Science goes to school: A new model for introduction of modern biology teaching strategies to Slovene schools


  • Barbara Vilhar
  • Simona Strgulc Krajšek



science education, biology, teaching, effective learning, university-school partnership


In the framework of the project Science Goes to School, we developed and tested a new model for introduction of modern biology teaching strategies to Slovene schools. The project focused around a close university-school partnership, bringing together the expertise of scientists from the University of Ljubljana and the experiences of teachers from 22 Slovene secondary schools (grades 9-12, age of students 15-19). The project comprised three phases. During the introductory workshop, project scientists and partner teachers identified curriculum topics with an acute lack of good-quality teaching materials. During the second phase, university scientists developed new practical activities for students and prepared comprehensive teaching materials. Each new activity was tested in partner schools, with a scientist acting as a visiting teacher. Partner teachers were present in the class during testing and were hence trained in the authentic environment of their own classrooms. Both teachers and students contributed their comments and suggestions for improvement of new activities. The visiting scientist also acted as a role model motivating the students to consider science careers. During the third phase, the new teaching materials were published in a handbook for teachers and on the internet. In addition, the new activities were presented to a wider community of teachers and school laboratory assistants during a training workshop. The project was favourably received among the teachers, the project scientists and the students in partner schools. To efficiently improve biology education in Slovene schools, such activities require long-term, stable funding from national sources.


Abrahams, I., Millar, R., 2008. 'Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science'. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1945-1969. DOI:

ALLEA, 2009. European Network of Academies on Science Education - Minutes of the launch meeting. ALLEA – European Federation of National Academies of Sciences and Humanities, Paris, France, June 16, 2009.

Beck, M.R., Morgan, E.A., Strand, S.S., Woolsey, T.A., 2006. Volunteers bring passion to science outreach. Science, 314, 1246-1247. DOI:

Bhattacharjee, Y., 2005. New curricula aim to make high school labs less boring. Science, 310, 224-225. DOI:

Bonner, J.J., 2004. Changing strategies in science education. Science, 306, 228. Brodie, M., 2006. Back to high school. Nature, 439, 366. DOI:

Gabršček, S., Uršič, M., Knap, Ž., Japelj, B., Brečko, N., Kavčič, Z., Kreuh, A., Petrinjak, A., Vilhar, B., 2005. Izzivi naravoslovno-tehničnega izobraževanja. Zaključno poročilo. Report for Ministry of Education and Sport, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Institute for Teacher Education and School Development, 2006. Norwegian reports from TIMSS and PISA 2003 - Short English versions. University of Oslo, Norway.

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Clark, R.E., 2006. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. DOI:

Klahr, D., Nigam, M., 2004. The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667. DOI:

Laursen, S., Liston, C., Thiry, H., Graf, J., 2007. What good is a scientist in the classroom? Participant outcomes and program design features for a short-duration science outreach intervention in K–12 classrooms. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6, 49–64. DOI:

Lujan, H.L., DiCarlo, S.E., 2006. Too much teaching, not enough learning: what is the solution? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 17-22. DOI:

Mayer, R.E., 2004. Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19. DOI:

McDiarmid, G.W., Ball, D.L., Anderson C.W., 1989. Why standing one chapter ahead doesn't really work: subject-specific pedagogy. In: Reynolds M.C. (ed.): Knowledge base for beginning teachers. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 193–205.

Mervis, J., 2002. U.S. programs ask faculty to help improve schools. Science, 295, 265. DOI:

Michael, J., 2006. Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Educa- tion, 30,159-167. DOI:

Moore, A., 2003. Breathing new life into the biology classroom. EMBO Reports, 4, 744-746. Moore, A., 2007. Biology education in a rapidly changing scientific and socio-economic context. In: Strgulc Krajšek, S., Popit T., Vičar M. (eds.): GENIalna prihodnost – genetika, determinizem in svoboda. Zbornik prispevkov posveta, Ljubljana, October 4-5, 2007. ZRSŠ in MŠŠ, pp. 224-228. DOI:

National Research Council, 2002. Learning and understanding: Improving advanced study of math- ematics and science in U.S. high schools: Report of the Content Panel for Biology. Committee on Programs for Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in American High Schools, National Research Council, USA, 66 p., ISBN 0-309-54195-6.

National Research Council, 2005. America's lab report: Investigations in high school science. Sin- ger, S R., Hilton, M.L., Schweingruber, H.A. (eds.). Committee on High School Science, USA. National Science Foundation, 2010. NSF graduate STEM fellows in K-12 education (GK-12) pro-

gram. (October 10, 2010).

Novak, J.D., Cañas, A.J., 2006. The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Institute for Human and Ma- chine Cognition, Florida, USA.

Peplow, M., 2004. Doing it for the kids. Nature, 430, 286-287. DOI:

Strgulc Karjšek, S., Vilhar, B., 2010. Active teaching of diffusion through history of science, computer animation and role playing. Journal of Biological Education 44: 116-122. DOI:

Sweller, J., Kirschner, P.A., Clark, R.E., 2007. Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42, 115-121. DOI:

Tanner, T.D., Chatman, L., Allen, D., 2003. Approaches to biology teaching and learning: Sci- ence teaching and learning across the school–university divide—Cultivating conversations through scientist–teacher partnerships. Cell Biology Education, 2, 195-201. DOI:

Tunnicliffe, S.D., Ueckert C., 2007. Teaching biology – the great dilemma. Journal of Biologi- cal Education, 41, 51-52. DOI:

Vilhar, B., 2007. Pomen biološkega znanja za splošno izobrazbo. In: Strgulc Krajšek, S., Popit, T., Vičar, M. (eds.): GENIalna prihodnost – genetika, determinizem in svoboda. Zbornik prispevkov posveta, October 4-5, 2007, Ljubljana, Slovenia. ZRSŠ in MŠŠ, pp. 229-238.

Vilhar, B., Strgulc Krajšek, S., Zupančič, G., Jogan, N., 2007. Znanost gre v šolo: priročnik za izvedbo aktivnosti pri pouku biologije v gimnazijah in srednjih šolah. 1st ed. Univerza v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, Oddelek za biologijo, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 124 p., ISBN = 978-961-90262-3-6.






Original Research Paper

How to Cite

Vilhar, B., & Strgulc Krajšek, S. (2010). Science goes to school: A new model for introduction of modern biology teaching strategies to Slovene schools. Acta Biologica Slovenica, 53(2), 109-120.

Similar Articles

1-10 of 82

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.