Research in Science Education

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 51–69 | Cite as

An in-depth study of a teacher engaged in an innovative primary science trial professional development project

Article

Abstract

The implementation of effective science programmes in primary schools is of continuing interest and concern for professional developers. As part of the Australian Academy of science's approach to creating an awareness ofPrimary Investigations, a project team trialed a series of satellite television broadcasts of lessons related to two units of the curriculum for Year 3 and 4 children in 48 participating schools. The professional development project entitledSimply Science, included a focused component for the respective classroom teachers, which was also conducted by satellite. This paper reports the involvement of a Year 4 teacher in the project and describes her professional growth. Already an experienced and confident teacher, no quantitative changes in science teaching self efficacy were detected. However, her pedagogical content knowledge and confidence to teach science in the concept areas of matter and energy were enhanced. Changes in the teacher's views about the co-operative learning strategies espoused byPrimary Investigations were also evident. Implications for the design of professional development programmes for primary science teachers are discussed.

Keywords

Professional Development Science Teaching Professional Development Programme Television Broadcast Vicarious Experience 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986).Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement, New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
  2. Ashton, P. T., Webb, R. B., & Doda, N. (1983).A study of teachers' sense of efficacy (Final report, executive summary). Gainesville: University of Florida.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Academy of Science (AAS). (1994).Primary investigations. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1986).Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism and Poppers world.Educational Researcher, 23(7), 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977, April).Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. VII. Factors affecting implementation and continuation (R-1589/7-HEW). Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
  8. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), (1989).New designs for elementary school science and health (Science for life and living). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
  9. Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers' beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice.Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53–62.Google Scholar
  10. Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and restraints.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 471–485.Google Scholar
  11. Bybee, R. W. (1993).Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. deLaat, J., & Watters, J. J. (1995). Science teaching self efficacy in a primary school: A case study.Research in Science Education, 25(4), 453–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers' sense of efficacy: An important factor in school improvement.The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers' decision making models for planning and teaching science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 467–501.Google Scholar
  16. Ellis, J. D. (1995, April),Intervening in the professional development of science teachers: The Colorado science teaching enhancement program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  17. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.), New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Fraser, B. J. (1981).TOSRA: Test of science-related attitudes. Hawthorn, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  19. Fullan, M. (1993a). Moral purpose and change agency. In M. Fullan,Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform (p. 15). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fullan, M. (1993b). The complexity of the change process. In M. Fullan,Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers' knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science.Science Education, 75(1), 121–133.Google Scholar
  22. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher effecacy: A construct validation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ginns, I. S., Watters, J. J., Tulip, D., & Lucas, K. (1995). Changes in preservice elementary teachers' sense of efficacy in teaching.School Science and Mathematics, 95(8), 394–400.Google Scholar
  24. Ginns, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1996, April).Experiences of novice teachers: Changes in self efficacy and their beliefs about teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Greenwood, G. E., Olejnik, S. F., & Parkay, F. W. (1990). Relationships between four teacher efficacy belief patterns and selected teacher characteristics.Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23(2), 102–106.Google Scholar
  26. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1993).Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977).Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 147 342).Google Scholar
  28. House, E. R. (1991). Realism in research.Educational Researcher, 20(6), 2–8, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative learning. In J. H. Block, S. T. Everson, & T. R. Guskey (Eds.),School improvement programs: A handbook for educational leaders (pp. 25–56. New York: Scholastic.Google Scholar
  30. Kahle, J., Anderson, A., & Damjanovic, A. (1991). A comparison of elementary teacher attitudes and skills in teaching science in Australia and the United States.Research in Science Education, 21, 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kruger, C., & Summers, M. (1993).The teaching and learning of science concepts in primary classrooms: Two case studies. Unpublished paper, Primary School Teachers and Science (PSTS) Project. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Department of Educational Studies.Google Scholar
  32. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.Science Education, 73(3), 319–337.Google Scholar
  33. Manning, P., Esler, W., & Baird, J. (1982). What research says: How much elementary science is really being taught?Science and Children, 19(8), 40–41.Google Scholar
  34. Markle, G. C. (1978). Assessing the validity and reliability of the subject preference inventory with preservice elementary teachers.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(6), 519–522.Google Scholar
  35. Martens, L. M. (1992). Inhibitors to implementing a problem solving approach to teaching elementary science: Case study of a teacher in change.School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 150–156.Google Scholar
  36. Mechling, K., Stedman, C., & Donnellan, K. (1982). Preparing and certifying science teachers.Science and Children, 20(2), 9–14.Google Scholar
  37. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Neale, D. C., Smith, D., & Johnson, V. G. (1990). implementing conceptual change teaching in the primary school.The Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O'Brien, T. (1992). Science inservice workshops that work for elementary teachers.School Science and Mathematics, 92(8), 422–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change.Review of Educational Research, 63(2) 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Primary Science Project. (1982).Primary science sourcebook: Year 4. Brisbane: Department of Education, Queensland.Google Scholar
  42. Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher's science teaching efficacy belief instrument.Science Education, 74(6), 625–637.Google Scholar
  43. Robinson, V. (1993).Problem-based methodology. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  44. Taylor, P. C. S., Fraser, B. J., & White, L. R. (1994, April).CLES: An instrument for monitoring the development of constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  45. Walker, J. C., & Evers, C. W. (1988). The epistemological unity of educational research. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.),Research methodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 28–36). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  46. Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (1995, April).Origins of and changes in preservice teachers' science teaching self efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  47. Watters, J. J., Ginns, I. S., Enochs, L., & Asoko, H. (1995, November).Preservice primary teachers' sense of self efficacy: International perspectives on the teaching and learning of science and mathematics. Paper presented at the Australian Association of Researchers in Education Annual Conference, Hobart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Science Education Research Association 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Mathematics and Science EducationQueensland University of TechnologyKelvin GroveAustralia

Personalised recommendations