Fostering Effective Pedagogies for Science Teacher Education

Dr. Mellita Jones Australian Catholic University

Ballarat Campus

Presentation to STEM Education Conference, 20-21 August, 2014

STEM Education Conference Advancing innovation and research in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics education and practice

Wicked Problem (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

– a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize.

– resistant to a resolution, rather than being evil. – because of complex interdependencies, the effort to solve

one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or create other problems.

(Wikipedia, 2014)

The Wicked Problem of Science Education

Poor attitudes about the importance of science in the curriculum

(Goodrum, Hackling & Rennie, 2001, 2011; McInnis, 2001, Tytler, 2007; Office of the Chief Scientist, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv8pmIr3a7k&feature=youtu.be

The Wicked Problem of Science Teacher Education

Teachers avoid teaching Science where possible When it is taught, it tends to be (Earth &) Space or Biology

Pre-service teachers have limited opportunity to observe effective teaching of science

Pre-service teachers rarely practice science teaching on rounds

Most teaching rounds sit outside of curriculum and pedagogy units

(which they are ok with because they want to avoid it too)

Pre-service teachers have low confidence in their science background knowledge and their ability to teach science

Pre-service teachers have poor attitudes towards science

Large numbers of students in courses makes it challenging to use authentic teaching and assessment strategies

As a profession, teaching is not attracting high quality candidates.

Often revert to the predominant school culture once entering the profession

Limited science units in undergraduate teaching courses

(Appelton, 2003; Jones & Carter, 2007, Goddard, 2003, Keys, 2005)

Selecting contexts/content that sets them up for a future

The result? • Students beginning secondary schooling are ill-prepared to

take up Level 5 science - only just over 50% of Year 6 students are at or above the Proficient Standard in our domestic NAP–SL (ACARA, 2012)

• A spiraling decline in teachers’ confidence and ability to teach science in primary years and often in their attitudes towards science;

• A growing teacher workforce who are not qualified to teach science.

Primary Teachers – Level of Science Highest Level of tertiary Study Total with

some tertiary (%)

Methods training (5) 1 Year (%) 2 Years (%) 3+ Years (%)

Biol 6.8 3.7 5.4 15.9 4.4

Chem 4.8 2.4 2.4 9.6 2.3

Earth Sciecne

4.8 3.2 4.2 12.3 3.9

Enviro Science

4.3 3.5 6.1 13.9 6.6

Physics 4.1 1.7 1.7 7.4 1.4

Psych 5.7 5.3 11.3 22.3 8.9

General Sci 11 11.4 24.7 47.2 40.5

McKenzie, Rowley, Weldon, & Murphy, 2011

Secondary Teachers – Level of Science Highest level of Tertiary Study Total with

some tertiary (%)

[Primary]

Methods training

(%) 1 Year (%) 2 Years (%) 3+ Years (%)

Biol 5.8 3.0 13.2 22.0 [15.9] 11.2

Chem 6.9 5.1 9.3 21.2 [9.6] 9.0

Earth Sciecne

4.7 2.2 3.9 10.8 [12.3] 3.6

Enviro Science

3.1 2.2 4.7 10.0 [13.9] 3.9

Physics 8.2 3.6 5.3 17.1 [7.4] 6.1

Psych 6.0 3.1 5.5 14.7 [22.3] 3.9

General Sci 4.1 2.6 10.4 17.1 [47.2] 18 McKenzie, Rowley, Weldon, & Murphy, 2011

Other things we know

• The quality of the teacher is the largest single determinant of student learning outcomes

(Darling-Hammond, 2006; Hattie, 2003)

• Students identify teachers as the most

influential factor in determining their interest in a subject

(Office of the Chief Scientist, 2012)

So what are “we” doing to better ensure the quality of the teacher/teaching? • Lots of investment in improving the quality of science teaching

– Primary Connections – Science by Doing – My Science – Australian Maths and Science Partnerships Program (AMSPP) – Etc.

• Rewriting curriculum (inquiry skills/working scientifically have set standards since about 2006 – and now human endeavour)

• National testing • Encouraging inquiry learning.

Addressing teacher efficacy is important • Self-efficacy can effect every element of

teaching “including lesson planning; teaching; assessment; interactions with peers, parents and students; … professional development and the ways she [the teacher] will implement reform”

(Jones & Carter 2007, p. 1067)

• Tendency is to resort to pedagogies they are comfortable with – literacy/humanities based

What should we teach in science teacher education? • Build teacher self-efficacy to teach science:

– science background knowledge – Inquiry-based pedagogies – Selection and use of

resources

1st year U/G Primary PSTs How do you feel about learning Science?

1st year U/G Primary PSTs What do you like about learning Science?

1st year U/G Primary PSTs What don’t you like about learning Science?

Attitudes towards & Confidence to teach Science (4th year U/G Primary PSTs)

2011 2012 2013

How important is Science Education?

How

con

fiden

t are

you

to te

ach

it?

How do you feel about teaching science? (4th year U/G Primary PSTs) • Scared • Apprehensive • Terrified

Why? Students may ask questions I don’t know the answers to My own knowledge is lacking I don’t feel I know enough about science to teach it

Increasing Self-Efficacy Mastery Experience

the first hand experience of success Vicarious Experience

observation of someone the person identifies with successfully perform a task

Social Persuasion

reassurance and encouragement from a respected peer/mentor Physiological/affective state

heart rate and other physiological factors in the body affected by stress (Bandura, 1997)

Increasing Self-Efficacy

Physiological/affective state Provide a supportive and positive learning environment

Social Persuasion Peers, teacher mentor, lecturer/tutor

Vicarious Experience Observe peers, more/less expert others (teacher/tutor/teacher educator), videos, etc.

Mastery Experience Only through access to a classroom of children.

What’s being done?

• School-university partnerships • Embed science teaching practice in

coursework • Variety of models that fall somewhere on the

continuum of collaborative to cooperative in nature

Collaborative Partnerships

• University “borrows” school classrooms; psts plan, teach & reflect on science teaching on own or in groups

• Schools “borrow” universities – ‘come and teach our science program’

(Kenny, 2010; Palmer, 2006)

PSTs and classroom teacher: • plan together • Team teach • Reflect together • Learn together

(Jones, 2011; Nilsson & van Driel (2010 )

CoOperative Partnerships

What pre-service teachers say about mastery experience opportunities

I'll be more willing to teach it now I think, because I see that they do get enjoyment out of it, because before I was 'oh, I think they'd hate it’.

“Despite feeling that things were not working at times, my confidence has increased. I have seen that I can handle it when things do not occur as expected.”

So do we need the uni?

• Guided reflection – making the tacit explicit and meaningful (Loughran, 2002)

• Helping pre-service teachers notice important

aspects/incidents in their practice (Jones, 2011)

Learning from peers It's good to hear about what everyone else does and what's worked and what hasn't worked and just get ideas from people instead of trawl your way around the internet and find stuff but you don't know if they're really going to be successful or not.

The discussion of your own practice … [it] forces you to reflect on your own practice and I think that's good for any teacher”

Attitudes towards & Confidence to teach Science (4th year U/G Primary PSTs)

2011 2012 2013

Before Before Before

After After After

Risks? Partnerships need to be Supportive • I don't think I would have coped if I had been by myself • I'm not comfortable being around her at all. I'm terrified of

getting rounds at that school • I felt like a novice in a field of experts, and an unwanted novice

at that

Expectations need to be clear and there need to be shared understandings and goals for the partnership

STEPS Project

An OLT funded Innovation and Development Project (2013-2014) between five universities who have existing school-based science teacher education programs

– Deakin University (lead) Linda Hobbs, Coral Campbell, Gail Chittleborough, Sandra Herbert

– Australian Catholic University Mellita Jones

– RMIT University Andrew Gilbert

– University of Melbourne Christine Redman

– University of Tasmania John Kenny

Science Teacher Education Partnerships with Schools

In memory of Dr Jeff King

The STEPS Project

– Enhance the quality of science teacher education by promoting theory-practice nexus;

– Provides opportunities for pre-service teachers to practice science teaching;

– Provides authentic learning experiences and opportunities for reflection;

– Fosters identity formation and confidence to teach science.

The project aims to explore school-based approaches to science teacher education that:

The STEPS Outcomes • A synthesis of the variety of teaching and reflective practices and informing

theories; • Documentation of exemplars of innovative pedagogies; • Creation of an interpretive framework informed by contemporary practice; • Determination of sustainable methods for establishing and maintaining effective

school-university partnerships generalisable across a range of contexts; • Facilitation of uptake of innovative school-based practices within the sector.

Interpretive Framework

• A document to support school-based approaches to pre-service teacher education

• Designed for both teacher educators and schools

– To establish, implement and evaluate a partnership

– To maintain a partnership; – To grow a partnership.

Website (under construction) http://stepsproject.org.au

Growing University-School Partnerships (GUSP) A. Need and

Rationale B. Institutional and

Unit Demands C. Relationships D. Curriculum Development

(for children) E. Elements of practice

1. In

itiat

ion

Phas

e

Identify mutual and

differing needs and

provide rationale

Identify constraints and affordances

governing the approach to partnership

development

Negotiate and define value and

parameters defining the nature of the

partnership

Conceptualise an approach to PST

interaction with children.

For Universities: Establish guiding principles for practice that can occur within

the partnership. For Schools:

Consider options for level of involvement in feedback and

personal reflection.

2. Im

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e

Be mindful of the needs and

rationale and be responsive to

emerging needs

Manage, compromise, justify

and respond to demands (limitations

and possibilities)

Maintaining and working with

partners to meet individual and

differing needs of partners

For Universities: Developing and

implementing subject-related and general

content and pedagogy For Schools:

Be aware of PST interactions with children.

For Universities: Draw on informing theories,

and modeling reflective practice and subject-related

content and pedagogy. For Schools:

Reflect on current level of involvement in feedback and

professional learning.

3. E

valu

atio

n Ph

ase

Evaluating the needs and

rationales for their continued relevance and

future possibilities.

Evaluating against institutional

demands and considering different

possibilities & approaches.

Evaluating the nature of the

partnership to respond to current and future needs and possibilities.

For Universities: Rethink, redevelop

curriculum while drawing on reflections and

research. For Schools:

Evaluate children’s engagement and learning to determine continued

involvement.

For Universities: Examining effectiveness of

practices in response to institutional, unit, and

partnership changes and needs.

For Schools: Evaluate current practices and

consider future levels of involvement in feedback and

professional learning interests/needs

Representations of Partnership Practices (RPP) A. Purposes

B. Institutional

structures C. Nature of partnership

D. Linking theory with practice

Con

nect

ive

Engagement based on provision of curriculum or

other service need.

Partnership activities are

short-term and opportunistic and sit

within existing structure.

Partners provide short-term services with a

focus on one partner’s needs but with mutual

benefits and value for all.

Partners recognise

schools as important sites for PSTs to link theory and practice.

Gen

erat

ive

Partners recognise opportunities for mutual

professional learning

Partnership activities are considered long-term and are planned and

catered for in the teacher education and school

programs.

Partners jointly plan the structure of the school-based practices to the

benefit of both.

Opportunities exist for both partners to reflect on practice that may be

linked to theory.

Tra

nsfo

rmat

ive

Partner involvement based on active

professional learning

Partnerships are embedded in the

ongoing structures and practices of the

institutions.

Partners take joint responsibility for mutually

agreed practices and outcomes that are embedded in their

respective core outcomes.

Both partners engage explicitly in reflective

inquiry guided by theories of professional identity development.

Fostering effective science teacher education

• Partnerships – preferably collaborative to provide opportunities for in-service and pre-service teacher learning

• PSTs working in pairs or small groups • Embedding science teaching experiences in

curriculum and pedagogy units • Expert facilitation to guide planning and reflection on

pedagogy and encourage theory-practice nexus.

Resolving the Wickedness • Policy level

– Attract high quality candidates to the profession – Consider how schools are portrayed and funded – beyond literacy and

numeracy – Professional learning recognition for working with pre-service teachers in

collaborative ways

• University/Unit level – Have meaningful links between professional experience and course work – Provide authentic experiences of teaching and learning – Link theory and practice through expert facilitated critical reflection – Work with teachers and schools

• School/classroom level

– Encourage engagement in science professional learning – Resource science teaching – Work with pre-service teachers and universities

I’m Melting!!!

Question/Discussion Point

University/Unit

Level

School/Classroom

Level

Government Policy

What are the current/potential strengths of government, universities, and schools that can be leveraged to foster effective science teacher education

and help resolve the wickedness of the problem?

(Fisher & Frey, 2007)