Research in Science Education

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 273–298 | Cite as

A Window for a Purpose: Developing a Framework for Describing Effective Science Teaching and Learning

  • Russell Tytler
Article

Abstract

This paper describes the development of a framework – the SIS Components – for describing effective teaching and learning in science, to support a system wide change initiative. The methodology used and the analysis that led to their refinement, is traced to expose the different issues involved in constructing the notion of 'effective practice.' These issues have to do with purpose, politics and audience. They determine features of the framework such as specificity, elements focused on, and the support structures that are put in place to establish the particular discourse being promoted. The paper describes the different research methods used to establish, to promote and to validate the components, and outlines the different senses in which this and any framework can be seen as contingent on the setting for which it is intended.

change models effective teaching science learning science teaching teacher change teacher development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baird, J. R., & Mitchell, I. J. (Eds.). (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study – The PEEL project.Melbourne, Australia: Monash University.Google Scholar
  2. Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University.Google Scholar
  3. Berliner, D. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5–13.Google Scholar
  4. Brunkhorst, B. J. (1992). A study of student outcomes and teacher characteristics in exemplary middle and junior high school science programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 571–583.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, D. (2000, December). The practice of researching practice: Inevitable reflexivities. Keynote paper presented at the symposium Contemporary Approaches to Research in Mathematics, Health, Environmental and Science Education, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, D. (2001, December). Teaching/learning. In D. Clarke (Ed.), Perspectives on practice and meaning in mathematics and science classrooms (Chapter 12, pp. 291–320). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Cruikshank, D. R. (1986). Profile of effective teacher. Educational Horizons, 64(2), 80–86.Google Scholar
  8. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science – from behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–25). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Fensham, P., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (1994). Science content and constructivist views of learning and teaching. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. White (Eds.), The content of science. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  12. Fraser, B., & Treagust, D. (1986). Validity and use of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment in higher education. Higher Education, 15(1–2), 37–57.Google Scholar
  13. Gallagher, J., & Tobin, K. (1987). Teacher management and student engagement in high school science. Science Education, 71, 535–555.Google Scholar
  14. Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2000). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  16. Gott, R., Duggan, S., & Roberts, R. (1999). Understanding scientific evidence. RetrievedDecember 2002 from http://www.dur.ac.uk/~ded0www/evidence_main1. htmGoogle Scholar
  17. Gough, A., & Sharpley, B. (2002, April). Science with a difference and a twist – stories of primary students' environmental science interest and action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Gough, A., Marshall, A., Matthews, R., Milne, G., Tytler, R., & White, G. (1998). Science baseline survey. Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  20. Hameyer, U., van den Akker, J., Anderson, R. D., & Ekholm, M. (1995). Portraits of productive schools. An international study of institutionalising activity-based practices in elementary science. Albany, New York: SUNY.Google Scholar
  21. Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers' understanding of concepts of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 93–105.Google Scholar
  22. Harlen, W. (1999). Effective teaching of science. A review of research. Using Research Series, 21. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education. ERIC Reproductive Service ED 431 772.Google Scholar
  23. Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: Implications for classroom learning.Studies in Science Education, 22, 1–41.Google Scholar
  24. Luke, A., Elkins, J., Weir, K., Land, R., Carrington, V., Dole, S. et al. (2003). Beyond the Middle: A report about literacy and numeracy development of target group students in the middle years of schooling. Brisbane, QLD: Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved April 2003 from http://www.gu.edu.au/school/cls/clearinghouse/.Google Scholar
  25. Mitchell, I. (2000). PEEL in practice: 650 ideas for quality teaching. Melbourne, VIC: Monash University CD.Google Scholar
  26. Murphy, P., & Davidson, M. (2002, April). Exploring the characteristics of effective teaching and learning: A study of primary science classrooms. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of NARST, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  27. Murphy, P., Davidson, M., Qualter, A., Simon, S., & Watt, D. (2001). Effective practice in primary science. Report of an exploratory study funded by the Nuffield Curriculum Projects Centre. London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  28. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.Google Scholar
  29. Penick, J., & Yager, J. (1983). The search for excellence in science education. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 621–623.Google Scholar
  30. Sanford, J. (1987). Management of science classroom tasks and effects on students' learning opportunities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 249–265.Google Scholar
  31. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.Google Scholar
  32. SIS Project Team. (2002). The science in schools research project: Report of phase 2. Melbourne, Vic: Deakin University Consultancy and Development Unit.Google Scholar
  33. SIS Project Team. (2003). The Science in schools research project: Report of phase 3. Melbourne, Vic: Deakin University Consultancy and Development Unit.Google Scholar
  34. Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 501–520.Google Scholar
  35. Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. (1987). Target students in the science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 61–75.Google Scholar
  36. Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1988). Investigations of exemplary practice in high school science and mathematics. Australian Journal of Education, 32(1), 75–94.Google Scholar
  37. Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1990). What does it mean to be an exemplary teacher? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(1), 3–25.Google Scholar
  38. Treagust, D. F. (1991). A case study of two exemplary biology teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 329–342.Google Scholar
  39. Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (in press). From 'try it and see' to strategic exploration: Characterising young children's scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  40. Tytler, R. (2001). Describing and supporting effective science teaching and learning in Australian schools – validation issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching. http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v2_issue2.Google Scholar
  41. Tytler, R., Waldrip, B., & Griffiths, M. (2002). Talking to effective teachers of primary science. Investigating, 18(4), 11–15.Google Scholar
  42. Tytler, R., Waldrip, B., & Griffiths, M. (in press). Windows into practice: Constructing effective science teaching and learning within a systemic reform project. International Journal of Science Education.Google Scholar
  43. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1989). Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 577–586.Google Scholar
  46. Yager, R., & Penick, J. (1984).What students say about science teaching and science teachers. European Journal of Science Education, 6, 143–152.Google Scholar
  47. Yager, R., Hidayat, E., & Penick, J. (1988). Features which separate least effective from most effective science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(3), 165–177.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Russell Tytler
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationDeakin UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations