CÁC MÔ HÌNH LÍ LUẬN VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY HỌC HÓA HỌC HIỆN ĐẠI

Thái Hoài Minh, Đào Thị Hoàng Hoa, Nguyễn Hoàng Gia Khánh

Tóm tắt


Bài viết giới thiệu và hệ thống hoá các mô hình lí luận và phương pháp dạy học Hoá học (hay còn gọi là mô hình didaktik Hoá học) theo ba nhóm phổ biến: mô hình nội dung dạy học, mô hình ý nghĩa học tập, và mô hình thực hành. Sự phân loại mang tính hệ thống giúp giáo viên và sinh viên sư phạm Hoá học có thể tiếp cận lí luận dạy học hiện đại một cách tổng quan, từ đó thuận lợi hơn trong quá trình nghiên cứu, giảng dạy và phát triển chương trình môn học. Bên cạnh đó, xét theo khía cạnh ý nghĩa học tập, mô hình tứ diện Sjöström sẽ được phân tích nhằm cho thấy chiều sâu trong cách tiếp cận dạy học kết nối thực tế, từ đó giáo viên và sinh viên sư phạm có những định hướng phù hợp để thực hiện mục tiêu giáo dục Hoá học vì sự phát triển bền vững.

 


Từ khóa


dạy học Hóa học; didaktik; mô hình; phát triển bền vững

Toàn văn:

PDF

Trích dẫn


Anthony, E. M. (1963). Approach, Method, and Technique. ELT Journal, XVII(2), 63-67. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/XVII.2.63

Arık, M., & Topçu, M. S. (2022). Implementation of Engineering Design Process in the K-12 Science Classrooms: Trends and Issues. Research in Science Education, 52(1), 21-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09912-x

Arnold, K.-H. (2012). Didactics, Didactic Models and Learning. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 986-990). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1833

Balta, N., & Sarac, H. (2016). The Effect of 7E Learning Cycle on Learning in Science Teaching: A meta-Analysis Study. European Journal of Educational Research, 5(2), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.5.2.61

Bozkurt, A. (2022). A Retro Perspective on Blended/Hybrid Learning: Systematic Review, Mapping and Visualization of the Scholarly Landscape. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2022(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.751

DeWitt, R. D. (2019). Planning for Active Learning in the Didactic Classroom. Journal of Physician Assistant Education, 30(1), 41-46. https://doi.org/10.1097/JPA.0000000000000236

Friesen, N. (2018). Continuing the dialogue: curriculum, Didaktik and theories of knowledge. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(6), 724-732. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1537377

Guzey, S. S., Caskurlu, S., & Kozan, K. (2020). Integrated STEM pedagogies and student learning. In C. C. Johnson, M. J. Mohr-Schroeder, T. J. Moore, & L. D. English (Eds.), Handbook of Research on STEM Education (pp. 65-75). Routledge.

Hartikainen, S., Rintala, H., Pylväs, L., & Nokelainen, P. (2019). The Concept of Active Learning and the Measurement of Learning Outcomes: A Review of Research in Engineering Higher Education. Education Sciences, 9(4), 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040276

Herranen, J., Yavuzkaya, M., & Sjöström, J. (2021). Embedding Chemistry Education into Environmental and Sustainability Education: Development of a Didaktik Model Based on an Eco-Reflexive Approach. Sustainability, 13(4), 1746. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041746

Holme, T., Luxford, C., & Murphy, K. (2015). Updating the General Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(6), 1115-1116. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500712k

Hrastinski, S. (2019). What Do We Mean by Blended Learning? TechTrends, 63(5), 564-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5

Joswick, C., & Hulings, M. (2023). A Systematic Review of BSCS 5E Instructional Model Evidence. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10357-y

Kaya-Capocci, S., & Peters-Burton, E. (Eds.). (2023). Enhancing Entrepreneurial Mindsets Through STEM Education (Vol. 15). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17816-0

Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733

Meier, B., & Nguyen, V. C. (2014). Khái niệm và phân loại phương pháp dạy học [Concept and classification of teaching methods]. Modern teaching theory (pp. 97-106). Ho Chi Minh City University of Education Publishing House

Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam – MOET. (2018a). Chemistry general education curriculum.

Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam – MOET. (2018b). General education curriculum: Total curriculum.

Mizokami, S. (2018). Deep Active Learning from the Perspective of Active Learning Theory. In Deep Active Learning (pp. 79-91). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5660-4_5

Murphy, K., Holme, T., Zenisky, A., Caruthers, H., & Knaus, K. (2012). Building the ACS Exams Anchoring Concept Content Map for Undergraduate Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(6), 715-720. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300049w

Nguyen, C. (2007). Chemistry teaching methodology in high schools and universities - Some basic issues. Vietnam Education Publishing House.

Nguyen, M. A. T. (2023). The current situation of implementing STEM education in high schools in Tuyen Quang province. Vietnam Journal of Education, 23(12), 53-58.

Nguyen, M. T., & Thai, H. M. (2023). Integrating Education for sustainable development in teaching Chemistry through a STEM-oriented lesson of “Paper recycling.” Vietnam Journal of Education, 23(special 7), 114-120.

Nguyen, N. Q. (1994). Chemistry teaching theory (Vol. 1). Vietnam Education Publishing House.

Nguyen, Q. L., Vu, T. T. Y., Duong, V. T., & Nong, M. A. (2023). Teacher competencies that need to be fostered to successfully implement stem-oriented teaching: a case study in Thai Nguyen province. Vietnam Journal of Education, 23(6), 51-57.

Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003

Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95(4), 601-626. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20435

Pietrocola, M., Rodrigues, E., Bercot, F., & Schnorr, S. (2021). Risk Society and Science Education. Science & Education, 30(2), 209-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00176-w

Ruggerio, C. A. (2021). Sustainability and sustainable development: A review of principles and definitions. Science of The Total Environment, 786, 147481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147481

Sadler, T. D., Foulk, J. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2016). Evolution of a Model for Socio-Scientific Issue Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.55999

Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (2018). Reconsidering Different Visions of Scientific Literacy and Science Education Based on the Concept of Bildung (pp. 65-88). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66659-4_4

Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (2020). The Bildung Theory—From von Humboldt to Klafki and Beyond (pp.55-67). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_5

Sjöström, J., Eilks, I., & Talanquer, V. (2020). Didaktik Models in Chemistry Education. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(4), 910-915. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b01034

Sjöström, J., Eilks, I., & Zuin, V. G. (2016). Towards Eco-reflexive Science Education. Science & Education, 25(3-4), 321-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9818-6

Sjöström, J., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Humanizing Chemistry Education: From Simple Contextualization to Multifaceted Problematization. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 1125-1131. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed5000718

Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.802463

Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00012E

Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet.” International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435

Thai, H. M., & Nguyen, M. T. (2020). Applying Augmented Reality to enhance students’ interest in learning organic chemistry. Ho Chi Minh City University of Education Journal of Science, 17(11).

Thai, H. M., Truong, T. D., Nguyen, T. K. N., & Nguyen, T. H. (2023). Integrated career education in a STEM lesson: “Chemistry and prevention fire and explosion risks” (for students in grade 10, Vietnamese chemistry curriculum 2018). Ho Chi Minh City University of Education Journal of Science, 20(8). https://doi.org/10.54607/hcmue.js.20.8.3711(2023)

Trinh, T. P. T., Nguyen, T. N., & Nguyen, N. V. (2023). Organizing STEM educational activities in teaching Mathematics in high schools in association with protecting and promoting national cultural values. Vietnam Journal of Education, 23(12), 5-11.

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Yavuzkaya, M., Clucas, P., & Sjöström, J. (2022). ChemoKnowings as Part of 21st Century Bildung and Subject Didaktik. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.869156

Zoller, U. (2012). Science Education for Global Sustainability: What Is Necessary for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Strategies? Journal of Chemical Education, 89(3), 297-300. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300047v




DOI: https://doi.org/10.54607/hcmue.js.21.8.4043(2024)

Tình trạng

  • Danh sách trống