Hur fungerar vi? Kroppen och dess organ fascinerar men felaktiga förklaringar till hur allt hänger ihop förekommer bland både barn och vuxna. Vad händer till exempel med vattnet som vi dricker?

This study aims to determine what pre-service teachers know about the path of water through the body, and how they intend to explain this knowledge to five-year-old preschool children. This study aims to see the opportunities young children in preschool can obtain from an explanation of the nature of science related to an everyday life activity. A questionnaire was distributed to 42 pre-service teachers participating in the study. They study part time at the university (75% studying and 25% working), and most of the students are or have been working in preschools. All the students have passed the mandatory science courses. Data were collected through a questionnaire where the students explained their knowledge using drawings, and explaining pedagogic standpoints in open-ended questions. The results concluded that four pre-service teachers could sufficiently explain the workings of three organ systems. However, only one of the four intended to mention the three systems necessary for providing a coherent explanation of the body to a five-year-old child. Even the pre-service teachers who could describe more than one system did not intend to explain what they knew to the children. A typical response from the students was that they would seek facts together with the child.

This study investigates what prior knowledge the students in the teacher programs have about the path of water through the body when they start taking the science courses and what their intentions are, i.e. what they think or believe is important knowledge, as they will later teach. The empirical data for this study is collected in a group of teacher students specializing in grade f-3 and grade 4-6. The information is collected via a questionnaire that consists of a drawn figure where the students draw and describe what they think is happening in the body from when they drink water until the liquid is urinated out. Besides, there are several knowledge questions on the same survey with multiple-choice alternatives and some open-ended questions relating to their future profession as teachers. The results show that the teacher students' prior knowledge is like that seen in previous studies when they connect more than two organ systems is problematic. Nearly a third had nonscientific explanations. These students stated that the most important they want to teach their pupils is the function of water but there were only 12 of 48 who answered that the transportation of nutrients and heat regulation. 

The body is a mystery for many people, not least because we cannot see what lies inside our own bodies. One of the most well-known systems is the digestive system, especially the tube that runs from the mouth-esophagus-stomach to the various intestines. It becomes more problematic when we ask people to explain how more than one organ system is interconnected. Images around us usually depict one organ system at a time or sometimes two, but almost never three organ systems together. Even in textbooks, the same pattern persists rarely, if ever, do three organ systems appear simultaneously in a single image. The consequence of this is that it becomes difficult to explain how water is transported within the body. To describe how water travels from the mouth until it is excreted as urine, one needs to understand the relationships between at least three organ systems: the digestive system, circulatory system, and excretory system. Beyond these systems, there are also the nervous system, lymphatic system, etc., but in this text, we focus on the first three systems.

I have conducted four major studies, three of which are published in journals, and a fourth that has been presented at research conferences and will eventually be published in a journal. The first study was conducted in Sweden [1], and the second in South Africa [2]. Both studies were conducted with grade 9 students and explored not only water but also two other scenarios: what happens when one eats a sandwich and when one takes pain medication. The studies were based on surveys and interviews with both students and teachers. The results revealed that a significant portion (approximately 25%) of students held non-scientific explanatory models—explanations that were not taught or supported by textbooks. Interestingly, the explanatory patterns differed significantly between Swedish (and other European) studies and those conducted in South Africa. This phenomenon likely exists in other countries and cultures, although few studies have explored it. Very few students were able to connect three organ systems (≤ 10%).

The third [3] and fourth [4] studies were based on surveys of pre-service teacher education students. These included pre-service preschool teachers who had completed their natural science courses, as well as pre-service teachers who had not yet begun their science studies and would be teaching grades 4 to 6. Notably, these were adults who had received most of their education in compulsory schools and high schools. Among these students, non-scientific explanatory models were also prevalent. Therefore, it is crucial for educators to help students view the body as a system rather than separate islands of organs. 

Keywords: Water, organ, organ systems, grade 9, higher education, misconceptions   

References

[1]        Granklint Enochson, P. & Redfors , A.(2012) Sweden Student´s Ideas About the Human Body and their Ability to Transfer Knowledge Between Related Scenarios. European Journal of Health and Biology Education Vol. 1, No. 1 &2, July 2012, page:3-29

[2]       Granklint Enochson, P., Redfors A., Dempster, E. R. & Tibell, L. A. (2015) Ideas about the Human Body among Secondary Students in South Africa. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education Vol 19, s. 199-211

[3]        Granklint Enochson P. (2022) Pre-service teachers’ ideas about the path of water through the body and their intentions about explaining it to preschool children. Journal of Biological Education August 2022 online, s 1-10 

[4]     Granklint Enochson P. (2024) Teacher students' prior knowledge of water pathways and what they think is essential pupils’ knowledge. Conference paper NFSUN 24, Reykjavik, Iceland

This study investigated students’ meaning-making of polymeric concepts during modelling and discuss students’ creation of visible representations in chemistry. The analysis combines a phenomenographic and social semiotic approach and leads to the finding and description of 21 different meaning-making processes. We refer to meaning-making as the outcome of translative communication through representations, discerned by students, where the collective meaning of created representations that build on each other constitutes the meaning as a whole. The study took place in three Swedish upper secondary chemistry classes. Data were collected from eight groups of 3–4 students (n = 30). Video, audio recordings and photos taken during modelling were analysed to investigate students’ meaning-making during the modelling process. The results show translative changes between and within semiotic resources, indicating meaning for students’ learning of polymeric concepts. Additionally, the representations produced during modelling were essential resources connecting the submicro and macro levels by creating a ‘bridge’ between levels. The results show that the modelling activities practised by all groups were multimodal. The study acknowledges that teachers can use the social semiotic lens as a tool to evaluate students’ modelling in addition to the importance of translative processes during modelling. 

The study at hand was conducted within a regional collaboration project named “From Great to Excellent” (FGTE), carried out between four Swedish municipalities and a small Swedish university. The FGTE project, highly influenced by a prior Canadian project of the same name, was a school development project grounded in an analytical approach involving all school levels. The basic idea in FGTE was that organisations learn from each other and make each other better, and where research is added, quality follows. Initially, each municipality had their own development focus and between them, they agreed on a number of priority professional research areas. Within the project, the participants were divided into groups where some served as so called “hosts” and some served as so called “critical friends”. During the FGTE project, the critical friends and the hosts worked together to solve different development projects at different school levels. Simultaneously, the participants were undertaking a course in analytical competence arranged by the university with the purpose of enhancing joint competence. The questions addressed here are closely connected to the notion of risk in partnerships in education. Firstly, there were four different municipalities operating on three school levels, each with individual research and/or development focus for their respective school level. Secondly, the participants from the municipalities undertook a university course in analytical competence. Critical questions to express were: What distinguishes the partnerships in the FGTE project between the four municipalities regarding their individual development projects? What type of risks present themselves in the FGTE project, in regard to the four municipalities as well as to the small university? In this chapter, we will critically examine how these development projects unfold in the groups within the duration of the FGTE project. Results show that difficulties arise when professionals from different organizations and different hierarchical levels within these organizations come together in joint collaboration work. In addition, results also showed that the individual development projects that the different schools worked on within the project, shifted in focus during the project.

This study investigated how modeling in chemistry affect second language learners’ descriptions of polymeric concepts. The aim was to investigate how chemistry discussions mediated by representations, contribute to second language students’ development in the language of chemistry. The study took place in three multilingual upper secondary classes. Participating students were (n = 16) second language learners and (n = 14) first language learners. There were in total eight different first languages represented. Data comprised polymeric concept descriptions, audio recordings, and photos taken during modeling. The concept descriptions were analyzed by an inductive content analysis which was then used for a deductive analysis of the modeling-activity. The results show that 65% of second language learners concept descriptions showed an increased clarity, and 45% showed increased use of chemical concepts after the modeling-activity. This study highlights how students in a multilingual context develop their language of chemistry by discussing chemistry scaffolded by representations. The results show that second language learners in a multilingual context benefited from the modeling-activity. As such, the study acknowledges that modeling contexts can be used in teacher education, both in-service and pre-service, to highlight the importance of the role of representations when teaching in the multilingual context.

In the wake of a Swedish negative trend in international school measurements (for example PISA; OECD, 2013) during a ten-year period (2006-2015), many Swedish municipalities felt the urge to make substantial changes to improve the outcomes of student success. Consequently, several development projects throughout the country were implemented. One such initiative was “From Great to Excellent” (here further referred to as FGTE); a three-year long collaboration project carried out between four Swedish municipalities and a small Swedish university. The main purpose with FGTE was to reduce the gap between the student’s potential (what they could achieve) and their actual school achievement. This overall purpose referred to all forms of schooling (pre-school, primary school, (upper) secondary school and adult education), which face the similar kind of challenge in students’ ability to reach their optimal capacity and goal fulfillment in learning, hence the project participants came from three school levels: pre-school, primary school and (upper) secondary school and adult education. Furthermore, the project's organization consisted of a steering group (with people in leading positions from the participating municipalities), an operational process group (with school representatives from the participating municipalities), and a research group (consisting of three researchers from a small Swedish university). In order to enable progression and create conditions for change, the project participants consisted of different kinds of functions within the schools, such as school leaders, policymakers, and practitioners, so not just teachers.

Research points to the beneficial aspects of school-to-school collaboration in school improvement (Ainscow et al., 2006; Sammons et al., 2007; Cox-Petersen, 2011; Muijs et al., 2011; Muijs, 2015; Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2017). For example, according to Hargreaves and O’Connor, (2017) there is evidence that collaborative relationships benefit schools and Cox-Petersen (2011) indicate that there are great many benefits of creating partnerships among schools, businesses, universities, families, and other community groups, as well as many examples of professional partnerships to enhance the education of. Partnerships in education in the FGTE project emphasize the collaboration between schools, rather than on businesses, families, and other community groups (social contracts).  

This presentation is drawn from our chapter; Coming to Terms with Feedback from Critical Friends: Reflections of Risks in a Swedish Regional Collaboration Project, in a forthcoming book by Springer about risks in partnership. In our chapter we discuss the difficulties that arise when professionals from separate school organizations and from different hierarchical levels within these organizations come together in joint collaborative development work, guided by two questions: 1). What distinguishes the partnerships in the FGTE project between the four municipalities regarding their individual research questions? and 2). What type of risks present themselves in the FGTE project, in regard to the four municipalities as well as to the small university? The aim of this presentation is to recaptualise and summarize the primary results of the collaboration that developed within the FGTE project, to shed some light on what partnerships in education could mean in terms of obstacles and opportunities and its potential implications for school improvement.