Đề xuất khung lí thuyết xây dựng bộ công cụ khảo sát thực trạng tổ chức dạy học môn Khoa học tự nhiên cấp trung học cơ sở tại Việt Nam
Tóm tắt
In the 2018 General Education Curriculum, Natural Science (NS) is an integrated and compulsory subject at the lower secondary level, which requires teachers to possess cross-disciplinary knowledge. However, the quality of actual implementation remains problematic and uneven. This paper proposes the Vietnam Science Education Ecosystem (VSEE) model as an integrated, multi-layered theoretical framework to serve as the basis for developing a survey instrument on the current state of NS teaching organization at the lower secondary level. The VSEE model synthesizes three theoretically well-grounded frameworks - the CIPP evaluation model, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) - into a hierarchical, nested structure. This framework enables the simultaneous analysis of systemic factors (including context, input, process, and product), teachers' psychological readiness, and subject-specific pedagogical competence. The VSEE framework provides a theoretical foundation and a blueprint for constructing a survey instrument; its measurement quality (reliability, content and construct validity) needs to be established through expert review and empirical pilot testing in subsequent studies. Combined with the Theory of Change (ToC), the results from this instrument can be translated into recommendations for improving the organization of NS teaching in Vietnam.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314-324. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195
Belcher, B. M., Davel, R., & Claus, R. (2020). A refined method for theory-based evaluation of the societal impacts of research. MethodsX, 7, 100788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.100788
Bộ GD-ĐT (2018). Chương trình giáo dục phổ thông - Chương trình tổng thể (ban hành kèm theo Thông tư số 32/2018/TT-BGDĐT ngày 26/12/2018 của Bộ trưởng Bộ GD-ĐT).
Carlson, J., Daehler, K. R., Alonzo, A. C., Barendsen, E., Berry, A., Borowski, A., Carpendale, J., Kam Ho Chan, K., Cooper, R., Friedrichsen, P., Gess-Newsome, J., Henze-Rietveld, I., Hume, A., Kirschner, S., Liepertz, S., Loughran, J., Mavhunga, E., Neumann, K., Nilsson, P., … Wilson, C. D. (2019). The Refined Consensus Model of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education. In Repositioning Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Science (pp. 77-94). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5898-2_2
Chu Thị Hảo (2020). Thực trạng năng lực dạy học tích hợp của giáo viên trung học cơ sở tỉnh Phú Thọ theo chuẩn nghề nghiệp giáo viên cơ sở giáo dục phổ thông. Tạp chí Giáo dục, 469, 17-21.
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, Selecting, and Integrating a Theoretical Framework in Dissertation Research: Creating the Blueprint for Your “House.” Administrative Issues Journal Education Practice and Research, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr-11-2018-0203
Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903142285
Le, L. T. B., Tran, T. T., & Tran, N. H. (2021). Challenges to STEM education in Vietnamese high school contexts. Heliyon, 7(12), e08649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08649
Lê Thanh Huy, Phùng Việt Hải (2019). Thực trạng và giải pháp phát triển năng lực dạy học môn Khoa học tự nhiên của giáo viên trung học cơ sở, đáp ứng đổi mới giáo dục trong thời gian tới. Tạp chí Giáo dục, số đặc biệt tháng 4, 210-213.
Luft, J. A., Jeong, S., Idsardi, R., & Gardner, G. (2022). Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-05-0134
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., Borko, H. (1999). Nature, Sources, and Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Science Teaching. In: Gess-Newsome, J., Lederman, N.G. (eds) Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Science & Technology Education Library, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_4
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
Nguyễn Thị Ngọc (2021). Một số yêu cầu đối với giáo viên trong dạy học tích hợp môn Khoa học tự nhiên, Lịch sử và Địa lí cấp trung học cơ sở. Tạp chí Giáo dục, 500, 6-11. https://tcgd.tapchigiaoduc.edu.vn/index.php/tapchi/article/view/103
Nguyen, P. L. (2024). Vietnam's STEM education landscape: Evolution, challenges, and policy interventions. Journal of Contemporary Educational Policies and Practices, 1(1). https://jcepp.org/index.php/journal/article/view/389
Nguyen, V. H., Nguyen, V. B. H., Vu, T. M. H., Hoang, T. K. H., & Nguyen, T. M. N. (2020). Vietnamese Education System and Teacher Training: Focusing on Science Education. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 6(1), 179-206. https://doi.org/10.1163/23641177-bja10001
OECD. (2025). PISA 2025 Science framework. OECD Publishing. https://pisa-framework.oecd.org/science-2025/
Polanin, J. R., Austin, M., Taylor, J. A., Steingut, R. R., Rodgers, M. A., & Williams, R. (2024). Effects of the 5E Instructional Model: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AERA Open, 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241269866
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). The CIPP model for evaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed., pp. 279-317). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47559-6_16
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for improvement and accountability. The Guilford Press.
Teo, T., & Lee, C. B. (2010). Examining the efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to understand pre-service teachers' intention to use technology. In Proceedings of the 27th ASCILITE Conference (pp. 968-972). Sydney, Australia. https://ascilite.org/conferences/sydney10/procs/Teo-concise.pdf
Tsang, E. W. K. (2022). Multi-theoretical explanation. In Explaining management phenomena: A philosophical treatise (pp. 167-184). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009323109.007
Van der Waldt, G. (2024). Constructing theoretical frameworks in social science research. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 20(1), a1468. https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v20i1.1468
Tải xuống
Đã Xuất bản
Cách trích dẫn
Số
Chuyên mục
Giấy phép
Bản quyền (c) 2026 Tạp chí Giáo dục
Tác phẩm này được cấp phép theo Ghi nhận tác giả của Creative Commons Giấy phép quốc tế 4.0 .
