Advertisement

RESEARCHING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A SCIENCE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMME USING A PROPOSED CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK FOR SCHOOLS: A CASE STUDY

  • Kathryn PaigeEmail author
  • Yvonne Zeegers
  • David Lloyd
  • Philip Roetman
Article

Abstract

This paper reports on an action research-based professional learning programme (PLP) in which early career teachers volunteered to identify and then research an aspect of their science teaching practice. The PLP was facilitated by academics from the School of Education and the Barbara Hardy Institute at the University of South Australia. The teachers, who worked in low socio-economic areas of Adelaide’s northern suburbs, participated in the programme in order to enhance their pedagogical content knowledge about science. They also shared an interest in connecting their students to the natural world through citizen science. The PLP utilised collaborative practices and engagement within a socio-constructivist pedagogical framework. As a result of their participation, the teachers reported increased confidence to plan and teach units of work that moved away from textbook-orientated approaches to science. Teachers were interviewed at key points during the PLP, and transcripts were analysed against Tytler’s (Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australias future. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER Press, 2007) proposed curriculum framework for science. This case study identified teacher learning, and the strengths and limitations of the PLP, thus enabling the facilitators to reflect on the programme.

Keywords

action research citizen science collaborative learning content analysis curriculum school science teacher professional learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Australian Academy of Science (2010) Primary Connections, Canberra, A.C.T. Australian Capital Territory:AuthorGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2013) Retrieved 8 August 2013 from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/
  3. Berkowitz, A. R. (1997). A simple framework for considering the benefits of SSPs. In K. C. Cohen (Ed.), National Conference on Student and Scientist Partnerships (pp. 38–41). Cambridge, MA: TERC and Concord Consortium.Google Scholar
  4. Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J. & Wilderman, C.C. (2009). Public participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. Washington DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE).Google Scholar
  5. Bowers, C. A. (2001). Education for eco-justice and community. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  6. Bowers, C. A. (2006). Revitalizing the commons: Culture and educational sites of resistance and affirmation. Oxford, UK: Lexington.Google Scholar
  7. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practical action. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.Google Scholar
  8. Bybee, R.W. (2006). Enhancing science teaching and student learning: A BSCS perspective. Retrieved 28 September 2006 from http://www.acer.edu.au/workshops/conferences.html
  9. Clark, I. & Zeegers, Y. P. (2012). Education for sustainable development: Improving curriculum design in higher education. In C. Daniels & P. Roetman (Eds.), Creating sustainable communities in a changing world (pp. 225–232). Adelaide: Crawford House Publishing, Adelaide, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  10. Cobern, W. W. (1993). Contextual constructivism: The impact of culture on the learning and teaching of science. In K. G. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 51–69). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  11. Cobern, W. W. (1994). World view, culture, and science education. Science Education International, 5(4), 5–8.Google Scholar
  12. Coertjens, L., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Maeyer, D. & Petegem, V. (2010). Do schools make a difference in their students’ environmental attitudes and awareness? Evidence from Pisa 2006 International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 497–522.Google Scholar
  13. Cornish, L. & Jenkins, K. (2012). Encouraging teacher development through embedding reflective practice in assessment. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Department of Education and Children’s Services (2010). South Australian teaching for effective learning (TEFL): South Australian Teaching for Effective Learning Framework Guide: A resource for developing quality teaching and learning in South Australia. Retrieved 28 August 2013 from http://www.learningtolearn.sa.edu.au/tfel/files/links/SA_TfEL_Framework_horizont.pdf
  15. Dickinson, J. & Bonney, R. (Eds.). (2012). Citizen science: Public participation in environmental research. London: Comstock, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  16. Faire, J. & Cosgrove, M. (1993). Teaching primary science. Hamilton, New Zealand: Waikato Education Centre.Google Scholar
  17. Fensham, P. J. (2003). What do the “All” need in science education? In D. Fisher & T. Marsh (Eds.), Third Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education (pp. 1–20). Rhodes University, South Africa: Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology.Google Scholar
  18. Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie, P. & Lingard, B. (2006). Teachers and schooling making a difference: Productive pedagogies, assessment and performance. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  19. Hodson, D. (1993). In search of a rationale for multicultural science education. Science Education, 77(6), 685–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, M., Yoon, H., Ji, Y. & Song, J. (2012). The dynamics of learning science in everyday contexts: A case study of everyday science class in Korea. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 71–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kinna, D. & Paige, K. (2010). Connecting year 9 mathematics to the community: An action research project. In B. Prosser, B. Lucas & A. Reid (Eds.), Connecting lives and learning: Renewing pedagogy in the Middle Years (pp. 60–72). Adelaide: Wakefield Press, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  23. Mamlok-Naaman, R. & Eilks, I. (2012). Different types of action research to promote chemistry teachers’ professional development—A joined theoretical reflection on two cases from. Israel and Germany International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(3), 581–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matthews, M. (1992). History, philosophy and science teaching: The present rapprochement. Science & Education, 1(1), 11–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matthews, M. (Ed.). (2009). Science, worldviews and education. Springer. Science & Business Media. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-90-481-2779-5
  26. Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D. & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes to classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D. & Kull, J. A. (1998). Can we be scientists too? Secondary students’ perceptions of scientific research from a project-based classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murray, J., Cawthorne, G., Dey, C. & Angrew, C. (Eds.). (2012). Enough for all forever: A handbook for learning about sustainability. Champagne, Illinois: Common Ground, Illinois, IL.Google Scholar
  29. Osborne, J. (2006). Towards a science education for all: The role of ideas, evidence and argument. Paper presented at the ACER Research Conference: Boosting Science Learning- What will it take? Canberra, Australia. http://www.acer.edu.au/workshops/conferences.html
  30. Paige, K., Lawes, H., Matejcic, P., Taylor, C., Stewart, V., Lloyd, D. & Daniels, C. et al. (2010). ‘It felt like real science!’: How Operation Magpie enriched my classroom. Teaching Science, 56(4), 25–33.Google Scholar
  31. Paige, K. & Lloyd, D. (2011). Educating for sustainability: A vehicle for engaging primary/middle education students in science. In P. E. J. Roetman & C. B. Daniels (Eds.), Creating sustainable communities in a changing world (pp. 239–247). Adelaide: Barbara Hardy Institute, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  32. Paige, K. & Lloyd, D. (2012). Pedagogical practices and science learning with a focus on sustainability for pre-service primary and middle years educators: Directions and challenges. In M. Daniel & S. W. Hwang (Eds.), Moving forward: Issues and challenges in science education research (pp. 191–208). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paige, K., Lloyd, D., Zeegers, Y., Roetman, P., Daniels, C., Hoekman, B., Linnell, L., George, L. & Szilassy, D. (2012). Connecting teachers and students to the natural world through Operation Spider: An Aspirations Citizen Science Project. Teaching Science, 58(1), 13–21.Google Scholar
  34. Pedretti, E. (1997). Septic tank crisis: A case study of science, technology and society in an elementary school. International Journal of Science Education, 19(10), 1211–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prosser, B., Reid, A. & Lucas, B. (Eds.). (2010). Connecting lives and learning: Renewing pedagogy in the middle years. Adelaide: Wakefield Press, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  36. Rennie, L. (2006). The community’s contribution to science learning: Making it count. Retrieved 23 September 2006 from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=research_conference_2006
  37. Riddle, E. M. (1999). Lev Vygotsky’s social development theory. Retrieved 3 March 2007 from http://tonymcarthur.edublogs.org/files/2007/03/vygotsky1.htm
  38. Ritchie, J. & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 173–194). London: Routledge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  39. Roetman, P. E. J. (2013). The ‘citizen’ in citizen science: The research, education and engagement of a program based on local wildlife species in South Australia. University of South Australia, Unpublished doctoral thesis, Adelaide.Google Scholar
  40. Roetman, P. E. J. & Daniels, C. B. (2011). The benefits of citizen science in research, education and community engagement. In P. E. J. Roetman & C. B. Daniels (Eds.), Creating sustainable communities in a changing world (pp. 249–260). Adelaide: Crawford House Publishing, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  41. Rogers, M., Abell, S., Lannin, J., Wang, C., Musikul, K., Barker, D. & Dingman, S. (2007). Effective Professional Development in Science and Mathematics Education: Teachers’ and Facilitators’ Views. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(3), 507–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roth, W.-M. & Désautels, J. (Eds.). (2002). Science education as/for sociopolitical action. New York: Peter Lang, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  43. Solomon, J. & Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  44. Tinker, R. F. (1997). Student scientist partnerships: Shrewd maneuvers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6, 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trautmann, N. M., Shirk, J. L., Fee, J. & Krasny, M. E. (2012). Who poses the questions? Using citizen science to help K-12 teachers meet the mandate for inquiry. In J. L. Dickinson & R. Bonney (Eds.), Citizen science: Public participation in environmental research (pp. 179–190). Ithaca, NY: Comstock.Google Scholar
  46. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  47. Tytler, R., Symington, D. & Smith, C. (2011). A curriculum innovation framework for science, technology and mathematics education. Research in Science Education, 41(1), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Waldrip, B., Prain, V. & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multimodal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson, J. & Lloyd, D. (2010). Connecting lives and learning: Super size me with science. In B. Prosser, A. Reid & B. Lucas (Eds.), Connecting lives and learning: Action research in the Middle Years of schooling (pp. 73–93). Adelaide: Wakefield Press, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  50. Zeegers, Y. & McKinnon, H. (2012). ‘Does a spider have fur’? Blending primary science and English language learning for ESL students. Teaching Science, 58(3), 7–13.Google Scholar
  51. Zeegers, Y., Paige, K., Lloyd, D. & Roetman, P. (2012). Operation Magpie: Inspiring primary school teachers through science-focused professional learning experiences. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 28, 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zoellick, B., Nelson, S. J. & Schauffler, M. (2012). Participatory science and education: Bringing both views into focus. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 310–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn Paige
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yvonne Zeegers
    • 1
  • David Lloyd
    • 1
    • 2
  • Philip Roetman
    • 2
  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Barbara Hardy InstituteUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations