujundava hindamise kaudu, võivad toetada noorte pädevust, kuuluvustunnet ja eesmärgikindlust, võimaldades mitmekesiseid valikuid väljaspool kitsaid STEM-karjäärivõimalusi.
Downloads
References
Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. Teachers College Press.
Apple, M. W. (1996). Cultural politics and education (Vol. 5). Teachers College Press.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus: How families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 881–908. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211433290
Avraamidou, L. (2019). Stories we live, identities we build: How are elementary teachers’ science identities shaped by their lived experiences? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(1), 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9855-8
Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008–1026. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20392
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research, Inc.
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2016). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315674889
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237
Colombia. Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (1998). Ciencias naturales y educación ambiental: lineamientos curriculares: áreas obligatorias y fundamentales. Magisterio.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Estonian Ministry of Education and Research. (2014). National curriculum for upper secondary schools: Appendix 4: Subject field – Natural science.
Feinstein, N. W., Allen, S., & Jenkins, E. (2013). Outside the pipeline: Reimagining science education for nonscientists. Science, 340(6130), 314–317. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230855
Gay, G. (2023). Educating for equity and excellence: Enacting culturally responsive teaching. Teachers College Press.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2015). The possibilities and limits of the structure–agency dialectic in advancing science for all. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21229
He, P., Krajcik, J., & Schneider, B. (2023). Transforming standards into classrooms for knowledge-in-use: An effective and coherent project-based learning system. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 5(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-023-00088-z
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.
Holland, D. (2001). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard University Press.
Kori, K. (2022). Science Education in Estonia. In Science Education in Countries Along the Belt & Road: Future Insights and New Requirements (pp. 385–398). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6955-2_23
Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-Based Learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, (pp. 317–333). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.020
Krajcik, J., Schneider, B., Miller, E. A., Chen, I. C., Bradford, L., Baker, Q., Bartz, K., Miller, C., Li, T., Codere, S., & Peek-Brown, D. (2023). Assessing the effect of project-based learning on science learning in elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 60(1), 70–102. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312221129247
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675
Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2013). Integrating science and English proficiency for English language learners. Theory Into Practice, 52(1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.743772
Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20441
Mathis, C., & Southerland, S. (2022). Our shifting understandings of culturally relevant pedagogy in physics. The Physics Teacher, 60(4), 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0027583
Mathis, C., Southerland, S. A., & Burgess, T. (2023). Physics teachers’ dispositions related to culturally relevant pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 45(14), 1162–1181. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2190850
Morales-Doyle, D. (2018). Students as curriculum critics: Standpoints with respect to relevance, goals, and science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(5), 749–773. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21438
Nasir, N. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Lee, C. D. (2006). Learning as a Cultural Process: Achieving Equity Through Diversity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, (pp. 489–504). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.030
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244
Pellegrino, J. W. (2015). Measuring what matters: Challenges and opportunities in assessing science proficiency.
Penuel, W. R., & Spillane, J. P. (2014). Learning sciences and policy design and implementation: Key concepts and tools for collaborative engagement. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, (pp. 649–667). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.039
Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203836033
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21007
Schneider, B., Chen, I. C., Bradford, L., & Bartz, K. (2022). Intervention initiatives to raise young people’s interest and participation in STEM. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 960327. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.960327
Schneider, B., Krajcik, J., Lavonen, J., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2020). Learning science: The value of crafting engagement in science environments. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvwcjfk1
Schneider, B., Krajcik, J., Lavonen, J., Salmela-Aro, K., Broda, M., Spicer, J., ... & Viljaranta, J. (2016). Investigating optimal learning moments in US and Finnish science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 400–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21306
Schneider, B., Krajcik, J., Lavonen, J., Salmela-Aro, K., Klager, C., Bradford, L., ... & Bartz, K. (2022). Improving science achievement – Is it possible? Evaluating the efficacy of a high school chemistry and physics project-based learning intervention. Educational Researcher, 51(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211067742
Steinberg, L. D. (2014). Age of opportunity: Lessons from the new science of adolescence. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Valbuena Rojas, A., & Krajcik, J. (2025). Diseño curricular en química de secundaria: integración del enfoque culturalmente responsivo y el aprendizaje basado en proyectos. In Actas electrónicas del XII Congreso Internacional en Investigación en Didáctica de las Ciencias 2025: Enseñanza de las ciencias y pensamiento crítico: desafíos y necesidades de la sociedad democrática (pp. 713–716). Universidad de Valencia.
Xiao, D., & Schneider, B. (2025). Doing science: An experience sampling study of hands-on activities and student well-being [Working paper].
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The authors who publish in Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian Journal of Education agree to the following terms:
- This journal provides immediate open access to its content. All the articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
- Authors grant the journal right of (1) first publication and distribution of the article, (2) making it available to public, (3) public presentation.
- Authors have the right to enter into separate contractual arrangements for posting the article to an institutional repository or publish it in a book with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted to post citations from their work online (e.g. on their website) with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal (see Open Access).
