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 on 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 only

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 of 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 own 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 over 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

of 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.