Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Forging School–Scientist Partnerships: A Case of Easier Said than Done?

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the early 1980s, a number of initiatives have been undertaken worldwide which have involved scientists and teachers working together in projects designed to support the science learning of students. Many of these have attempted to establish school–scientist partnerships. In these, scientists, teachers, and students formed teams engaged in mutually beneficial science-based activities founded on principles such as equal recognition and input, and shared vision, responsibility and risk. This article uses two partnership programmes run by a New Zealand Science Research Institute, to illustrate the challenges faced by scientists and teachers as they attempted to forge meaningful and effective partnerships. It argues that achieving the theorised position of a shared partnership space at the intersection of the worlds of scientists and teachers is problematic, and that scientists must instead be prepared to penetrate deeply into the world of the classroom when undertaking any such interactions. Findings indicate epistemological differences, curriculum and school systems and issues, and teacher efficacy and science knowledge significantly affect the process of partnership formation. Furthermore, it is argued that a re-thinking of partnerships is needed to reflect present economic and education environments, which are very different to those in which they were originally conceived nearly 30 years ago. It suggests that technology has an important role to play in future partnership interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For further information on the work of Scion, please refer to www.scionresearch.com.

  2. Refer http://globe.gov/about.

References

  • Bell R, Blair L, Crawford B, Lederman N (2003) Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship programme on high school students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. J Res Sci Teach 40(5):487–509. doi:10.1002/tea.10086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouillion L, Gomez L (2001) Connecting school and community with science learning: real world problems and school-community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. J Res Sci Teach 38(8):878–898. doi:10.1002/tea.1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caton E, Brewer C, Brown F (2000) Building teacher-scientist partnerships: teaching about energy through inquiry. Sch Sci Math 100(1):7–15. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17315.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clendening B (2004) Student-scientist partnership in molecular biology: finding a workable model at an undergraduate institution. Am Biol Teach 66(3):183–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford M, Millar S, Smith Z, Hora M, DeLima L (2008) K-20 partnerships: literature review and recommendations for research. WCER Working Paper No. 2008-3. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Madison. Retrieved from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php

  • Dunningham A, Falloon G, Barnard T (2010) Science-for-Life—fulfilling potential: programme description document, 1-55. Scion Technical Report #47029. Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, Wellington

  • Falloon G (2006) A review of literature for the Scion partnerships (unpublished). Confidential report to Scion Ltd. Scion Research Ltd, Rotorua, pp 1–83

  • Falloon G (2009a) Establishing a school-scientist partnership in the primary school: findings from the Lynmore SSP, 1-19. Scion Technical Report #48294

  • Falloon G (2009b) A study of a Crown Research Institute (CRI)—school interaction: the Newstead experience, 1-24. Scion Technical Report #48295

  • Falloon G (2010) The Science-for-Life partnerships: does size really matter, and can ICT help? Waikato J Educ 16(1):37–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Falloon G (2012) Using videoconferencing in a school scientist partnership: students’ perceptions and scientists’ challenges. Research in Learning Technology (ALT-J) 20. Co-Action. Retrieved from http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/17194

  • Falloon G, Trewern A (2012) Developing school–scientist partnerships: lessons for scientists from Forests-of-Life. J Sci Educ Technol. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9372-1. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/13j44005768257jj/ [online first]

  • Goodlad J (1988) School-university partnerships for educational renewal: Rationale and concepts. In: Sirotnik K, Goodlad J (eds) School–university partnerships in action: concepts, cases and concerns. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 3–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Howitt C, Rennie L (2008). Evaluation of the scientists in schools pilot project. ACT: CSIRO education. Retrieved from http://www.scientistsinschools.edu.au/evaluation.htm

  • LaGuardia A (1999) A survey of high school/college partnerships for minority and disadvantaged students. High Sch J 82(2):97–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison J, Estes J (2007) Using scientists and real-world scenarios in professional development for middle school teachers. J Sci Teacher Educ 18(2):165–184. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9034-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) A nation at risk. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html

  • Nelson T (2005) Knowledge interactions in teacher-scientist partnerships: negotiation, consultation and rejection. J Teach Educ 56(4):382–395. doi:10.1177/0022487105279939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie L, Howitt C (2009). Science has changed my life: evaluation of the scientists in schools programme 2008–2009. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. CSIRO Education, Canberra. Retrieved from http://www.scientistsinschools.edu.au/downloads/SiSEvaluationReport2008-2009.pdf

  • Scion Research Ltd. (2006) Forests-of-Life information for teachers (unpublished manuscript). Scion Research Ltd., Rotorua

  • Scion Research Ltd. (2009) Science-for-Life information for teachers (unpublished manuscript). Scion Research Ltd., Rotorua

  • Stamp N, O’Brien T (2005) GK-12 Partnership: a model to advance change in science education. Bioscience 55(1):70–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner K (2000) Evaluation of scientist-teacher partnerships: benefits to scientist participants. In: Paper presented at The National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) annual conference. Retrieved from http://www.sfsesnet.org/publications/2000NARST.pdf

  • Tinker R (1997) Student scientist partnerships: shrewd maneuvers. J Sci Educ Technol 6(2):111–117. doi:10.1023/A:1025613914410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waschak M, Kingsley G (2006) Education partnerships: developing conceptual clarity for improving education. The National Science Federation Research, Evaluation and Technical Assistance (RETA) project (NSF 02-061). Retrieved from http://web.mac.com/byakutora/Byakutora/RETA_Articles_files/Waschak_Kingsley_White_Paper_RW042506.pdf

  • Wormstead S, Becker M, Congalton R (2002) Tools for successful student–teacher–scientist partnerships. J Sci Educ Technol 11(3):277–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Faculty of Education, University of Waikato, Hillcrest Rd, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Garry Falloon

Authors
  1. Garry Falloon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Garry Falloon.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Teacher (Semi‐Structured)

Interview Starter Questions

Additional Questions to be Generated According to Responses

(Introduce, thank, brief on recording procedure, data use, confidentiality, anonymity, etc.)

  1. 1.

    Can you please tell me a little bit about yourself and your role here at (school name)? Prompts: teaching experience, responsibilities, curriculum interests, etc.

  2. 2.

    How did you come to be involved in (partnership name)? Elaborate (why?)

  3. 3.

    What do you understand were the aims and purpose of (partnership name)?

  4. 4.

    Can you please describe the type of activities you and your students have been involved in with (partnership name)? Elaborate and expand (teacher involvement, student involvement, other).

  5. 5.

    What do you consider worked well in (partnership name)? Describe and elaborate on different components of (partnership name)—planning, communication, scientists’ work with students, feedback, etc.

  6. 6.

    From your perspective, were there any issues or shortcomings with (partnership name)? Describe and elaborate on different components of (partnership name)—planning, communication, scientists’ work with students, feedback, etc. (affect/impact, source, remedial, etc.).

  7. 7.

    What did you learn about the work of scientists from (partnership name)?

  8. 8.

    Do you think the scientists got anything out of (partnership name)? Elaborate (what? how do you know? etc.).

  9. 9.

    Would you like your students to be involved in any future programmes like (partnership name)? Elaborate (why/why not? benefits, possible changes, general satisfaction).

Thank you for your time. I will send you a copy of the interview to check once it has been transcribed

Appendix 2: Scientist (Semi‐Structured)

Interview Starter Questions

Additional Questions to be Generated According to Responses

(Introduce, thank, brief on recording procedure, data use, confidentiality, anonymity, etc.)

  1. 1.

    Firstly, can you please tell me a little of your role here at Scion?

  2. 2.

    Why did you agree to participate in this programme? (Have you done anything like this before?)

  3. 3.

    From your perspective, can you please tell me your understanding of the aims and purpose of (partnership name)?

  4. 4.

    Please describe your involvement in (partnership name). Elaborate and expand if needed

  5. 5.

    What do you consider worked well in (partnership name)? Elaborate and expand

  6. 6.

    What issues did you experience with your work in (partnership name)? Elaborate (affect/impact, source, remedial, etc.).

  7. 7.

    What did you learn about science in schools from (partnership name)?

  8. 8.

    What do you think the teachers and students got out of (partnership name)?

  9. 9.

    Would you be prepared to be involved in any future programmes like (partnership name)? Elaborate (changes needed, issues with doing this, etc.)

Thank you for your time. I will send you a copy of the interview to check once it has been transcribed.

Appendix 3: SurveyGizmo Online Questionnaire Statements

CRI/Education Partnerships

  1. 1.

    To what extent were you satisfied with the science expertise of the scientists involved in your partnership?

    • () Totally dissatisfied

    • () Somewhat dissatisfied

    • () Neutral

    • () Very satisfied

    • () Extremely satisfied

  2. 2.

    To what extent were you satisfied with the pedagogical knowledge of the scientists involved in your partnership?

    • () Totally dissatisfied

    • () Somewhat dissatisfied

    • () Neutral

    • () Very satisfied

    • () Extremely satisfied

  3. 3.

    To what extent were you satisfied that your partnership met your expectations?

    • () Totally dissatisfied

    • () Somewhat dissatisfied

    • () Neutral

    • () Very satisfied

    • () Extremely satisfied

  4. 4.

    How satisfied were you with the quality of partnership facilitation?

    • () Totally dissatisfied

    • () Somewhat dissatisfied

    • () Neutral

    • () Very satisfied

    • () Extremely satisfied

  5. 5.

    How satisfied were you with the evaluation and/or feedback processes in your partnership?

    • () Totally dissatisfied

    • () Somewhat dissatisfied

    • () Neutral

    • () Very satisfied

    • () Extremely satisfied

  6. 6.

    How satisfied were you with the planning meetings and/or discussions related to your partnership?

    • () Totally dissatisfied

    • () Somewhat dissatisfied

    • () Neutral

    • () Very satisfied

    • () Extremely satisfied

  7. 7.

    How satisfied were you with the process of negotiation of partnership purpose and goals?

    • () Totally dissatisfied

    • () Somewhat dissatisfied

    • () Neutral

    • () Very satisfied

    • () Extremely satisfied

  8. 8.

    How satisfied were you with general communication about and during your partnership? (e.g., personal communication, emails, documentation, phone, etc.)

    • () Totally dissatisfied

    • () Somewhat dissatisfied

    • () Neutral

    • () Very satisfied

    • () Extremely satisfied

  9. 9.

    To what extent do you consider your partnership has required you to understand the world of scientists and science?

    • () Not at all

    • () Only a little

    • () Neutral

    • () A lot

    • () Completely/high

  10. 10.

    To what extent do you consider your partnership has impacted upon how you teach science?

    • () Not at all

    • () Only a little

    • () Neutral

    • () A lot

    • () Completely/high

  11. 11.

    To what extent has your partnership improved your confidence in teaching science?

    • () Not at all

    • () Only a little

    • () Neutral

    • () A lot

    • () Completely/high

  12. 12.

    To what extent did your partnership “fit in” with your existing planning, learning objectives/intentions, or school programme of work?

    • () Not at all

    • () Only a little

    • () Neutral

    • () A lot

    • () Completely/high

  13. 13.

    To what extent do you consider your partnership has contributed positively to student learning in science in your class?

    • () Not at all

    • () Only a little

    • () Neutral

    • () A lot

    • () Completely/high

  14. 14.

    To what extent do you consider your partnership has impacted positively upon other staff or school programmes in science?

    • () Not at all

    • () Only a little

    • () Neutral

    • () A lot

    • () Completely/high

  15. 15.

    How effective do you consider your partnership was in supporting your classroom science programme?

    • () Not at all

    • () Only a little

    • () Neutral

    • () A lot

    • () Completely/high

  16. 16.

    Overall, how would you rate your level of satisfaction with your partnership?

    • () Not at all

    • () Only a little

    • () Neutral

    • () A lot

    • () Completely/high

Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. Your responses will be used to inform changes to the partnership model, and for reporting purposes. Please note that this is an anonymous survey, and no specific responses are in any way attributable to individuals involved.

Table 2 Appendix 4 Partnership profile summary
Full size table
Table 3 Appendix 5 Samples of qualitative data coded under themes
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Falloon, G. Forging School–Scientist Partnerships: A Case of Easier Said than Done?. J Sci Educ Technol 22, 858–876 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9435-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9435-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation