An exploration of a professional learning model for pre-service teachers of science, based on reflective practice.

 

SiMERR Mentor: Dr. John Kenny

 

ACTIVITY TEAM

 

Name

Role

Dr John Kenny

Researcher, lecturer and coordinator.

 

 

START/FINISH DATES

Semester One 2007: Feb 2007-December 2007

 

 

ACTIVITY RATIONALE

This study aims to explore the effectiveness of a reflective approach to preparing pre-service primary teachers to teach science. It is based on students teaching in a primary school settings working with a nominated colleague teacher’s class. It has as a secondary aim to explore any professional learning for the colleague teachers.

 

In 1999, the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council called for “improved preparation for beginning teachers (including mandatory courses in science and technology for all primary teachers)” (p. 6).

 

Primary science presents an excellent vehicle for the approach outlined in this proposal to explore the effectiveness of preparing pre-service teachers to be reflective and to gain confidence in science especially because it is often not well covered in primary schools where the focus is often on literacy and numeracy. Ten schools in an around the Launceston area have been approached and currently over 40 teachers have expressed their willingness to participate. 

 

The participating schools have all commented that science is something where they need to do better and they see this as a great opportunity to help to address this aspect of their curriculum.

 

 

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

This study will provide authentic practical situations which offer pre-service primary teachers an opportunity to inquire into and reflect upon the teaching of science while at the same time providing an explicit opportunity for the professional development (PD) of the participating teachers leading to mutual benefit.

 

Final year students who elect to do this unit will spend the first 5 weeks of the semester preparing for the teaching phase. This will involve some theoretical input in class and making contact with their colleague teacher and the class group.

 

There will be a five week teaching phase followed by a four week reflective and completion phase. Each phase will have reflective activities embedded within them based on a reflection process developed by the researcher from the available literature.

 

The data collected will include questionnaires, focus groups and journals from pre-service teachers and questionnaires from colleague teachers. It is hoped that the study will present preliminary findings leading to a more extensive study in 2008.

 

Action Plan

2006 October-January 2007)

1.      Preparation of proposal.

a.       Contact possible schools: Mowbray, Scotch-Oakburn, Invermay, Ravenswood, Punchbowl. Other schools will be approached

2.      Ethics application and approval: UTas.

3.      Preparation of unit outline.

4.      Call for expressions of interest and identify a group of teachers.

5.      Develop and conduct a briefing session for schools.

2007 (February-March)

6.      Finalise teacher participants.

7.      Develop clear guidelines to explain the roles and expectations for the participating colleague teachers and pre-service teachers including the keeping of a professional journal and participation in evaluative activities such as questionnaires and interviews.

8.      Pair-up the pre-service teachers with a colleague teacher, based on interests, location and grade groups preferred.

9.      Conduct initial questionnaires of pre-service and colleague teachers

10.  Begin University classes and set-up action learning groups.

11.  In the 5 weeks leading up to the start of the teaching program, the pre-service teachers will meet with their colleague teachers to jointly decide on a science learning program based on sound theory about learning in science.

12.  In their university classes, the pre-service teachers will collaboratively plan a science based unit with the support of fellow students and the university lecturer.

13.  The unit plan will be based on at least one weekly science session lasting a minimum of 90 minutes over a period of five weeks during April and one week into May.

14.  The colleague teacher and pre-service teacher will be encouraged to look for a means to integrate the science with other subjects.

2007 (March-June)

15.  To avoid clashing with the fourth year professional experience, the unit will run during Semester One, 2007.

16.  The colleague and pre-service teachers will also plan an evaluation of the effectiveness of the teaching sequence and collect evidence to support their conclusions.

17.  In the final four weeks, the pre-service teachers will return to class to reflect on the experience and analyse their data and complete a report on their experience.

18.  The second questionnaire for the colleague teachers and pre-service teachers will be conducted during May/June. They will be asked to reflect on their own experience in the study, how effective it was, how well they worked as a team and to suggest any improvements.

2007 (July-September)

19.  Analysis of data from the questionnaires and reflective journals.

20.  Presentation of an article at ASERA 2007 and one other science conference.

 

2007 (November-Dec)

21.  Follow-up interviews with colleague teachers and further analysis of data.

2008

22.  Development of one or more journal articles.

23.  Development of a grant submission for a larger project.

 

 

 

ACTIVITY DELIVERABLES AND OUTCOMES

At least one conference paper (ASERA 2007).

At least one journal article.

Proposal for a larger grant.

On-going relationships with several schools.

 

ACTIVITY CONSTRAINTS AND RISKS

The organisation of the students and the willingness of the teachers to be involved. There is a lot of organisation and students will be working quite independently. Relationships with schools and teachers will need to be maintained.

 

As they are fourth year students, they should be quite proficient in the classroom. However, in the case that some students do not do well in the class situation, if assistance from their colleague teachers is not sufficient, they will be teamed up to work with another class group, possibly in conjunction with another pre-service teacher.

 

 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Students will make use of a range of existing resources in developing their work programs.

The reflective matrix tool developed for the study  is based on work by Reason (2001) and Gushka Hinde, McLeod and Reynolds (2005)

 

 

EVALUATION PROCESSES

Two research questions will be explored:

  1. How does this model of professional learning promote the development of pre-service teachers’ theoretical understanding of good teaching in primary science and develop their confidence to teach science?

A secondary research question explores any benefits there may be for the colleague teachers.

  1. What professional development and other benefits are there for participating primary teachers in relation to their teaching of science?

 

The methodology for the study is “practitioner” or “participatory” action research (Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000; Zeicher and Noffke, 2001). In this form of research, the participants reflect on their own practice and build their own understanding of themselves as teachers of science. The collaborative aspect will be facilitated by organising the pre-service teachers into action learning sets to plan the teaching and reflect on their experience (McGill and Beaty, 2001) The will make use of a reflective tool based on work by Gushka et al. (2005).

 

Due to time and resource constraints and the size of the groups involved (up to 40 participants) it is unrealistic to conduct interviews with all of the expected 40+ participants as the study occurs during an active teaching period. However, there will be three sources of data, thus allowing for triangulation: questionnaires, artefacts developed for teaching and reflective journals.

 

If time permits, two focus groups will be organised at the end of the unit, each with ten pre-service teachers to gauge their feedback on the study. There will also be two questionnaires of the pre-service teachers, using open-ended questions, one at the beginning and one at the end of the study.

The pre-service teachers will also keep a reflective journal, based on the reflective tool described earlier, as a requirement of the unit and this will be submitted for assessment.

 

The participating colleagues teachers will be requested to provide feedback on the experience from their perspectives by means of three questionnaires, one at the beginning and one at the end of the study. There will also be a follow-up questionnaire of the colleague teachers six months after the end of the study to determine if there have been any longer term effects.

 

One pre-service teacher will be selected to attend a science education conference to discuss this project from his/her perspective.

 

 

DISSEMINATION

The study data will be analysed and lead to a presentation of the preliminary findings at the ASERA conference in 2007, a follow-up conference paper in 2008 and at least one refereed journal article.

 

This initial study will be largely exploratory in nature. The results will be analysed and will be used as the basis of articles to be presented for publication in reputable journals and conferences and the findings of this study will form the basis of a more extensive research project.

 

 

 

References

Grushka, K., Hinde McLeod, J. and Reynolds, R. (2005). ‘Reflecting upon reflection: theory and practice in one Australian University teacher education program’. Reflective Practice Vol 6, No. 2, pp. 239-246.

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (2000). ‘Participatory Action Research’. In  Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks: SAGE pp.567-605.

McGill, J. and Beaty, L. (2001). Action Learning. Revised (2nd Ed.) London: Kogan Page.

Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council. (1999). Raising Awareness Of The Importance Of Science and Technology to Australia's Future. http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/385A7C7D-9372-4C4F-A359-896E9B1DBCF7/1943/Awareness.pdf  (Accessed Nov 2006).

Reason, P. (2001). ‘Learning and Change through action research.’ In J. Henry (Ed.), Creative Management. Sage, London. http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mnspwr/Papers/Learning ChangeThroughActionResearch.htm (Accessed Nov 20, 2006)

Zeichner, K. and Noffke, S. (2001). ‘Practitioner Research’. In Richardson, V. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Washinton: AERA, pp. 298-330.