STEPS Project A study of partnership based approaches to science - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

STEPS Project

A study of partnership based approaches to science education

Dr Linda Hobbs & Dr John Kenny l.hobbs@deakin.edu.au & john.kenny@utas.edu.au Assoc Prof Coral Campbell, Dr Gail Chittleborough, Dr Sandra Herbert, Dr Mellita Jones, Dr Christine Redman, Dr Jeff King

ASERA Conference 2013 Wellington, New Zealand

h"p://stepsproject.org.au

Project ¡Funded ¡by ¡the ¡Australian ¡ Government ¡Office ¡for ¡Learning ¡ and ¡Teaching. ¡ ¡

OLT Project: School-based pedagogies and partnerships in primary science teacher education

Overview

— Background of the project

• Literature
• Background
• Interim results
• Questions

— Where to from here?

• Want to find out more?
• Does the project relate to your work?
• Broader applications?
• Contact us?

Rationale

— Teacher education: Need to address long standing concerns

with preparing teacher education & theory practice gap

– (ACDE, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2000; DEST, 2003)

— Science education: Need to address long standing concerns

with preparing primary teachers to teach science

– (Keys, 2005; Tytler et al., 2008)

— Science education: Need for authentic science learning

experiences to build self-efficacy

– (Bandura 1977; Howitt, 2007; Jones & Carter, 2007)

— Professional learning: Need to provide opportunity to reflect

• n practice

– (Korthagen et al. ,2006; Loughran, 2002, Murphy et al., 2008)

Collaboration

— Five universities tackling these issues in

different ways

• ACU, Deakin Uni, Melbourne Uni, RMIT, UTAS

— Constructing programs where PSTs taught

science in schools

• Range & diversity
• How did we get here? Need?

Growing body of results

PSTS- Authentic nature of tasks

— Increased confidence — Increased Science PCK — Reflective element bridges

Support In-service Teachers

— See as PD opportunity

Science educator

— Provides science PCK & manages links to

schools

(Jones, 2008; Kenny, 2010, 2012)

Questions?

— What are the key success factors for such

partnerships?

— How can we maximise successful outcomes

for PSTs? Teachers? Universities? Systems?

— Are other science educators doing similar

things?

— Are there similar programs in other

discipline areas?

— Is the learning from this program

generalisable to other areas?

Phase 1. Sharing of current practice within the team (2013)

— Retreat 1 (February 2013) — Outcomes:

• Research focus
• Case study structure
• Research processes

Case studies

— Rationale: — Theories informing practice — Structure/description:

• Partnership arrangements:
• Student learning, indicators of success, uptake
• Current plans for future directions
• Constraints and affordances

Uni Who When How Theories

Deakin

B-’89 G-’02 W-’04 BEd (Prim) BEd (Prim/ Sec) 2nd year core unit: 2 week micro teaching 3rd year core unit: Totally school based Teaching pairs Small group (8 chn) 5Es-based unit Minimal teacher feedback Constructivism & Conceptual change Representations Inquiry learning Unit and student eval ACU Since 2007 BEd (Prim) BEd (Prim EC) 4th year core unit: 7 weeks theory preparation 5 weeks micro- teaching in schools Teaching pairs Whole class 5Es-based unit Teacher feedback Constructivism Deep learning Inquiry learning Reflective practice Self-efficacy theory RMIT Since 2007 BEd (Prim) BEd (Disability) 3rd year core unit: Preparation weeks 4 teaching weeks x 2 hour Teaching teams (5 st) Whole class 5Es-based units Teacher feedback Constructivism Inquiry learning Reflective practice Partnerships Identity development UTas 2010

• nly

BEd (Prim) 4th year elective: 2 week intro Teachers & PSTS, plan 6 weeks 1x 2 hour “Volunteers” Triadic: Teacher, PST & Teacher Educator Self-efficacy Mentoring Reflective practice Partnerships Melb ?? MTeach (Prim) Initial prep 6-8 weeks teaching Teaching pairs 5Es

Commonalities

— Commitment to bridging theory-practice

through providing for authentic teaching experiences

— PSTs take responsibility for planning and

implementing curriculum while supported by academics in partnership with teachers

— Reflection on practice.

Differences

— the interaction between the PSTs and school children — reflective practices — how theory informs the approach and positions the

students

— assessment focus and purposes; and — the nature of the partnership and the degree to

which teacher professional development is incorporated into the partnership.

Phase 2. Situating the models into the contemporary literature and practice (2013)

• 1. Partnerships
• 2. Science teaching in primary schools,

including efficacy and identity

• 3. Reflective practice
• 4. Theory-Practice 'gap'

Elements of the Project

Phase 3. Analysis of current programs

• f the research team (2013)

— University data:

• Student survey – Pre and post
• Student interviews – Post
• Student assignments – Post
• Tutor interviews

— School Data:

• Principal interviews
• Teacher interviews

University of Tasmania (Pilot)

— Longer term effects?

• Students who had been teaching for two years.

Did elective (5) Did not (4)

• Felt prepared & regularly plan

sequences & inquiry lessons in science (4)

• Practical experience of planning &

teaching (3)

• Relationship: supportive not

supervisory (3)

• Reflecting on experience (2)
• 3 took on leadership roles one took on

secondary science

• Felt elective should be compulsory
• Felt prepared (2)
• Regularly plan and teach science (2)
• Other experiences compensated

e.g. science on prac, good resources (Primary Connections), specialist teaching skills

Expect to gain v Gained

New to post reflections:

• 1. Reality of teaching
• 2. Knowledge of learners
• 3. Teacher identity

4.

Teacher reflection Meeting expectations:

— Experience, content

knowledge, activities and teaching strategies, confidence, planning, implementation

Student 1: Pre: Confidence planning science lessons, feeling confident with my

• wn content knowledge in order to

teach students. Having practical experience carrying out a unit I have helped develop. Post: Practical experience implementing a series of lessons that I had helped to create myself, where students built their science knowledge and made connections

• ver the lessons. I was able to see

how engaged the students were and have fun myself.

Comparing Pre and Post (n=30)

• 19. Ratings 1-10:

1. How important is science in primary school curriculum? 2. How confident are you to teach science? 3. To what extent does your commitment to your students motivate you to learn and teach science? 4. To what extent does your interest in science motivate you to learn and teach science?

Table x. Difference between Ratings for Q19 by University !

Q19.1% Q19.2% Q19.3% Q19.4% % Post%- pre% n% Post%- pre% n% Post%- pre! n% Post%- pre% n% ACU% 0.88% 8% 1.25% 8% 0.13% 8% 0.88% 8% Deakin%

• 0.33%

6% 1.00% 8% 0.67% 6% 1.17% 6% RMIT%

• 0.43%

7% 2.56% 9% 0.63% 8% 1.56% 9% Melbourne% 0.67% 3% 0.75% 4% 0.67% 3%

• 0.67% 3%

!

There was a significant difference between the pre and post tests for Questions 19.1-4.

Phase 4. Examination of approaches employed by other universities (2014)

— Do you also do some form of partnership

program.

— Do you know of someone else we should

talk to?

— Refine the Interpretive Framework

ASERA Preconference workshop-2014

— Evaluation of the Interpretive Framework — Sharing of practice

References:

Australian Council of Deans of Education (ACDE) (2004) Submission to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into the suitability of pre-service teacher training in Victoria. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314. Howitt, C. (2007). Pre-Service Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of Factors in an Holistic Methods Course Influencing their Confidence in Teaching Science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 41-58. Jones, M.M. (2008). Collaborative partnerships: A model for science teacher education and professional

• development. Australian Journal of

Teacher Education, 33(3), 61-76. Jones, M.G., & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In S. Abell, & N. Lederman, (Eds). Handbook

• f research on science education (pp. 1067-1104). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Kenny, J. (2010). Preparing primary teachers to teach primary science: a partnership based approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (10), 1267-1288. Kenny, J. (2012), University-school partnerships: Pre-service and in-service teachers working together to teach primary science, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3),Article 6. Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020-1041. Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: in search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33-43. Murphy, C., Beggs, J. Carlisle, K., & Greenwood, J. (2004). Students as ‘catalysts’ in the classroom: The impact of co- teaching between science student teachers and primary classroom teachers on children’s enjoyment and learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 1023-1035. Tytler, R., Osbourne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., Cripps Clark, J. (2008) Opening up pathways: Engagements in STEM across the Primary-Secondary school transition. Canberra: DEEWR.