Conclusion
It has been demonstrated that a range of factors contribute to the low status attributed by teachers to science education in many elementary school settings. The solution to this crisis is being sought by several education systems in Australia and the effective inservice/professional development models adopted invariably consider teachers as interested adult learners as they partake in extended courses. Furthermore, the models include content on the ways children learn in science, and aid in the development of teaching activities and units appropriate to the curriculum under which the participants operate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BOARD OF TEACHER EDUCATION (1987).Project 21 teachers for the Twenty First Century, Board of Teacher Education, Queensland.
BROCKLEY, B.P. (1985). The Structure and Evaluation of a Primary Science Teaching Education Program. In Owen, J.M., Johnson, N.J. & Welsh, R.J.Primary Concerns. Centre for Program Evaluation, Melbourne, C.A.E.
COULTER, F. & INGVARSON, L. (1984).Professional Development of Schooling: Rules and Responsibilities. A Report of the Commonwealth School Commission, Canberra.
CRAWFORD, G. & ZEEGERS, Y. (1988). SciTec Project—Inservice in Primary Science and Technology.SASTA Journal.88(3), 21–33.
D.E.E.T. (Department of Employment Education and Training) (1988).Teachers' Learning. The Report of the Inservice Teacher Education Project. Canberra, AGPS.
DYNAN, M. & TREAGUST, D. (1985). Activities? Views of CONASTA '84 Participants.Australian Science Teachers Journal.31(2), 41–44.
FENSHAM, P.J. (1988). Theory in Practice: How to assist science teachers to teach constructively. Paper given at AARE conference Armidale, 1988.
HARLEN, W. (1985).Teaching and Learning in Primary Science. London, Harper and Row.
INVESTIGATING SCIENCE K-6 (1980).Curriculum Policy Statement. N.S.W. Department of Education.
JOHNSON, N.J., OWEN, J.M. & WELSH, R.J. (1985). Structure of Programs. In Owen, J.M., Johnson, N.J. & Welsh, R.J.Primary Concerns. Centre for Program Evaluation. Melbourne C.A.E.
OWEN, J., JOHNSON, N., CLARKE, D., LOVITT, C. & MORONY, W. (1988).MCTP Professional Development Package, Guidelines for Consultants and Curriculum Leaders. Canberra, C.D.C.
SCHODDE, P. (1988). The Preparation of Science Teachers.SASTA Journal.88(3), 48–49.
SCOTT, A.W. (1988). Effectiveness of pre-service science courses at A.C.A.E. Report to the Research Committee. A.C.A.E. Armidale.
SHRIGLEY, R.L. (1977). The function of professional reinforcement in supporting a more positive attitude of elementary teachers towards science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching.14(4), 603–616.
SKAMP, K. (1988). Preservice primary education in N.S.W.: a comparative analysis of imposed science education curricula.Research in Science Education.18 71–82.
WARNER, D. & LIPSKE, I. (1981). Towards a Systematic Approach to Inservice Education for Teachers.Unicorn.7(2), 180–190.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Scott, A.W. Inservice for elementary teachers in science education — Some directions for the future. Research in Science Education 19, 249–256 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356864
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356864