Transcript Instructions for presentations

Creativity in science and
mathematics in the early years
Presentation based on D2.2 Conceptual Framework http://www.creative-little-scientists.eu
Coordinator Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece: Dr. Fani Stylianidou
Lead partners for this deliverable
Open University, UK: Prof. Anna Craft, Prof. Teresa Cremin, Dr Jim Clack;
Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln, UK: Dr. Ashley Compton, Jane Johnston, Alison Riley
Contributing partner
Institute of Education, University of London, UK: Dr. Esme Glauert, Dr. Andrew Manches
The project seeks to provide
• A clear picture of existing and possible practices in science
and mathematics education in the early years
• Implications for development of children’s creativity and the
emergence of appropriate learning outcomes, including
children’s attitudes to science and mathematics
• Policy guidelines, as well as curricula and exemplary materials
for teacher education
Project Partners
Focus on potential for creativity in early
years mathematics and science
CLS Work Packages
Timescale
WP1
Management Framework
Completed
WP2
Conceptual framework
Completed
WP3
Desk study of policy documentation and teacher survey
Leading to Comparative Report
In progress
October 2012
WP4
In depth fieldwork in schools
January to April
2013
WP5
Development of teacher training materials
In progress
Ends October2013
WP6
Dissemination of materials and activities
ongoing
Presentation based on D2.2 Conceptual Framework
Focus on synergies and differences
between IBSE and CA
Synergies and differences between IBSE and CA
2.2 Science and
Mathematics Education
IoE UK
2.4 Teacher Education
AUC Belgium
D2.2 Conceptual
Framework
OU and BG UK
2.3 Creativity in
Education
OU UK
2.4 Comparative
Education
UEF Finland
Overarching concerns
• Aims and values
• Bridging perspectives
• Beyond the rhetoric of creativity
Comparing IBSE and CA
Inquiry-based science education
Creative approaches
• Widespread promotion of IBSE
• Varied definitions – what
scientists do, how students learn,
pedagogical approach
• Features include: questioning,
giving priority to evidence,
formulating explanations &
connecting to scientific
knowledge, communicating and
justifying explanations
( for example Minner et al 2010)
• Problem finding & problem
solving, playful exploration,
individual, collaborative and
communal engagement
• Roles of innovation, originality,
ownership and control,
connection making
• Involves risk taking, independent
judgment, resilience
• Importance of intrinsic
motivation, curiosity
(for example Chappell et al 2008)
Synergies and differences
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Play and exploration
Motivation and affect
Dialogue and communication
Problem solving and agency
Questioning and curiosity
Reflection and reasoning
7. Teacher scaffolding and involvement
8. Assessment for learning
1 Play and exploration
• Role of play and exploration in learning from earliest years
solving tasks, making causal inferences, social experimentation
• Importance of context to foster interest, engagement
rich physical environment, relevance, links to everyday life
• Need for sufficient time and space
• Importance of varied ways of representing & expressing ideas
• Key role of the adult in scaffolding inquiry and creativity
2 Motivation and affect
• Importance of links to prior knowledge and everyday
experience
• Practical exploration of immediate surroundings
• Affective dimension – integral part of learning – not just a
catalyst
• Role of aesthetic experience
• Power of narrative and dramatic story making
3 Dialogue and collaboration
•
•
•
•
Communication to externalise, share and develop thinking
Developing metacognitive awareness
Considering alternative strategies and explanations
Support of the adult, sensitive to children’s capabilities
–
–
–
–
Fostering a supportive environment, ground rules for collaboration
Listening to children’s ideas
Open dialogue
Positioning and interventions vary over time
4 Problem solving & agency
(Barrow 2010)
Learner poses a
question
Question
provided by
teacher
Beyond simple dichotomies
(Kind and Kind 2007)
‘Good’ crea ve teaching
‘Bad’ tradi onal teaching
Student orientated
Teacher orientated
Group/team work
Individual work
Coopera ve learning
Individual learning
Explora ve tasks
Close-end tasks
Open-ended problems
Close-end problems
Open inves ga ons
‘Recipe’ work
Hands-on teaching
Lectures
Outdoor ac vi es
Classroom ac vi es
Project work
Lectures
Issue-orientated
Concept orientated
Teachers taking risks
Teachers playing safe
)
5 Questioning and curiosity
• Time and experience needed to foster children’s own
questions
• Recognising questions implicit in children’s actions
• Need for teacher modelling of curiosity and self reflection
• Varied forms of teacher questioning for different purposes
– Responsive to children’s interests
– Fostering understanding and metacognition
– How far do children understand open questions?
6 Reflection and reasoning
• Greater focus in IBSE than in CA
• Challenges in coordinating and differentiating theories and
evidence
• Influence of children’s pre-conceptions
• However growing awareness of children’s capabilities
• Key roles of the teacher
– Developing metacognitive awareness
– Building on varied forms of expression as starting points
– Fostering appreciation of scientific argumentation and explanation
7 Teacher scaffolding and involvement
• Scaffolding to foster independent inquirers, problem solvers, creative
thinkers
• Dynamic nature - fostering independence over time
• Role of standing back
– Acting as fellow collaborator, provocateur
– Challenge to traditional power relations
•
Complexities of the issues involved
– ‘two edged sword of pedagogy’ (Bonawitz et al 2011)
– ‘efficiency and innovation’ (Schwarz et al 2005)
• Issues in transition from pre-school to primary education
8 Assessment for learning
• Vital to inform sensitive and responsive approach to early
years teaching
• Importance of holistic, multimodal approaches, digital
technologies
• Assessment in context
• Role of child in self and peer assessment - evaluating ideas,
metacognition, reflecting on learning within a community
Identifying factors associated with creativity in
early years science and mathematics education
• Aims, purposes, priorities – cognitive, social and affective
dimensions – links to creative dispositions
• Pedagogy – nature of learning activities, teacher role,
assessment approaches
• Contextual factors – curriculum content, location, materials
and resources, time, groupings
• Teacher- related factors – attitudes, beliefs
Research questions
1.
How are the teaching, learning and assessment of science and mathematics in
Early Years in the partner countries conceptualised by teachers and what role if any
does creativity play in these?
2.
What approaches are used in the teaching, learning and assessment of science and
mathematics in Early Years in the partner countries and what role if any does
creativity play in these?
3.
In what ways do these approaches seek to foster young children’s learning and
motivation in science and mathematics, and how do teachers perceive their role in
doing so?
1.
How can findings emerging from analysis in relation to questions 1-3 inform the
development of practice in the classroom and in teacher education (ITE and CPD)?
How you can be involved
• Express interest via the website www.creative-little-scientists.eu
click on Participate (main menu at the top of the page)
• Encourage teachers to participate in the survey
–
–
–
–
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CreativeLittleScientists-EN
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CreativeLittleScientists-SCOT
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CreativeLittleScientists-NI
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CreativeLittleScientists-WALES
• Suggest schools that might be interested in the in depth research
• Participate in focus groups linked to development of teacher
education materials
• Participate in dissemination events
Acknowledgements
Presentation based on D2.2 Conceptual Framework http://www.creative-little-scientists.eu
Coordinator Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece: Dr. Fani Stylianidou
Lead partners for this deliverable
Open University, UK: Prof. Anna Craft, Prof. Teresa Cremin, Dr Jim Clack;
Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln, UK: Dr. Ashley Compton, Jane Johnston, Alison
Riley
Contributing partner
Institute of Education, University of London, UK: Dr. Esme Glauert, Dr. Andrew Manches
This publication/presentation reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be
held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.