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

OLT Project: School-based pedagogies and partnerships in primary science teacher education 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 h"p://stepsproject.org.au Project ¡Funded ¡by ¡the ¡Australian ¡ Wellington, New Zealand ASERA Conference 2013 Government ¡Office ¡for ¡Learning ¡ and ¡Teaching. ¡ ¡

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 BEd (Prim) 2 nd year core unit: Teaching pairs Constructivism & BEd (Prim/ 2 week micro teaching Small group (8 chn) Conceptual change B- ’ 89 Sec) 3 rd year core unit: 5Es-based unit Representations G- ’ 02 Totally school based Minimal teacher Inquiry learning W- ’ 04 feedback Unit and student eval ACU BEd (Prim) 4 th year core unit: Teaching pairs Constructivism BEd (Prim 7 weeks theory Whole class Deep learning Since EC) preparation 5Es-based unit Inquiry learning 2007 5 weeks micro- Teacher feedback Reflective practice teaching in schools Self-efficacy theory RMIT BEd (Prim) 3 rd year core unit: Teaching teams (5 st) Constructivism BEd Preparation weeks Whole class Inquiry learning Since (Disability) 4 teaching weeks x 2 5Es-based units Reflective practice 2007 hour Teacher feedback Partnerships Identity development UTas BEd (Prim) 4 th year elective: “ Volunteers ” Self-efficacy 2 week intro Triadic: Teacher, PST Mentoring 2010 Teachers & PSTS, plan & Teacher Educator Reflective practice only 6 weeks 1x 2 hour Partnerships Melb MTeach Initial prep Teaching pairs ?? (Prim) 6-8 weeks teaching 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 • Felt prepared (2) sequences & inquiry lessons in science • Regularly plan and teach science (2) (4) • Other experiences compensated • Practical experience of planning & e.g. science on prac, good resources teaching (3) (Primary Connections), specialist • Relationship: supportive not teaching skills supervisory (3) • Reflecting on experience (2) • 3 took on leadership roles one took on secondary science • Felt elective should be compulsory

Expect to gain v Gained New to post reflections: 1. Reality of teaching Student 1: Pre: Confidence planning science 2. Knowledge of learners lessons, feeling confident with my own content knowledge in order to teach students. Having practical 3. Teacher identity experience carrying out a unit I have helped develop. 4. Teacher reflection Post: Practical experience implementing a series of lessons that I had helped to create myself, Meeting expectations: where students built their science — Experience, content knowledge and made connections over the lessons. I was able to see knowledge, activities and how engaged the students were teaching strategies, confidence, and have fun myself. planning, implementation

Comparing Pre and Post (n=30) 19. Ratings 1-10: There was a significant difference between the pre and post tests for Questions 19.1-4. 1. How important is science in primary Table x. Difference between Ratings for Q19 by University school curriculum? Q19.1% Q19.2% Q19.3% Q19.4% 2. How confident are you ! Post%- Post%- Post%- Post%- % pre% n% pre% n% pre ! n% pre% n% to teach science? 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% 3. To what extent does RMIT% -0.43% 7% 2.56% 9% 0.63% 8% 1.56% 9% your commitment to Melbourne% 0.67% 3% 0.75% 4% 0.67% 3% -0.67% 3% 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? !

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