Abstract
Textbooks as a prominent product of educational content’s didactical transformation are usually published as a series. Textbooks are often accompanied by workbooks and teacher’s books. These publications are designed to support teacher’s work and can have a significant impact on the teaching practice. To deepen the understanding of chemical education at lower-secondary schools, the goal was to map chemistry teachers’ use of workbooks and teacher’s books. An electronic questionnaire containing close-ended questions as well as scales was used for this purpose. Information about workbooks and teacher’s books’ use, frequency of use, perceived importance and purpose were gathered. Whereas 63% of the 387 respondents reported using workbooks they consider important for the quality of education, teacher’s books are only used by 24% of teachers, with only 4% reporting their frequent use. The results indicate that workbooks are mostly used during chemistry lessons or for student homework, however a significant share of teachers mentioned using them for lesson preparation. The absence of a teacher’s book, coupled with the teachers’ reluctance to use them even when available, also pointed to their approach to teaching preparation based on the search for educational content and specific activities rather than methodological support in a broader sense.
References
Bakken, A. S. (2019). Questions of autonomy in English teachers’ discursive practices. Educational Research, 61(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1561202
Bayindir, N. (2010). The perception and use conditions of teachers about the activities in teachers’ books in terms of curriculum. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 4(9), 4173–4177. http://www.ajbasweb.com/old/ajbas/2010/4173-4177.pdf
Borg, S. (2015). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Červenková, I. (2010). Žák a učebnice: užívání učebnic na 2. stupni základních škol [Student and a textbook: Textbooks’ use on a lower-secondary level]. Ostravská univerzita, Pedagogická fakulta.
Erol, H. (2017). An evaluation on functionality of the workbook for social studies for the 7th graders. Pegem Egitim ve Ogretim Dergisi=Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 7(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2017.001
Fadilla, I., & Usmeldi. (2020). Preliminary study for development of teacher’s Books oriented researchbased learning on science lesson in Junior High School. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1481. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1481/1/012068
Fiala, V., & Honskusová, L. (2020). The inquiry diary: Students’ motivation towards water-quality evaluation. In M. Rusek, M. Tothova, & K. Vojir (Eds.), Project-Based Education and Other Activating Strategies in Science Education XVII (pp. 37–45). Charles University, Faculty of Education. WOS:000567209500004
Fleisch, B., Taylor, N., Herholdt, R., & Sapire, I. (2011). Evaluation of back to basics mathematics workbooks: A randomised control trial of the primary mathematics research project 1. South African Journal of Education, 31(4), 488–504. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v31n4a466
Fürnkranz, J., & Kliegr, T. (2015). A brief overview of rule learning. In International Symposium on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web. RuleML 2015 (pp. 54–69). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21542-6 4
Güven, S. (2010). Evaluation of life sciences teachers’ books according to teachers’ opinions. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1914–1918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.1009
Hahsler, M., Grün, B., & Hornik, K. (2005). Arules – A computational environment for mining association rules and frequent item sets. Journal of Statistical Software, 14(15), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v014.i15
Heinonen, J. (2005). Opetussuunnitelmat vai oppimateriaalit: peruskoulunopettajien käsityksiä opetussuunnitelmien ja oppimateriaalien merkityksestä opetuksessa [Curricula or educational materials. Elementary school teachers’ conceptions of curriculum and teaching materials for educational purposes]. University of Helsinki, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences.
Chapman, P., Clinton, J., Kerber, R., Khabaza, T., Reinartz, T., Shearer, C., & Wirth, R. (2000). CRISP-DM 1.0 Step-by-step data mining guide. SPSS. https://the-modeling-agency.com/crisp-dm.pdf
Janoušková, S., Žák, V., & Rusek, M. (2019). Koncept přírodovědné gramotnosti v České republice – analýza a porovnání. Studia paedagogica, 24(3), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2019-3-4
Johansson, M. (2006). Teaching mathematics with textbooks: a classroom and curricular perspective [Doctoral thesis, Lule˚a tekniska universitet].
Kendedes, T.A., & Ratnawulan, R. (2020). Validity of integrated science teacher’s book on junior high school based on character with the theme of cohesion and adhesion on living with shared model. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1481. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1481/1/012128
Laws, K., & Horsley, M. (1992). Education equity? Textbooks in New South Wales government and non government secondary schools. Curriculum Perspectives, 12(3), 7–15.
Lepik, M., Grevholm, B., & Viholainen, A. (2015). Using textbooks in the mathematics classroom – the teachers’ view Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 20(3–4), 129–156.
Li, L. (2013). The complexity of language teachers’ beliefs and practice: One EFL teacher’s theories. The Language Learning Journal, 41(2), 175–191.
MŠMT. (2018a). Statistická ročenka školství – výkonové ukazatele. http://toiler.uiv.cz/rocenka/rocenka.asp
MŠMT. (2018b). Výběr z adresáře škol a školských zařízení. http://stistko.uiv.cz/registr/vybskolrn.asp
Mullis, I.V., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://timss.bc.edu/timss2011/downloads/T11 IR Mathematics FullBook.pdf
Nainggolan, B., Hutabarat, W., Situmorang, M., & Sitorus, M. (2020). Developing innovative chemistry laboratory workbook integrated with project-based learning and character-based chemistry. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 895-908. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13359a
Nulty, D.D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314.
Orafi, S.M. S., & Borg, S. (2009). Intentions and realities in implementing communicative curriculum reform. System, 37(2), 243–253.
Perkkilä, P. (2002). Opettajien matematiikkauskomukset ja matematiikan oppikirjan merkitys alkuopetuksessa [Teachers’ mathematical beliefs and the role of the mathematics textbook in primary education]. Jyväskylän yliopisto. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-5338-6
Rusek, M., Stárková, D., Metelková, I., & Beneš, P. (2016). Hodnocení obtížnosti textu učebnic chemie pro základní školy. Chemické listy, 110(12), 953–958. http://chemicke-listy.cz/docs/full/2016 12 953-958.pdf
Rusek, M., & Vojíř, K. (2019). Analysis of text difficulty in lower-secondary chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00141C
Rusek, M., Vojíř, K., & Šubová, Š. (2020). Lower-secondary school chemistry textbooks’ didactic equipment. Chemistry-Didactics-Ecology-Metrology, 25(1–2), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.2478/cdem-2020-0004
Sikorová, Z. (2005). Transforming curriculum as teacher’s activity. In M. Horsley, S.V. Knudsen, & S. Selander (Eds.), Has Past Passed? Textbooks and Educational Media for the 21st Century (pp. 256–261). Stockholm Institute of Education Press.
Sikorová, Z. (2010). Učitel a učebnice: užívání učebnic na 2. stupni základních škol [A teacher and textbooks: The use of textbooks at lower-secondary education]. Ostravská univerzita, Pedagogická fakulta.
Steenbrugge, H.V., Valcke, M., & Desoete, A. (2013). Teachers’ views of mathematics textbook series in Flanders: Does it (not) matter which mathematics textbook series schools choose? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(3), 322–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.713995
Suhandi, A., & Samsudin, A. (2019). Effectiveness of the use of developed teacher’s book in guiding the implementation of physics teaching that provides science literacy and instill spiritual attitudes. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1280. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1280/5/052054
Vojíř, K., & Rusek, M. (2019a). Používání učebnic chemie na základních školách v České republice: tvorba a pilotní ověření dotazníku. In M. Rusek & K. Vojíř (Eds.), Project-based Education and Other Activating Strategies in Science Education XVI. (pp. 179–192). Charles University, Faculty of Education. WOS:000482135600022
Vojíř, K., & Rusek, M. (2019b). Science education textbook research trends: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science Education, 41(11), 1496–1516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1613584
Vojíř, K., & Rusek, M. (2020). Vývoj kurikula chemie pro základní vzdělávání v České republice po roce 1989 [Development of chemistry curriculum for lower-secondary education in Czechia after 1989]. Chemické listy, 114(5), 366–369. http://www.chemicke-listy.cz/ojs3/index.php/chemicke-listy/article/view/3606/3552
Vojíř, K., & Rusek, M. (2021). Preferred chemistry curriculum perspective: Teachers’ perception of lower-secondary school textbooks. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(2), in press. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.316
Vojíř, S., Zeman, V., Kuchař, J., & Klieger, T. (2018). EasyMiner.eu: Web framework for interpretable machine learning based on rules and frequent itemsets. Knowledge-Based Systems, 150, 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.03.006