Transcript Document

Developing Primary Science
In-Service Courses
@
Science Learning Centre: East Midlands
Dr Tina Jarvis University of Leicester UK
Outline of talk
1. Introduction to Science Learning Centres in England
2. Research giving a picture of primary science in England
3. Research on the effect of in-service on teachers and pupils
4. Implications for in-service education
National Network of Science Learning Centres
• National Centre at York
• 9 Regional Centres
• Courses for all levels
– primary to FE
• Courses for all colleagues
– teachers, technicians,
teaching assistants
York
East
Midlands
Science Learning Centre
East Midlands
A collaboration between:
• University of Leicester
• University of Nottingham
• Bishop Grosseteste College, Lincoln
Courses take place at each venue.
Courses for:
• Early years teachers
• Primary teachers
• Secondary teachers
• Technicians
Linked optional opportunities to take a Post-Graduate Certificate in Educational
Studies with tutorial support
Primary Science in England
A required part of the English National Curriculum.
Originally a core subject equal to maths and English but in practice is seen as
less important.
Pupils have approximately 2-3 hours a week.
Science is often presented in a didactic way.
Pupils rarely carry out independent
open-ended investigations.
Teachers’ lack science knowledge which inhibits posing open questions.
Potentially disruptive children discourage provision of practical activities.
Limited equipment makes organisation difficult.
Limited time restricts setting up and clearing away practical work.
Oldest children spend long periods revising for the Standard Assessment
Tasks at 11 years old.
The research
AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust
2 year in-service programme 1999 - 2000
Schools
• Intakes from socially deprived areas
• Under performance in national science tests
and/or
• OFSTED reports highlighting science as a
weakness
31 City of Leicester primary schools
70 teachers
1878 pupils aged 6-12
Primary pupils’ attitudes to science in schools and in society:
Attitude Instrument
1.
Liking school in the whole school experience.
2.
Science investigations attitudes about science experiments.
3.
Science enthusiasm: about in science at school & at home.
4.
Social context views on the uses of science to improve the human condition.
5.
Science as difficult subject ascertains whether children think science is an easy or difficult subject.
6.
Interest in space probes pupils’ views of the value of space exploration
There was also a cognitive test.
Item responses for Being in School (Means)
How do you feel about
Jan 1999
Jan 2000
N= 805-842
N= 684-693
Using the computer
4.79
4.82
Reading
4.18
4.12
Writing
4.03
4.00
Doing science experiments
4.05
3.91
Coming to school
3.91
3.80
Doing sums
3.71
3.69
Working with shapes
3.41
3.56
Spelling
3.74
3.48
Working by yourself
3.46
3.31
Writing in science book
3.54
3.23
Liking school sub-scale: Year 2 & 6 children's attitudes: Jan 2000 (means)
How do you feel about
Year 2
Year 6
N= 103-5
N= 94-101
Writing
4.31**
3.87**
Reading
4.27**
3.68**
Spelling
3.65*
3.35*
Doing sums
3.61
3.88
Working with shapes
3.94**
3.66**
Using the computer
4.79
4.91
Doing science experiments
3.91
4.19
Writing in science book
3.16
3.23
Working by yourself
3.27
3.11
Coming to school
3.96*
3.81*
Overall scale Liking School
38.87
38.29
Sig. Diff.
** p < 1%
* P < 5%
Item responses for Science experiments scale (means)
1999
2000
N= 830-839
N= 687-695
Choosing your own equipment
4.49
4.49
Working with friends
4.46
4.53
Telling teacher what you have done
4.03
3.96
Finding out what happens yourself
3.99
3.87
Watching teacher do an experiment
3.98
3.94
Telling friends what you have done
3.96
3.92
Teacher telling you what to do
3.91
3.78
Finding out why experiment works
3.88
3.84
Working out what to do yourself
3.47
3.35
Working by yourself
3.36
3.29
How do you feel about
Responses for Sub-scales in What I really think of science broken down by year
group for Jan 2000 data
Mean score for each year group
Sub scales
Science enthusiasm
1
2
3
4
5
6
20.33
19.99
16.97
16.20
15.72 16.00
19.87
20.01
18.72
19.16
19.60 19.66
(Grand mean 16.86)
Social context
(Grand mean 19.46)
Difficult subject
(Grand mean 10.45)
10.95 11.94
10.88 10.24
10.13 9.29
Science enthusiasm scores by gender & year for January 1999 and 2000
(Means)
1999
Year
2000
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
1
20.07
19.13
21.10
19.64
2
19.86
18.76
20.47
19.43
3
17.55
17.46
16.96
16.98
4
16.74
17.40
16.41
16.00
5
16.30
15.90
16.38 *
15.08 *
6
15.78*
14.42*
16.52
15.31
All
17.21oo
16.76°°
17.31**
16.39 **
Decreases in enthusiasm across the six year groups are always significant p<1% anova.
** Sig, gender difference, p<1% *Sig. gender diff p<5%, t-test
°° Sig.diff between boys and girls p<1%, two way-analysis of variance, F(1,783)= 4.489
Previous research informed course design
1. Two teachers or more from each school - more likely to have positive
changes in classroom practice and dissemination.
2. The course content was developed after discussions with head teachers &
teachers so they had ownership.
3. Subject knowledge support was provided by 8 days contact time as
research indicated that less than this would not result in conceptual
changes.
4. Teachers were required to do school-based work with some tutorial
support as in-service outside the classroom often does not change
teaching practice.
10-day in-service course over 1 year
Developing and Assessing Investigations
Developing open-ended investigations in
Electricity
Melting
Evaporation and dissolving
Friction
Tutor visits supported classroom follow-up activities.
Assessing teachers’ confidence,attitudes to science and cognition
• Personal information eg gender & experience
• Confidence about teaching science, English, mathematics, and ICT
• Confidence on delivering Primary Science
• Science attitude scale of 49 items asking about importance of
i) Encouraging pupil initiative, interest and wonder
ii) Systematic, structured approaches to learning
iii) Empirical, pupil-participative science
iv) In-service education
v) Child-centred, constructivist process
vi) Formative assessment
• Cognitive test
Teachers’ changes in cognitive scores (means)
Pre test
N= 68
Post test
N= 46
Electricity
5.40
10.20**
Change of state
8.98
11.46**
Forces
16.21
21.15**
Cognitive sub-scales
** p<1%
* p<5%
Investigations item
1.65
2.35*
Overall gains in science
understanding
32.22
45.15**
Sig improvement
Paired t-test /
Wilcoxen test for
N=46 on both
tests
Teacher types according to score range (high, average or low)
Disaffected
N=5
Limited
cognitive devel.
N= 13
Enthusiastic
N= 5
Unaffected
professionals
N= 9
Cognitive Pre test
Low
Low
High §
High
Cognitive Post test
Average
Low but
improved
High § but
improved
High § slight
Teaching attitudes Pre
Average
Average
Average
Average
Teaching attitudes Post
Low
Average
High
Average
Competence Pre test
Low
Average
Average
High
Competence Post test
Low but
improved
Average but
improved
High
Average
Teaching confidence Pre
Low
Average
Average
High
Teaching confidence Post
Low but
improved
Average but
improved
High
Average
High and Low cells are at 5% significance at least with the exception of cells marked §
improvement
Effect of in-service on pupils
• Pupils attitudes to school did not deteriorate over year
• Boys and girls liked more independent practical work
• Enthusiasm for science still falls for both boys & girls
– This could be the expected decline.
• Link between enthusiasm and difficultly disappears
• Pupils’ overall mean cognitive score showed highly
significant increases which were not matched in a
control sample of 77 pupils
• Overall positive cognitive and attitudinal effects mask great class variation.
Disaffected teachers (5) Years 2 & 3
Modest cognitive & confidence gains from
low base
Drop in attitudes to investigative science &
theory
Absences / little work in classroom
Significant fall in pupils’ attitudes
Cognitive rise in Year 3
Limited cognitive development (13) Years 3-6
Significant cognitive gains from a low base
Gains in confidence & competency from
average base
Good course attendance / limited classroom
follow-up
Pupils’ attitudes rise from a significantly low base
Pupils’ cognitive gains below average
Enthusiastically fired (5) Years 4 & 5
Cognitive gains from a high level
Sharp rise in attitudes, confidence &
competency
Mainly whole school follow up
No significant change in pupils’ attitudes
Pupils’ cognitive gains around average
Unaffected professionals (9) Y6
Minor change from a high cognitive base
Little change in attitudes, confidence &
competency
Class and whole school follow up
No significant change in pupils’ science attitudes
Cognitive gains above average
What does this mean for in-service?
At least two main types of teacher in-service depending teachers’
initial level of cognition and confidence are needed.
1. Short courses for teachers with a high cognitive base, and
2. Long-term in-service with school support for classroom-based
work for teachers with initial low attainment.
Short courses
• To retain teachers by keeping & extending their
interest in science teaching.
• Innovative pedagogical strategies to enthuse more of
the unaffected professionals.
Substantial courses
• Over 8 days contact with opportunity to revisit
persistent misconceptions.
• Self-confidence needs addressing.
• School support for classroom-based work.
• Focus for early years teaching showing value of
science for early years’ children & showing science
integrated with other subjects.
The challenge
To provide what research says is effective in-service to
Schools and headteachers who
• Are not aware of the value of sustained in-service,
• Have limited funds with many demands on their
funds.
Primary teachers who
• Have to be experts in many subjects
• Are already overworked and probably not
appreciated enough.
Courses at Regional Science Learning Centre: East
Midlands
2004/05 Courses of 5 or 7 days with links to tutor support and accreditation
towards a University Certificate as well as 1 day courses.
Despite substantial reduction in fees, teachers / schools did not choose to
come on the long courses. They did attend the one day courses.
We are now offering Mix and Match courses.
Eg Teachers can choose 1- 4 sessions from
Assessment
Healthy Eating
Rocks & Soils
Plants
Substantial bespoke courses
Focused help for four Year 5 and 6 teachers in one school who have problems providing practical
investigations in their classroom. The Centre has provided individual tutorials with the teachers and
two very focused 2 hour workshops. This has been extended next year to four Year 1 & 2 teachers as
well as continuing with the Year 5 & 6 teachers. (2-3 year project)
Secondary school and its 9 feeder primary schools. Secondary school is giving money and equipment to
the primary schools. The Centre is providing workshops for all the teachers at each school and some
joint workshops at the secondary school for teachers teaching the 11 year old pupils.
Early years & cross curricular
• Science through discovery & play
• Cross curricular science
• Creativity in science
Other courses
• Science for Recently Qualified
Primary teachers
• Quality in primary investigations
• ICT Key Stage 1 & 2
For more information…
•[email protected]
• 0116 252 3771
• www.sciencelearningcentres.org.uk/em
T. Jarvis & A. Pell (2002) The effect of the Challenger experience on elementary children’s attitudes to science Journal
of Research in Science Teaching 39(10) 979-1000.
T. Jarvis & A. Pell (2002) Changes in primary boys’ and girls’ attitudes to school and science during a two-year science
in-service programme The Curriculum Journal 13(1) 43-69.
T. Jarvis, A. Pell, F. McKeon (2003) Changes in primary teachers’ science knowledge and understanding during a two
year in-service programme Research in Science & Technological Education 21(1) 17-42
T. Jarvis and A. Pell (2004) Primary teachers’ changing attitudes and cognition during a two year science in -service
programme and their effect on pupils International Journal of Science Education 26(14) 1787-1811
T. Jarvis and A. Pell (2005) Factors influencing elementary school children’s attitudes to science before, during and
following a visit to the UK National Space Centre Journal Research in Science Teaching 42(1), 53-83