The reviewed articles were evaluated in terms of revealing the
conceptual framework of the study in a way that reflects the
characteristics of pragmatism. Accordingly, nine studies were determined
to be High (Table 7). For example, A11 used the following features of
pragmatism:
Utilitarianism:
“…Thus, this study aims to explore the current status of
science teaching and learning within the context of contemporary KSA
science education reform efforts.”
Functional:
“The Course System, in which some of the teachers participating
in this study teach, is a new Saudi system of teaching whose most
prominent feature is the opportunity for students to finish secondary
school in 2.5 years instead of 3 years, achieved by adding two summer
classes .”
Transferable:
“Students’ perceptions of their outcome-based learning
environment provide insights into how Saudi Arabia’s educational reform
efforts are functioning for science educators and teachers .”
We determined that 12 of the articles were Moderate. For example, the
pragmatism features in A4’s study are:
Pluralist:
”Critical thinking skills are measured to determine the students’
level of critical thinking ability, to give feedback to students on
critical thinking, to motivate students to be critical thinkers, to
inform teachers about their successes in teaching critical thinking, to
make research on critical thinking and to inform schools about
developing critical thinking skills of students, etc .”
Problem solver:
“ Tests developed for different purposes have been used
to measure critical thinking skills. However, as one of the most
effective ways, the necessity of using these techniques together to
examine critical thinking skills has been emphasized.”
On the other hand, we evaluated A1 in the low category: “Social
contexts for learning make learners’ thinking apparent to teachers and
peers so that it can be examined, questioned, and built on. This study
was therefore undertaken to examine science teacher educators’
predominant instructional technologies, in the context of teacher
education in Israel.”
The five studies did not explain the theoretical information using
pragmatism-specific features, so they were considered Not Applicable
(Table 7).