author's personal copy - seerih-innovations.org · author's personal copy 174 c. murphy...

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173– 188

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

j ourna l h o mepa ge: h t tp : / /www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / tsc

Scaling up higher order thinking skills and personalcapabilities in primary science:Theory-into-policy-into-practice

Colette Murphya,∗, Lynne Bianchib, John McCullaghc, Karen Kerrd

a Trinity College, Dublin, Irelandb Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S1 1WB, United Kingdomc Stranmillis University College, BT9 5DY Northern Ireland, United Kingdomd Queen’s University Belfast, BT7 1NN Northern Ireland, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 29 December 2012Received in revised form 20 June 2013Accepted 26 June 2013Available online 22 July 2013

Keywords:Thinking skills and personal capabilitiesPrimary scienceResearch-in-practiceVygotskyCognitive acceleration.

a b s t r a c t

This paper builds on and contributes to work on learning and teaching in science, specifi-cally in the area of thinking skills in primary (elementary) and early post-primary scienceeducation. It is based on the development and implementation of policy on thinking skillsand personal capabilities in Northern Ireland (NI), where they form part of the statutorycurriculum. The paper traces the development of a framework for thinking skills and per-sonal capabilities, the adoption of the framework and its translation into policy, and throughresearch on implementing the policy in school science. This critical exploration of theory-into policy-into practice demonstrates ways in which gaps in the process can be addressed,such as the higher-level involvement of teachers as researchers into policy developmentand implementation, as opposed to being merely ‘trained’ to implement new science learn-ing and teaching policy. The contribution of pre-service teachers in the process providedan important element of the implementation process, particularly in relation to primaryscience. The article provides insight into issues such as how might we ‘teach’ thinkingskills in conceptually rich science content, the relationship between thinking skills in sci-ence and other subjects, and the links between research and practice in children’s sciencelearning.

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Science lessons in primary (elementary1) and early post-primary2 classrooms provide ideal opportunities for develop-ing children’s thinking skills and personal capabilities (TSPC). In Northern Ireland (NI), TSPC forms part of the statutorycurriculum to be addressed in all curricular areas and subjects. They are presented as a framework (see Fig. 1):

This paper sets out the theory informing policy on TSPC in Northern Ireland and considers its implementation in schoolsfrom the standpoint of three primary science research studies.

∗ Corresponding author at: School of Education, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Tel.: +353 18963650.E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Murphy).

1 Primary 1 children in Northern Ireland are 4 years old – equivalent to Kindergarten children in the US.2 Early post-primary includes children up to the age of 14 (grade 9 in the US).

1871-1871/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.06.005


174 C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173– 188

Fig. 1. The thinking skills and personal capabilities framework (NI Curriculum, 2007).

2. Theory into policy

Education systems internationally have sought to define the kinds of skills considered essential for a prosperous economy,and also for personal well-being, which can be reflected through curriculum, assessment and qualifications. There havebeen many attempts to describe such skills, for example, Lucas and Claxton (2009) who drew out underlying strengths andgeneralities. Research carried out by McGuinness (2000) on thinking skills and by Bianchi on personal capabilities was usedas a basis on which to underpin the construction of the Northern Ireland revised curriculum skills framework (CCEA, 2007a).

The focus of McGuinness’s research was the activating children’s thinking skills (ACTS) methodology for enhancingthinking skills across the curriculum (McGuinness, 2000) which took place prior to and during the curriculum review. Thisinfusion methodology identified contexts across the curriculum where particular thinking skills could be developed. Themethodology contrasted with other attempts to teach thinking in a more generic (Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman & Miller, 1980)or subject specific way (Adey & Shayer, 1994). Rather, it drew on Swartz and Parks (1994) taxonomy of thinking skills,including:

• searching out order and imposing meaning on information (sequencing, ordering information, analysing etc.)• critical thinking (making predictions, hypothesising, drawing conclusions, determining bias etc.)• creative thinking (generating new ideas)• problem solving (defining problems, thinking up and testing different solutions)• planning (setting up sub-goals and monitoring progress)• decision making (generating options, weighing up pros and cons, choosing a course of action)

McGuinness (2000) explored the implications of making thinking explicit using thinking diagrams or graphic organisers,developing thinking vocabulary, giving students time to think and use discussion and reflection on thinking strategies as away to increase competence, as well as developing teachers’ questioning techniques. Findings from her research indicateda pattern of change in the students that was noted as a ‘pro-active’ learning effect. Children rated themselves with regard


C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173– 188 175

to their cognitive and metacognitive strategies, their willingness to work harder and to put in more effort (McGuinness &Sheehy, 2006).

Bianchi’s research study into personal capabilities began in 1999. It utilised the notion of ‘capability’ as opposed to ‘skill’to describe an individual’s capacity to perform a range of behaviours. Where skills represent highly mechanistic behavioursoften disassociated from the individual or context within which they are displayed it is feasible that their assessmentcan occur in a knowledge-free, value-free, emotion-free and context-free manner. Individuals can be considered ‘skilled’or ‘skilful’ in isolated environments, using performance-specific indicators (Barrow, 1987). In this way, the definition ofskills has paid little regard to individuals’ understanding, disposition, values and emotional maturity which Bianchi’s studyembraced.

The research involved teachers in England, who with support were encouraged to be integrally involved in reviewingscience teaching practices, tailoring and adapting resources and interventions, and focusing and sharing evaluation on theirperceptions and experiences. The aim was to establish whether the personal capabilities could be embedded, or indeedinfused, into national curriculum core teaching and learning activities in post-primary school classrooms. Interventions,similar to those in ACTS, were employed, for example: making the capabilities explicit in lesson planning, delivery andactivity; use of thinking frameworks, namely GRASP (getting results and solving problems) (COMINO Foundation, 2012); andthe use of focused self-assessment exercises by students. The research outcomes provided a four-stage model of developmentthat, if applied into curriculum settings, might better enhance the awareness, recognition and demonstration of behavioursassociated with the personal capabilities. Ten generic life-work skills were defined, for example: teamwork, problem solvingand critical thinking, as well as dispositions such as creativity, being tenacious and having a positive self image. The fourstages of Knowledge Development, Monitored Self Assessment, Action Planning and Action Taking continues to be tested in thedevelopment of contemporary curriculum resources, for example, Smart Science (Bianchi and Barnett, 2006).

The interplay of usage between terms, such as ‘skills’, ‘competences’, ‘capabilities’, ‘aptitudes’, ‘characteristics’ and ‘intel-ligences’, often shrouds the fundamental differences between the concepts. Associated literature makes distinction between‘transferable’, ‘generic’, ‘core’ and ‘key’ skills – terms which have established meanings in particular fields. However, the dif-ficulty of defining these terms often lies in attempting to capture various elements of human nature. Where the interchangebetween skill and capability occurs, ‘skill’ is more frequently related to ‘thinking skills’, e.g. critical and creative thinkingand problem solving, and ‘capability’ more frequently in relation to affective areas of social and personal development, e.g.working with others and tenacity.

The NI curriculum review (CCEA, 2007a) sought out research-based models of skills development, defined as inter-personal, personal, learning and thinking skills. These areas needed to be defined further in order to provide guidance toteachers and schools in enriching and invigorating teaching, learning and assessment practices to appreciate fully the influ-ence of a skills framework, and in understanding the means by which progress could be defined, recorded and reported.The ACTS research, especially given its prevalence in NI schools, allowed for direct use of insights to support the thinkingskills elements of such a framework. Bianchi’s work provided different yet complementary elements by way of the moredispositional and affective capabilities. CCEA (2007a) used this research to develop the aforementioned thinking skills andpersonal capabilities (TSPC) framework (see Fig. 1).

A distinctive feature of the TSPC framework is the way it integrates a range of different types of thinking skills andlearning dispositions with collaborative learning (working with others) and independent learning (self-management andtaking responsibility) (CCEA, 2007a). The combination of thinking skills and personal capabilities was considered importantfor several reasons, such that they draw attention to the process of learning and not just the products; are more likelyto engage pupils in active rather than passive learning; enable pupils to go beyond the mere recall of information and todevelop deeper understanding of topics; create positive dispositions and habits for learning; and provide a new range ofcriteria against which pupils can evaluate their progress in learning (CCEA, 2007a).

The framework is statutory and schools are encouraged to use the TSPCs explicitly within whole school and classroomsettings and structure their development using detailed progression maps to assist with skills development over the primaryand post-primary phases. CCEA’s advice to schools suggests that an infusion approach will ensure the TSPC framework doesnot stand alone nor be isolated from the subject-related aspects of the curriculum. Such skills are to be developed andassessed in and through the curriculum, alongside other key skills of Literacy, Numeracy and ICT.

An ‘infusion’ approach describes a lesson structure which holds in parallel the development of subject knowledge andunderstanding and a particular mode of thinking or personal disposition/capability. The purpose is to encourage learners toexplicitly and with structured support consider how they are learning, as well as what they are learning. This type of lessonapproach has gained interest from other researchers, for example Claxton (2002) in his work into Building Learning Powerand Expansive Education.

The TSPC framework can provide a heuristic to assist teachers in planning and in assessing pupils’ progress. It affords acommon language across the curriculum and should be delivered in and through the areas of learning (Murphy, 2009).

3. Policy into practice: thinking skills and personal capabilities framework

The implementation of the revised curriculum policy was facilitated by a communication strategy that involved trainingeducational groups, such as the Curriculum Advisory and Support Service, Education Library Board Officers, the PrimaryImplementation Curriculum Standards Group, School Principals etc. It was intended that such groups would cascade



information and training into their regions and as such be a conduit between CCEA and teachers. Primary teachers receivedthree days of training focusing on Personal Development and Mutual Understanding, Thinking Skills & Personal Capabilitiesand Assessment for Learning phased over a number of years.

Training was delivered using a cascade model, where CCEA offered training to Library Board Curriculum Advisory andSupport Service. Regionally based courses were offered to schools which, in the main, involved representative teachersfrom primary and post-primary schools attending for particular days depending on their job roles and responsibility. Eachtraining day involved several schools, usually at an off-school site, and in some cases the teachers were trained in school ona whole-school basis, although this was less frequent. CCEA produced and made available training and guidance materialsvia DVD and workshops and which remain available on-line.

Guidance materials were also written to support teachers’ professional development and inform them of the meaning ofthe five strands of skills and capabilities. Exemplification materials, such as progression maps, were also published whichillustrated how the skills and capabilities could potentially progress from age 4–11 years (CCEA, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d).Initially, these materials were generic in nature and were then mapped into subject specific areas, such as the ‘WorldAround Us’. Additional resources were also disseminated over the period of implementation to promote the infusion ofTSPC, including guidance and posters, and a ‘Think Pack’ for teachers and pupils (CCEA, 2009a), a ‘Classroom Toolbox’ (CCEA,2009b), and illustrated story books for younger children, entitled ‘Wise Up and Think’ (CCEA, 2008).

Evaluation of the implementation revealed that schools were enthusiastic overall, but concerns were raised about theamount of preparation time teachers needed in order to meet the new requirements and the short timetable for full imple-mentation (Downing, Martin & Allen, 2007). TSPC formed one of many strands of professional development offered toteachers as part of the wider curriculum implementation strategy. In reality, professional support was diversified acrossmany fronts, and although synergies across different areas of training were encouraged, further time and focus would havebeen beneficial. There is evidence, though not well documented, that schools have embraced the thinking agenda and thatmany schools are more explicitly ‘thought-full’ than previously, some having appointed co-ordinators for TSPC to overseewhole-school implementation of the framework (Gallagher, Hipkins, & Zohar, 2012).

With particular reference to the TSPC framework, data from the study of Downing et al. (2007) revealed fairly highteacher confidence in relation to taking responsibility for developing TSPC, but a lower confidence level in specific aspects,for example: Incorporating Assessment for Learning despite the training they had received. The lower confidence level wasexplained by teachers’ lack of opportunity to change plans and practise the delivery of TSPC, which led to uncertainty and/oranxiety about delivering them in the next academic year. Out-of-school continuing professional development (CPD) andtraining very often is not sustainable when teachers return to their classroom context, where they face issues of lack of time,resources and sometimes support from school leaders to implement the ideas and activities learned during such courses.The researchers explored the employment of coteaching as a method for implementing the TSPC framework in primary andearly post-primary science teaching. The coteachers were student teachers and classroom teachers who shared expertiseto teach creatively inquiry-based science lessons with the specific, explicit aim of developing children’s thinking skills andpersonal capabilities.

4. Policy into practice: coteaching

Science teacher education is constantly under revision as educators, researchers and policy makers seek to identifyoptimal strategies for learning to teach science. The organisation for science teachers and educators in the USA, the NationalScience Teachers Association (NSTA) revised its strategic goals to include the promotion of science education research inimproving science teaching and learning (NSTA, 2010). In the past decade, increasing numbers of science educators haveexplored coteaching as a model for learning to teach that acknowledges the complexity of this process and has the goal ofimproving preservice science teaching. Coteaching occurs when teachers share the responsibility for all aspects of students’learning during an instructional time frame (e.g. a class or curricular unit), including planning, teaching, assessment andevaluation (Martin, 2009). Coteaching has been applied to science teacher education in both the preservice and inservicesettings, and its usefulness as a model for learning to teach has led to its expanding use in other content areas and educationalsettings (Murphy and Scantlebury, 2010).

Coteaching provides a structure for teacher reflection on theory, praxis and practice and has been shown to address a vari-ety of issues in science education including teacher planning, the quality of teacher pedagogical knowledge and pedagogicalcontent knowledge, formative evaluation of student learning, and professional practice and self-efficacy.

The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)’s Blue Ribbon panel on clinical preparation andpartnerships has noted the critical role of coteaching as a model for linking theory and practice in preparing teachers to teach(NCATE, 2010). As a model for preservice teaching, coteaching requires that preservice teachers engage in discussions withcooperating teachers about practice and praxis. Unlike many other preservice teaching experiences, coteaching assumes thatall teachers are responsible for student learning. Experienced teachers remain engaged with their students, whilst becomingengaged in formal reflection about their practice as they discuss planning, student learning and behaviours with preserviceteachers. Preservice teachers are placed into a model that foregrounds the importance of frequent collaborative, professionaldiscussions and recognition that they have expertise and knowledge about teaching to share with others.

Preservice teachers reported that coteaching provided them with the confidence to expand their teaching repertoires anda willingness to implement innovative teaching practices (Gallo-Fox, 2010; O’Conaill, 2010). Other studies have noted that



Fig. 2. Children engaged in “the mixture” activity.

coteaching improved preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (Nilsson, 2010) and the preservice teachers hadfewer difficulties when transitioning to inservice teaching (Britzman, 2003; Juck, Scantlebury & Gallo-Fox, 2010). Roth,Masciotra, and Boyd (1999) found that coteaching provided a structure that supported beginning teachers’ transitionsbetween university courses and their practicum.

Coteaching promotes a sense of shared responsibility for the beginning teachers (Wassell & LaVan, 2009) and increasesaccess to social and material resources, thereby increasing opportunities for classroom actions (Roth, Tobin, Carambo, &Dalland, 2004).

Further, coteaching and the subsequent need for coplanning among teachers, nullifies teachers’ common practice ofisolated planning. While many teachers plan lessons in isolation, and prefer to do so, such practice typically results inmaintaining current teaching practices, rather than changing lessons to meet students’ differing needs. When teachers plancollaboratively and coteach those lessons, they have more opportunities to respond to the learning needs of diverse students(Thousand, Villa, & Nevin, 2006)

5. Policy into practice: coteaching primary science projects

A consequence of the skills-based revised NI curriculum was that statutory subject content was reduced. Science inprimary schools was subsumed into the broader learning area of learning called The World Around Us. The statutory learningin science thus comprised a much-reduced content, expressed as minimum learning entitlements (CCEA, 2012). This ledto a major concern that many primary teachers who found science difficult to teach (Murphy, 2008) would teach only theminimum entitlement, and teach it through history and geography. A group of researchers, including three of this article’sauthors (Murphy, McCullagh and Kerr) saw the opportunity to explore the potential of science as the major element ofThe World Around Us for children’s development of thinking skills and personal capabilities (TSPC) and to promote inquiry-based science education (IBSE). The authors argue that policy-into-practice requires the essential elements of high-qualitycontinuing professional development (CPD) (to inspire, stimulate, motivate and empower teachers) and a means by whichteachers are facilitated in the classroom to implement the CPD. Vygotskian theory suggests that young children need to begiven opportunities to theorise on natural phenomena whilst at primary school in order to develop scientific thinking skills(Kravtsov, 2009). This entails children generating explanations of phenomena which are consistent with their observations. Ifgiven the appropriate set of conditions, children’s reasoning skills can be developed to a high level. These conditions are:

• the opportunity to repeat an activity so that they can make close observations and to check their reliability (repetition)• time to discuss ideas in small groups and to prepare their ‘case’ (hypothesis generation)• instruction to check that their reason, explanation or theory regarding the phenomenon is consistent with what they observe

(verification)• the opportunity to communicate their findings/explanations to the rest of the class, using data (e.g.: pictures, photographs,

diagrams, demonstrations, etc. (communication)• to critique their own and other groups’ theories in terms of consistency between observation and explanation (evaluation)• to consider the link between their experiment and its broader applications in everyday life and/or in scientific discovery

or appliance (concept formation)

An example of such an activity might be children investigating miscibility of liquids (see Fig. 2). The teacher coulddemonstrate a strange phenomenon by pouring a small amount of syrup, then cooking oil, and then water carefully into aclear plastic or glass jar, asking children what they think may happen at each stage. Children will see that the water forms a



layer between the syrup and oil, a phenomenon which they might not have expected. The vital next step is to enable childrento repeat the experiment in groups but this time to observe very closely and see if they can come up with a reason, basedon their observations, for water displacing the oil (Fig. 2). If resources permit, this step could be repeated several times andchildren can be introduced to the perseverance required by scientists to make close observation.

The projects described below all aimed to develop children’s thinking skills and personal capabilities using curious orthought-provoking scientific contexts. They focused on developing children as subjects of their own learning, who were beingintroduced into the use of higher order thinking skills in everyday settings. The projects employed a coteaching methodologyin which student and experienced teachers ‘learnt together’ by their joint participation in CPD courses aimed at developingTSPC through creative science activities, and then ‘taught together’ by implementing the TSPC jointly in the classroom viacoplanning, coteaching and coreflection (Murphy and Beggs, 2010). After the projects, each coteacher subsequently createdtheir own new practice independently as they developed further TSPC contexts for future science lessons. This work wasscaled up by the education advisory bodies using the stimulus activities from these projects as materials for TSPC trainingin Northern Ireland schools. In addition, project teachers introduced their science-for-TSPC work to other teachers in theirown and in cluster schools. The three projects discussed in this paper are:

i New approaches to science teaching and assessment (NASTA)ii Books and stories in children’s science (BASICS)

iii Digitally resourced engaging and motivating science (DREAMS)

5.1. New approaches to science teaching and assessment (NASTA) project

5.1.1. IntroductionThis research was funded by the AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust, and aimed at empowering teachers and student

teachers to awaken children’s joy in creative expression and knowledge (which Einstein suggested was the ‘supreme artof the teacher’) through science learning. The idea was to combine excellent CPD with coteaching so that teachers mightdevelop confidence and enjoyment of science teaching to deliver the thinking skills and personal capabilities (TSPC) strand ofthe revised Northern Ireland curriculum in the learning area of World Around Us. Inspiration for the project came from workdeveloped by Hans Persson, who had presented ‘Creativity in Science Classrooms’ sessions, for example at the Association forScience Education conference (ASE, 2006), and from the ‘Puppets’ workshops of Brenda Keogh and Stuart Naylor (Naylor,Keogh, Downing, Maloney & Simon, 2007). These scientists/science educators worked with the research team to present astimulating CPD programme which both motivated and empowered coteachers, who were up-skilled sufficiently to createtheir own new practice in each specific context. Pre-school, primary, post-primary and special needs schools participated.

The theoretical framework for the research combined Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) as a frameworkfor providing children with opportunities to develop scientific thinking and reasoning, with coteaching as a methodology(Murphy and Scantlebury, 2010) for empowering teachers to deliver more creative science lessons. The ZPD can be thoughtof as a series of interactions whereby children are motivated and enabled to develop higher order thinking skills. In practice,we encouraged coteachers to ‘create’ such ZPDs which gave children opportunities to practice, dialogue, present and evaluatetheir ideas and theories about scientific phenomena. The coteaching component comprised student and classroom coteach-ing teams learning together by attending a CPD programme aimed at developing creative science classrooms, followed byteaching together as they implemented and expanded the work from the CPD programme in school. Coteaching provideda ZPD for coteachers to learn from each other, with the result that each coteacher exited the research with the confidenceand expertise to create new practice in science teaching in their individual contexts, reflecting the Vygotskian theoreticalstandpoint that learning occurs firstly in the social plane, and then in the individual plane (Vygotsky, 1981).

5.1.2. MethodsThere were 27 schools involved in the 2-year project, 50 coteachers and approximately 600 children. The methodology

included a blended learning CPD programme which comprised cycles of creative science/coteaching/sharing practice work-shops with coteaching science blocks in the classroom. At the end of the project, children and coteachers presented theirwork at a conference organised for project participants, science educators, curriculum developer and policy makers. The dataset included classroom observation by team members, and interviews of teachers, student teachers, science co-ordinatorsand children.

5.1.3. Findings and discussion (summary)The full findings and evaluation of this work can be found in the project reports (Murphy, Beggs and Kerr, 2008; Beggs,

Murphy, & Kerr, 2009). For this paper we present two major elements. Firstly, the combination of excellent CPD whichinvolved researchers, expert speakers, curriculum developers and school advisers and coteaching in the classroom pro-duced a change in many teachers’ delivery of school science. Secondly, providing children with opportunities to investigatephenomena using more scientific approaches (including repetition/replication; hypothesis generation, verification thathypotheses are consistent with observation, presentation and peer evaluation of findings) to develop higher order thinkingskills.



Fig. 3. The toy car.

5.1.4. Changing science teachingTeachers discussed how the project had helped them experience science lessons which were in many ways ‘led’ by the

children. There was a change in teacher attitudes and practice to science teaching as they experienced this shift in ‘ownership’of the learning from teacher to children. Typical quotes from coteacher interviews included:

“Usually our science lessons are very structured and you sort of take the children along step by step but we decided,right, we are going to let these children use their own creativity”

“They (the children) were driving it and they were just really enjoying having that sort of control and we were justreally stepping back and maybe just trying to give them little bits of direction but it was really driven by them andthey just absolutely loved it”

“They sort of took ownership of the lesson. . .all of a sudden we had weights out and we’d balance scales, they sort ofprompted what we were doing really”

5.1.5. Developing children’s science thinking skillsCoteachers encouraged children to think and communicate their ideas as a way of introducing science, to raise questions

that led to investigations, to show children that teachers are interested in their ideas, to be open-minded with no right orwrong answers and to help make abstract ideas concrete. An extract from a children’s group presentation to explain thereason why water formed a layer between syrup and oil was:

“. . .the cooking oil is at the top and the liquid . . . there was bubbles in the cooking oil and it is free, like, it can movearound and then it, amm, lifted up and then the water went underneath it” [8 year old]

This explanation prompted the researcher to go home and check for air bubbles in the oil–it was exactly as the childhad described! This level of close observation and generating explanation consistent with the observations is rare, evenat higher levels. Recently, Murphy (unpublished) carried out this same investigation with post-primary science studentteachers, asking for explanations based solely on observation, not inference. They found the task extremely challenging andwere absorbed totally. Indeed, they commented that this approach to science learning and teaching was one which they hadalmost never been exposed to. The authors of this paper contend that primary school teachers can promote this method ofteaching science, as opposed to asking children to learn facts. Such an approach would require assessment which focusedon scientific reasoning, which might provide an excellent foundation for post-primary/tertiary level science learning aboutconceptual frameworks which have been developed by scientists to explain phenomena. The project work demonstratedthat coteaching promoted such approaches because teachers were more likely to ‘let go’ control of learning and facilitatechildren’s independent learning via experimentation when they had the support of a student teacher coteaching withthem. Follow-up interviews after coteaching placements ended evidenced teachers’ continuation of practices that activelypromoted the development of children’s thinking skills that they had developed whilst coteaching. An indicative teachercomment was:

“I feel that I’ve had a step, you know, I feel a bit more confident now at making that sort of step” (letting childrendirect their learning).

Other examples of children’s thinking skills development came from giving them opportunities to express their ideas ofhow things might ‘work’. A ‘black box’ activity introduced by Hans Persson at the CPD course (now available on YouTube)called ‘The Bucket’ was extended by a team of coteachers in a class of 6/7 year old children). The teaching sequence startedwith a sorting toys activity, followed by observation of the movement of a toy car (see Fig. 3).

Children were then invited to draw how this car moved and to present their drawing to a video camera. The schoolprincipal offered his office for this purpose and each child sat in the principal’s chair and their descriptions were recordedand transcribed (See Fig. 4). A typical one was:



Fig. 4. Child describing his diagram of the inside of the toy car.

“My name’s . . . and I’m going to show you how this car works. The power of the pump goes into the batteries andmakes more power in the batteries. And then it goes into the wheels. Then you push the button, and it goes zoom andfast. And then this here is the engine and these are the wires that are connected on to the engine. . .”

Such description reveals the way that children are thinking about, and bringing their experiences into the scienceclassroom. The child above seemed to highlight his concept of ‘power’ in describing how the car moved. Amongst oth-ers, descriptions and pictures focused on the central function of cogs in turning wheels (see Fig. 5) and on electricity. Thevideos evidenced children’s engagement with the task and their clear enjoyment of being given the opportunity to expresstheir ideas in words as well as pictures.

The teaching sequence continued with the children planning how they might build a car, using a selection of providedresources, such as cereal packets, plastic wheels, etc. They drew their plans and then build a prototype, which was testedand rebuilt accordingly. The final cars were raced and each child evaluated their own using two features they liked and oneit wished they had included (Fig. 6). Finally, children examined all the cars and selected their favourite feature from one ofthe designs.

These examples indicate a different approach to science learning and teaching which aims to promote and developchildren’s higher order thinking skills. The approach is based on solid educational foundations, primarily on creating ZPDsfor children to expand and communicate their scientific thinking. The sustainability of the approaches can be effected viastudent and classroom teachers working together via coteaching to introduce new ways of science teaching, thereby eachcoteacher is up-skilled from working with another resulting in enhanced confidence and empowerment to create their ownnew practice. An example of change in student teacher confidence in developing children’s scientific skills can be seen inFig. 7, which showed that the experience of coteaching developed their confidence most in the areas of carrying out scientificinvestigations with children and helping them solve scientific problems (Carlisle, 2008).

Comments from coteachers revealed children’s responses to different approaches to science learning and teaching, forexample:

Fig. 5. Child’s diagram of cogs inside the toy car.



Fig. 6. Child presenting the evaluation of her car.

“They are actually having to talk to each other and co-operate and then, like, get up and present. They’ve become a lotmore confident. I can see their investigative skills as well, they’re using the terms, prediction, they know what thatmeans and that’s not a fair test or, they’re using some of that language. That is good and their results and what if thishappened and they draw more conclusions from what’s happened instead of just sort of taking it at face value, theycan tie in with things that are happening”

Aspects o f scie nce skil ls Phase 2 % fully confident

Carry o ut in vestiga tio ns 69

Solve scientific problems 67

Make obser vations 66

Relate wha t happened to wha t they pre dicted

65

Carry out a fair test 65

Make suggestions for improvements

62

Develop communicat ion skill s 58

Evaluat e and re vise their wo rk 58

Plan what they are going t o make

58

Develop manipulative skill s 54

Choose appropriate materials when planning what to make

52

Interpret findings 50

Identify pat terns 50

Aspects o f scie nce skil ls Phase 1 % fully confident

Make observations 64

Relate what happened to what they pre dicted

62

Make suggestions for impro vements

56

Carry out a fair test 55

Carry out investigations 53

Choose appropriat e mat erials when planning what to make

49

Identify pat terns 48

Plan what they are going t o make

47

Develop communicat ion skill s 46

Evaluat e and re vise their wo rk 42

Interpret findings 41

Solve scien tific prob lems 36

Develop manipulative skill s 36

Construct wor king models 23

Fig. 7. Increase in student teacher confidence to develop children’s scientific skills (n = 98).



“It [asking each other questions] creates a confident child that is able to talk out in front of the class and, even I thinkat that stage, even in P2 [age 5/6], just being able to stand up and talk about something they found to the class, I thinkthat’s really good for, like, presentation skills whenever they’re older and things like that”

“They were able to do different types of learning from it and gained an awful lot of knowledge from it.”

When teachers are engaged in coteaching, they have the opportunity to exercise ‘reflection-in-action’ (Schon, 1983).This element of coteaching afforded coteachers to critique both their own practice and the approaches that they were usingduring classes. As such, they developed activities and approaches in ways that would have been unlikely without each other.This could provide the mechanism for the increased confidence in their own practice that coteachers express as a result ofbeing involved in these projects.

The coteaching projects conducted in Northern Ireland to date have involved approximately 25% schools in NorthernIreland. The current paper considers those which were designed specifically to enhance implementation of thinking skillsand personal capabilities (TSPC), so coteaching projects in total (all aimed at improving primary and early post-primaryschool science learning and teaching) have reached much further than the few described here. Policy makers, curriculumdevelopers and the school advisory services have been participants in each coteaching project. Informal scaling up has takenplace through use of activities developed during coteaching projects, designed to empower teachers in creating interesting,challenging opportunities to develop children’s thinking skills and personal capabilities through science. These activitieshave been used for training purposes as part of the roll-out of the NI revised curriculum. It is difficult for us to obtain dataon the number of schools which would have received this specific training, but we would estimate that it would account forat least half of Northern Ireland primary and early post-primary schools, based on conversations with school advisers. It isalso the case that authors of this paper are in the process of developing a proposal to scale up coteaching using a randomisedcontrol trial (RCT) combined with ethnographic classroom studies.

5.2. The ‘books and stories in children’s science’ (BASICS) project

5.2.1. Project detailsThis research project (BASICS Project, 2007), funded by the AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust, used coteaching to

jointly address the professional development needs of practising teachers and provide a context rich learning environmentfor undergraduate student teachers. Throughout the project 12 student teachers from Stranmillis University College Belfastwere paired with teachers from a cluster of five primary schools from the greater Belfast area during the period September2006 to June 2007. Approximately 300 children were involved in the project. The principal aims of the project were to:

• develop and support the schools’ use of books and stories within science• provide a fresh learning context for classroom observation and reflection• enhance teachers’ confidence and competence in adopting an enquiry-based approach to science at foundation stage and

key stage 1.

The teacher-student pairs, supported by the project team of science education tutors and local education board scienceadvisers, coplanned, cotaught and coevaluated lower primary science lessons over a period of six weeks. The science lessonswere enquiry-based and used a book or story both in the introduction and concluding discussion, and in some cases, at othertimes during the lesson. The coteachers often used puppets, sometimes alongside the story. The science topics were chosenby the host schools in accordance with their science programme for the term. During the lessons the classroom teachersengaged in structured observation activities. Prior to the coteaching phase a training seminar on enquiry-based science andthe use of books and stories provided ideas and modelled approaches suitable for enquiry-based science at foundation stageand key stage 1. A concluding seminar allowed the findings, in the form of the evaluations from all participants, includingthe pupils, and the examples of activities and resources used, to be disseminated to all involved.

5.2.2. MethodsThe data were collected using questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, focus group interviews (pupils), and a struc-

tured observation activity using a modified version of Walsh’s Quality Learning Instrument (Walsh & Gardner, 2005). Thisenquiry-based science Quality Learning Instrument (QLI-ebs) was used by teachers during their own science lessons beforeand after the students’ intervention. The student teachers also applied it to lessons at the very start and at the end of theteaching phase. Questionnaires were administered to teachers; science coordinators and student teachers before the initialplanning seminar and then after the students had completed their period of teaching. Semi-structured interviews wereconducted with principals, science coordinators, teachers and student teachers on completion of this phase of the project.A key aspect of the project examined responses of the children to the greater use of stories in their science activities asan array of research (e.g. Walsh, Dunn, Mitchell & McAlister, 2006) emphasizes that what young children have to say is ofinterest, is informative and should not be overlooked in any project concerning them. Evidence was therefore obtained byuse of two data collection methods: the observations of children during their science lessons and focus group interviewswith six groups of approximately eight children chosen by the class teacher.



The key aim of the observations was to evaluate whether the quality of the scientific experience had improved as a resultof the inclusion of books and stories into the lessons. Based on this premise it was intended not to focus on outcomes (i.e.had children’s scientific knowledge improved), but rather to focus into the learning processes during the lessons in terms ofchildren’s learning dispositions and use of scientific skills (including thinking skills). In this way it could be argued that theaim was to capture what Katz (1995) terms the ‘bottom up’ perspective of quality i.e. how does it feel to be a child in thisparticular activity. The QLI is a process measure of quality which aims to capture the quality of the learning experience onoffer in a given early years setting. In this way it challenges the pre-existing notion that quality can only be determined interms of learning outcomes, teaching style and context. Instead, as argued by Walsh et al. (2006), the QLI rates the qualityof a setting according to the way it meets the developmental needs of the children. It is embedded in an experiential modelof how young children learn and develop and it focuses on nine key themes, namely motivation, concentration, confidence,independence, wellbeing, socials interaction, respect, multiple skill acquisition and higher order thinking skills. The QLI hasproven to a highly reliable and valid instrument (Walsh & Gardner, 2005), its formulation mediated by evidence from aseries of pilot observations, the views of early years experts, a calibration study and a Krippendorf’s alpha test showing ahigh level of inter-rater reliability (0.73–1.0).

The QLI-ebs maintains its focus on the themes of ‘motivation’, ‘concentration’ and ‘confidence’ (drawn directly fromthe QLI) but with the addition of ‘observation and communication’, ‘predicting’, ‘problem-solving’ and ‘decision-making’.Each of these seven themes were rated on a high (3) to low (1) basis and a general picture of practice was captured (i.e.the majority of children), rather than targeting specific children. The observation was carried out over the course of theentire science lesson and after the lesson has been delivered, a rating was made against the QLI -ebs based on a best fitmodel. For the purposes of this study, the QLI-ebs was used both by classroom and student teachers. The teachers (n = 6)used the QLI-ebs on a science lesson before the intervention and then after the intervention; while the student teachers(n = 10) used the QLI-ebs immediately after their first Science lesson within the intervention and then after their last sciencelesson.

5.2.3. FindingsAlthough the promotion of TSPC was not an identified aim from the start of the project the evaluation data collected

throughout the teaching phase indicated that the context of a book, story or puppet provided greater access for tea-chers to pupils’ thinking by encouraging discussion and collaborative learning (McCullagh, Walsh and Greenwood, 2008).Classroom observations indicated that the use of books, stories and puppets within the enquiry-based science lessonsresulted in statistically significant increases in the level of pupils’, predicting, problem-solving and decision-making aswell as in motivation, concentration, confidence, observation and communication. The opportunity, which the introduc-tory story or book provided for exploring children’s current thinking, was considered by several teachers to be a keyadvantage of this approach. For example children’s ideas on melting and freezing could be accessed via a discussion ofthe story of ‘The Snowman’. The more abstract concepts such as heat, insulation and changes of state could now beaccessed by talking about the sun, the Snowman’s coat and his inevitable melting. The story was considered to providea shared experience in which children’s ideas could be explored and developed. Following hands-on exploration withice and possible insulating materials other stories or puppet based scenarios which referred to these concepts could bevisited.

As in any area of the curriculum, learning with understanding in science involves the development of ideas and conceptsthrough both mental and physical activity. It is important that science lessons are as much ‘minds-on’ as they are ‘hands-on’. As talking and listening play a crucial role in supporting thinking and reasoning, classroom strategies which promoteteacher-pupil and pupil-pupil dialogue are ideal for developing children’s thinking skills. The use of stories and puppets,with their context, characters and narrative structure, was seen to provide a template for progress in thinking and reasoning.Books stories and puppets, in providing a context for developing thinking, crucially allow time for thinking. All too oftenthis is overlooked when time constraints and the focus on science ‘content’ over ‘process’ results in teacher-led experiences.The coteaching approach was identified as a crucial element in developing this aspect of practice. Both teachers and theirstudent partners commented on how the coteaching arrangement facilitated a much closer observation of this enrichedlanguage climate and thus allowed for a deeper reflection on its importance as evidenced by the comment:

“I was better able to observe alongside my student teacher partner and I could react and pick up on and react to theideas which the children were trying to develop and articulate, putting in the story or the character where and whenI felt it could help.”

5.2.4. Cognitive accelerationThe process of moving children on towards higher levels of thinking is called ‘cognitive acceleration’. Based on our

evaluation data we have identified (Table 1) how each of the ‘five pillars’ of cognitive acceleration, as identified by the ‘Let’sthink through science!’ programme (Adey, Nagy, Robertson, Serret & Wadsworth, 2003), can be developed through scienceenquiry which is supported by books stories and puppets. Although thinking skills are developed through all of a child’svarious interactions and encounters, it is important that we consider how we may enable them to think more skilfully andas they develop, to be more aware of the types of thinking they are engaged with.



Table 1How the use of books stories or puppets within enquiry-based science can promote cognitive acceleration.

Pillar of cognitive acceleration How this is supported by books, stories orpuppets

Teachers’ comments

Concrete preparation•Establish context •Story provides context and meaning “The story as an introduction engages the

children immediately through what they arefamiliar with.”

•Identify what children already know •Discussion of story or book “The story puts the science into a context forthem and provides the opportunity for you torefer back to.”

•Introduce new vocabulary •Dialogue with puppet•Text and pictures from book

Cognitive conflict•Provide activities which challenge current

understanding or require exploration•Story may provide a new experience, aproblem or an opportunity for enquiry

“The children were keen to know would thesnowman have been ok if he had stood in frontof the open fridge door.”

•Puppet may provide the problem forexploring

“They loved correcting the puppet when hemade mistakes.”

•Puppet may be saying or doing ‘silly things’

Social construction•Discussion about the activity •Child-centred setting of story encourages

wider participation in discussion andencourages ideas to be shared

“The children were so eager to help the puppet,the ideas kept coming, including children whoare usually reluctant to speak out.”

•The shared context of book or story in theform of images and events helps childrenarticulate their ideas

“The picture got them talking. Especially thetext-less version of ‘The Snowman’.”

•Puppet increases the quantity and quality ofpupil talk

Metacognition•Evaluation and reflection on enquiry activity,

reliability and improvements•The story provides relevance and purpose tothe activity requiring that progress is madeand outcomes are valid

“When I go back to the story I can ask whathave they found out from their experimentsand were they really sure about it.”

•Puppet can challenge method and results “The puppet could ask probing questions andget them to think was this the best way to doit.”

•Narrative structure of story or revisiting thebook retains focus and sustains engagement

Bridging•Making connections between the

understanding relating to the currentscenario and other possible situations

•Children can help draft a new ending to thestory, transferring learning from classroom tocontext of story

“When they went back to the story I get themto talk about it within the setting of the story.We could then discuss a different possibleending.”

•Use of related books and stories with similarscenarios to consider how newly acquiredunderstanding may be applied

“I could have another story book and we coulddiscuss this using our new ideas.”

•Use of puppet to discuss related problems orintroduce additional puppets with similarquestions or problems.

5.3. The ‘digitally resourced engaging and motivating science’ (DREAMS) project

5.3.1. Project detailsLike the BASICS Project the Digitally Resourced Engaging And Motivating Science Project (DREAMS Project, 2008) used

coteaching as the methodology for developing the practice of both qualified and undergraduate student teachers. Fundedby the AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust, this research included in its aims the development of teachers’ practice withrespect to the TSPC framework. The project aimed to develop teachers’:

• awareness of the merits of using digital technology (DT) in science lessons.• ICT skills in using DT and LearningNI.• awareness of the potential for enquiry-based science to address other areas of the curriculum such as communication,

being creative, personal skills and capabilities, thinking skills• ability to make science lessons more relevant and enjoyable.• use of enquiry-based science.



A central aim was to provide teachers with the support and resources to explore how the use of digital resources canenhance science enquiry as well as support other areas of the curriculum including the TSPC framework. The digital tech-nology used included the use of data loggers, computer microscopes, digital cameras and video recording. This ‘infusion’approach should ‘lead to lessons where there is the parallel development of subject knowledge and understanding of aparticular mode of thinking.’ (CCEA, 2007a, p9.)

The project involved six primary schools from across Northern Ireland. Schools were selected from as many of the fiveEducation and Library Boards as possible in order to maximise the impact of the project and support dissemination acrossthe province. A group of eleven student teachers were paired with classroom teachers across the full primary school agerange. Another factor in selecting schools was the student teachers’ placement for the school-based work component oftheir B.Ed course, which took place later in the term. This allowed for the teacher-student teacher pairs to continue coteachscience for a further six weeks. Schools representing four of the five Education and Library Boards were used. The projectdesign was similar to that used in the BASICS project and included training workshops in each of the digital resources and inenquiry-based science, coplanning sessions, and then a six week period of coteaching, coevaluating and coreflection. At theend of the project a dissemination event allowed the findings and experiences of all participants to be shared and discussed.During the project each class carried out enquiry-based activities making use of whichever digital resource(s) they found tobe the most appropriate to their particular topic.

5.3.2. MethodsThe data were collected by questionnaires, teacher and student teacher reflective journals, semi-structured interviews,

classroom observations and focus group interviews with pupils. Several of the pairs of coteachers involved pupils in producingvideos describing and discussing their enquiry-based science experiences. Approximately 250 children participated in theproject.

5.3.3. FindingsOne of the most significant findings of this project was the effectiveness of this use of digital technology for developing

the TSPC framework. All participants, teachers, student teachers and pupils described how this approach addressed each ofthe five strands of the framework.

5.3.4. Managing informationThe ease with which each of the digital resources can be used to capture data ensured that all pupils very quickly had data

and information to work with and think about. The direct experience of handling and manipulating the equipment excitedand motivated the pupils; they were now real scientists. This sustained pupils’ interest and focus as they were requiredto manage and examine their data which typically took the form of tables or graphs of temperature, light or sound levels,magnified images or a series of video clips. Thinking progressed to considering how best to make sense of this informationand effectively present it.

5.3.5. Thinking, problem-solving and decision makingThe challenge of deciding how a particular digital resource could best be used within an activity required the pupils to

think and make decisions regarding their enquiry task. After the initial exploration of what each resource could do the pupilsset about deciding what data was required, and how best could it be recorded. The digital resources helped to deconstructthe problem and bring the stages of doing, evaluating and communicating closer together.

5.3.6. Being creativeThe opportunities for creating visual presentations using their images within microsoft’s powerpoint or photostory 3,

or edited videos, allowed pupils to explore the importance of creativity. Time-lapse magnified images of seed germinationor the browning of exposed fruit really captured the imagination of pupils and produced further discussion and ideas. Theoften hidden beauty and wonder within science phenomena had a significant impact on the pupils.

5.3.7. Working with othersGroup work was used extensively throughout the project as the pupils had to share the resources and negotiate taking

turns in directly using them. The buzz of excitement generated a great deal of ideas and productive talk and discussion.The challenge of producing an edited video to present the group enquiry task exemplified the importance of team workand organisation as tasks were identified and allocated. The production of a video itself elevated the status of the learningactivity and greatly enhanced the quality of the pupils work.

5.3.8. Self-managementThe opportunities for facilitating purposeful teamwork in itself resulted in peer learning and enabled pupils to take

greater control of their own learning. Role rotation and the shared goals within the enquiry task highlighted the importanceof time and self-management and encouraged pupils to be more self-directed.



5.3.9. Scaling upAlthough the project involved only two classes from each school and the intervention was planned and costed for a single

academic year the researchers were keen to explore how these innovative approaches might be extended across a wholeschool. To this end the project included collaboration with school principals and science coordinators and explored howeffective forms of pedagogy could be extended across and between year groups. One of the schools in close proximity to theUniversity College continued with a modified form of the project the following year when and a group of five undergraduatestudent teachers developed these approaches to primary science across the full school age range. As before a coteachingmodel was adopted with in-service training days focused on planning and preparation. The findings mirrored those of theoriginal project and evidenced an enhancement of the quality of pupils’ experience of the TSPC programme across all keystages. As a result the school science provision was revised to include a greater focus on enquiry and the use of digitalresources.

The reach of these projects extends further than the participating schools. The potential for books, stories and puppets tosupport the development of the TSPC framework is included within the online CPD unit ‘Promoting children’s engagementwith primary science using books stories and puppets’ (Astrazeneca Science Teaching Trust, 2012) and is included withinContinuous Professional Development courses offered by Stranmillis University College (Stranmillis University College,2013). Furthermore a number of the college’s primary science education modules are specifically designed to include acoteaching placement in order to inform the future practice of both student and host teacher.

6. General discussion and conclusions

This paper discusses policy development on thinking skills and personal capabilities (TSPC) and its implementation in therevised Northern Ireland curriculum. Both development and implementation were built upon solid educational foundations,and were influenced strongly by research at all stages. Some of the coteaching projects described comprised an elementof scaling up the implementation by focusing specifically on developing thinking skills and personal capabilities (TSPC).Coteaching projects overall in Northern Ireland have to date involved approximately 25% primary schools in Northern Ireland(190+ teachers/schools, and more than 5,500 children). All of the major providers of primary initial teacher education in theisland of Ireland now incorporate coteaching in their science programmes – as a direct result of dissemination of the tenyears of coteaching work, some of which is summarised in this paper. There have been more than 20 papers in academicjournals, an international book (Murphy and Scantlebury, 2010) and an online continuing professional development unit(http://www.azteachscience.co.uk/ext/cpd/coteaching/index.html). This unit is in the process of redevelopment to reflectthe more recent applications of coteaching.

The potential for sustainability of the specific projects aimed at coteaching and thinking skills was enhanced by theinvolvement of student teachers, each of whom developed their capacity for teaching TSPC though science in future posts,and from the close involvement of education advisers, who used materials developed during the CPD programme and itsimplementation in schools as resources for the ‘roll-out’ training for teachers in the delivery of the revised Northern Irelandcurriculum.

Research that informed policy was based strongly on that of McGuinness (2000) and Bianchi (2002), which saw the devel-opment of the TSPC framework adopting a cognitive and affective influence. The five categories of skill and capability weredefined by positive behavioural statements supported by progression grids and subject related exemplification documents.The research projects carried out during implementation of the curriculum focused on the use of school science to developchildren’s thinking skills by utilising the theoretical foundations of Vygotsky’s ZPD, Kravtsov’s application of Vygotskiantheory to primary science, and cognitive acceleration.

Classroom application of science teaching which develops children’s thinking skills evidenced the requirement of teachersto provide opportunities for children to engage explicitly in thinking and expressing their thoughts in several ways, forexample in pictures, diagrams, multimedia, writing and orally. We found that oral expression was most important for childrento clarify their thinking. In Vygotsky’s Thought and Language (Vygotsky, 1986) he established the explicit and profoundconnection between speech (silent inner speech and oral external speech) and the development of mental concepts andcognitive awareness. He observed that whilst young children ‘think out loud’; adults also speak their thoughts when carryingout complicated tasks (for example, following written instructions when cooking or setting up an electrical appliance). Youngchildren can express their ideas more fully using spoken than written language and in science, a teacher can gauge betterthe level of understanding using oral assessment.

Other aspects of developing thinking skills through science in school were: engaging children’s interest and motivationusing curious phenomena; giving children opportunities (as scientists) to repeat activities in order to make deeper obser-vations; facilitating peer collaboration in developing hypotheses which are consistent with observations and in evaluatingsame; presenting data in several formats; and fostering scientific concept development by linking their work in school withscience outside (everyday and scientific contexts).

Whilst much of the focus of this paper has been on interpreting the NI framework and indeed getting teachers to feelconfident with it, to set the foundations of it to flourish through a mainstream curriculum, there are questions for futurework, which must be addressed. For instance, we need to consider the needs of all learners in their development of TSPCs,developments that are pertinent to their needs, when they are ready and how best to organise that in a classroom setting.In order to do this, we need insightful, purposeful and practical forms of assessment. Assessment for learning (AfL) has for



many allowed a strength to come through for self, peer and teacher assessment, yet further study into what ‘assessment’really means for TSPCs (for example what are they for, and for whom?) are issues that NI and other countries will need to facein the very near future. Another issue arises in the nature of ‘progression’ of TSPC. It could be argued that TSPC, as science,could be better considered as progressing in the reverse direction to that based on the Piagetian idea that children need todevelop a certain level of cognition before being taught specific scientific concepts. Such rigid progression has led to boringschool science, presented as a stepwise progression of ideas, which never reach the more complex, interesting aspects ofscience. There is a danger that if the same logic is applied to TSPC, children’s thinking may be constrained even further. Theresearch in these projects evidences children tackling highly complex phenomena and applying intense observation andhigh-level reasoning to arrive at explanations which are scientifically sound.

The paper argues that research-based policy making and implementation lends itself to transformation in classroompractice. We need to retain such a perspective so that teachers are empowered to use creativity and imagination in theirteaching such that they open children’s minds to the wonders of science. As Einstein remarked:

“I never teach my pupils. I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.” (Albert Einstein)

References

Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1994). Really Raising Standards: Cognitive Intervention and Academic Achievement. London: Routledge.Adey, P., Nagy, F., Robertson, A., Serret, N., & Wadsworth, P. (2003). Let’s Think Through Science. London: NFER Nelson.Association for Science Education. (2006). Creativity in the Science Classroom. Reading, England: Hans Persson, Institute of Education Stockholm. Available

at www.nugo.org/downloadattachment/28035/programme.pdf (accessed December 2012)Astrazeneca Science Teaching Trust (2012) http://www.azteachscience.co.uk/ext/cpd/engagement-with-puppets (accessed April 2013).Barrow, R. (1987). Skills talk. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 21(2), 187–196.BASICS Project. (2007). Books and Stories in Children’s Science BASICS Project Final Report. Available from http://www.stran.ac.uk/media/media, 91232,en.pdf

(accessed December 2012)Beggs, J., Murphy, C., & Kerr, K. (2009). New Approaches to Primary Science Teaching and Assessment. Report for AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust.Bianchi, L. (2002). ‘Teacher’s Perceptions of the Teaching of Personal Capabilities Through the Science Curriculum’. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Hallam University

(PhD thesis).Bianchi, L., & Barnett, R. (2006). Smart Science. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes Practice: A Critical Study of Learning to Teach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Carlisle, K. (2008). An Examination of Coteaching in Initial Teacher Education. Belfast: Queen’s University (unpublished PhD thesis).CCEA. (2007a). Thinking Skills and Personal Capabilities for Key Stages 1 and 2. Belfast: CCEA. Available from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/

skills and capabilities/training/TSPC-Guidance-KS12.pdf (accessed December 2012)CCEA. (2007b). Introduction to Thinking Skills and Personal Capabilities. Retrieved from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/key stage 3/skills and capabilities/

(accessed May 2013)CCEA. (2007c). Thinking Skills and Personal Capabilities for Key Stage 1 and 2. Retrieved from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/skills and capabilities/

training/TSPC-Guidance-KS12.pdf (accessed May 2013)CCEA. (2007d). Thinking Skills and Personal Capabilities for Key Stage 3. Retrieved from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/skills and capabilities/training/

TSPC-Guidance-KS3.pdf (accessed May 2013)CCEA. (2008). Wise Up and Think Books Including Audio and Teacher Materials. Retrieved from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/TSPC/the think pack/

storybooks/wise up and think.asp (accessed May 2013)CCEA. (2009a). The Think Pack. Retrieved from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/TSPC/the think pack/ (accessed May 2013)CCEA. (2009b). Classroom Toolbox: Walking Debate; Thinking Time; Job Roles etc. Retrieved from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/TSPC/the think pack/

classroom toolbox/ (accessed May 2013)CCEA. (2012). The World Around Us. Available from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/key stages 1 and 2/areas of learning/the world around us/ (accessed

December 2012)COMINO Foundation. (2012). GRASP, The Comino Approach. Available at http://www.cominofoundation.org.uk/D1 GRASP.html (accessed December 2012)Claxton, G. (2002). Building Learning Power: Helping Young People Become Better Learners. Bristol: TLO Ltd.Downing, D., Martin, K., & Allen, S. (2007). Evaluation of the Implementation of the Revised Curriculum and Assessment Arrangements in Northern Ireland. . .

From Planning To Preparation. Queen’s University, Belfast: Centre for Educational Research.DREAMS Project. (2008). Digitally Resourced Engaging and Motivating Science Project Final Report. Available from http://www.stran.ac.uk/

media/media, 181303,en.pdf (accessed December 2012)Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention Program for Cognitive Modifiability. Baltimore, MD:

University Park Press.Gallagher, C., Hipkins, R., & Zohar, A. (2012). Positioning thinking within national curriculum assessment systems: perspectives form Israel, New Zealand

and Northern Ireland. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 134–143.Gallo-Fox, J. (2010). Risk-taking as practice in a coteaching professional learning community. In C. Murphy, & K. Scantlebury (Eds.), Coteaching in International

Contexts (pp. 105–124). Rotterdam, Holland: Springer. ISBN: 978-9048137060.Juck, M., Scantlebury, K., & Gallo-Fox, J. (2010). Now it’s time to go solo. In C. Murphy, & K. Scantlebury (Eds.), Coteaching in International Contexts (pp.

241–262). Rotterdam, Holland: Springer. ISBN: 978-9048137060.Katz, L. G. (1995). Talks With Teachers of Young Children: A Collection. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Kravtsov, G. (2009). A Cultural-Historical Basis of the “Golden Key” Program. In Paper presented at the International Psychological Vygotsky Summer School

Belaya Kalitva, Russia.Lucas, B., & Claxton, G. (2009). Wider Skills for Learning: What Are They, How Can They Be Cultivated, How Could They Be Measured And Why Are They Important

for Innovation. London: NESTA.Martin, S. (2009). Learning to teach science. In K. Tobin, & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), World of Science Education: North America (pp. 567–586). The Netherlands:

Sense Publishers.McCullagh, J., Walsh, G., & Greenwood, J. (2008). Books and stories in children’s science: the preliminary findings of the BASICS project. In Presentation at

The Association of Science Education (ASE) Annual Conference in Liverpool 2008.McGuinness, C. (2000). ACTS: a methodology for teaching thinking across the curriculum. Teaching Thinking, 2, 1–12.McGuinness, C., & Sheehy, N. (2006). Building Thinking Skills in Thinking Classrooms. Available from www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/McGuinness RB 18.pdf

(accessed November 2012)Murphy, C. (2008). Primary Science in Northern Ireland: A Position Paper. Report for STEM group (Northern Ireland). Available at: http://

www.nismartcommunities.com/ViewServlet?content id=16004605&community content id=16004567&folder id=16000188&cid=16000003&strextension=doc&filename=Primary Science in Northern Ireland.doc (accessed November, 2012).



Murphy, C. (2009). Unit 7.6 schools, revised curriculum and initial teacher education in Northern Ireland. In C. Capel, M. Leask, & T.Turner (Eds.), Learning to Teach in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience. Bingdon: Taylor & Francis. Available from:http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415478724/downloads/n-ireland.pdf (accessed December 2012)

Murphy, C., Beggs, J., & Kerr, K. (2008). New Approaches to Science Teaching and Assessment. Report for AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust.Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2010). A five-year systematic study of coteaching science in 120 primary schools. In C. Murphy, & K. Scantlebury (Eds.), Coteaching

in International Contexts: Research and Practice (5th ed., pp. 11–34). Rotterdam, Holland: Springer.Murphy, C., & Scantlebury, K. (Eds.). (2010). Coteaching in International Contexts. Rotterdam, Holland: Springer. ISBN: 978-9048137060.National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming Teacher Education Through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare

Effective Teachers. Washington, DC: NCATE. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3d&tabid=715National Science Teachers’ Association. (2010). NSTA Strategic Goals 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/research.aspxNaylor, S., Keogh, B., Downing, B., Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2007). The PUPPETS project: puppets and change in teacher practice. In Paper Presented at the

ESERA Conference Malmo, Sweden.Nilsson, P. (2010). From theoretical explanation to practical application: coteaching in a pre-service primary physics teaching course. In C. Murphy, & K.

Scantlebury (Eds.), Coteaching in International Contexts (pp. 219–240). Rotterdam, Holland: Springer. ISBN: 978-9048137060.NI Curriculum. (2007). TSPC Framework Online. Retrieved from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/skills and capabilities/tspc framework.JPG. (accessed

December 2012)O’Conaill, N. (2010). A learning space: studenbt teachers’ experiences of coteaching science. In C. Murphy, & K. Scantlebury (Eds.), Coteaching in International

Contexts (pp. 169–194). Rotterdam, Holland: Springer. ISBN: 978-9048137060.Roth, W.-M., Masciotra, D., & Boyd, N. (1999). Becoming-in-the-classroom: a case study of teacher development through coteaching. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 15, 771–784.Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., Carambo, C., & Dalland, C. (2004). Coteaching: creating resources for learning and learning to teach chemistry in urban high schools.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 882–904.Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith.Stranmillis University College (2013) http://www.stran.ac.uk/media/media,347935,en.pdfSwartz, R., & Parks, S. (1994). Infusing the Teaching of Critical and Creative Thinking into Elementary Instruction. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press and

Software.Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2006). The many faces of collaborative planning and teaching. Theory Into Practice, 45(3), 239–248.Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The development of higher forms of attention in childhood. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. Armonk,

NY: Sharpe.Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and Language. Revised and Edited by A. Kozulin. The Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyWalsh, G., & Gardner, J. (2005). Assessing the quality of early years leaning environments. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 7(1).

http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/walsh.html (accessed December 2012)Walsh, G., Dunn, J., Mitchell, D., & McAlister, M. (2006). Giving young children a voice: accessing the views of 3–4 year old children in playgroups. Representing

Children, 18(5), 79–95.Wassell, B., & LaVan, S. (2009). Revisiting the dialogue on the transition from coteaching to inservice teaching: new frameworks, additional benefits and

emergent issues. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(2), 409–432.

author's personal copy - seerih-innovations.org · author's personal copy 174 c. murphy...

Documents