teachers shaping the science curriculum - quteprints.qut.edu.au/15920/1/philip_keys_thesis.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS SHAPING
THE SCIENCE CURRICULUM: THE INFLUENCE OF
TEACHER KNOWLEDGE
Philip Mark Keys
B.S.E., M.M.Ed. Mgmt., Grad. Dip. Teach (Primary)
Centre for Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for
the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
2003
CERTIFICATE
i
KEY WORDS
Beliefs, change, coaching, craft knowledge, curriculum enactment, educational
criticism, ethnographic fiction, mentoring, narrative, organisational
development, pedagogical knowledge, practical theories, professional
development, science teaching, teacher knowledge
iii
ABSTRACT
This thesis reports on how primary and secondary teachers’ knowledge
influenced the implementation of a Year 1-10 science syllabus which was
introduced into Queensland in 1999. The study investigated how the teachers’
knowledge of the primary and secondary teachers differed and how teachers’
knowledge impacted on the implementation of the science curriculum. Teacher
knowledge otherwise referred to as teacher beliefs and practices has been
acknowledged as an influence in the implementation of curriculum. Yet, a
considerable portion of curriculum evaluation has focused on measuring the
successful implementation of the intended curriculum and not the enactment.
As a result, few studies have investigated how the curriculum has been
influenced by teacher knowledge or have compared primary and secondary
teacher knowledge. Furthermore, in order to provide a seamless grade one to
ten science syllabus it is necessary to compare primary and secondary teacher
beliefs and practices to determine whether or not the beliefs and practices held
by these two groups of teachers is similar or dissimilar and how these beliefs
and practices in turn, impact on the implementation of a curriculum. The
research adopted Eisner’s (1991) methodology of educational criticism and
used a comparative case study approach to investigate the teacher knowledge
of four primary and three secondary teachers. Data were presented as a
dialogue between three composite characters, a lower primary, a middle/upper
primary and a secondary teacher. The results revealed that teachers utilised
three sets of beliefs to shape the implementation of the science curriculum.
These were categorised as expressed, entrenched and manifested beliefs. The
primary and secondary teachers did possess similar sets of beliefs and
knowledge bases but their strategies for implementation in some instances were
different. Furthermore, these sets of beliefs and knowledge bases served as
motivator or an inhibitor to teach science in the manner that they did. A
theoretical model was developed to explain how these sets of beliefs influenced
the curriculum. This study provides professional developers with a framework
to observe teacher beliefs in action and thereby to assist in the facilitation of
curriculum change.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE ................................................................................................... I KEY WORDS .................................................................................................. III ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................V TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................VII LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................X LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................X LIST OF APPENDICES ....................................................................................X SIGNED DECLARATION.............................................................................. XI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................XII DEDICATION ................................................................................................XII PAPERS DERIVED FROM THIS RESEARCH...........................................XIII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1
1.1 PREAMBLE AND CHAPTER OVERVIEW ............................................. 1 1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY............................................................. 1
1.2.1 International curriculum reform ...................................................... 2 1.2.2 Curriculum reform in Australia ....................................................... 4 1.2.3 Contextual issues and the influence of teacher knowledge .............. 6
1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................ 9 1.4 PROBLEM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................... 10 1.5 PURPOSE .................................................................................................. 12 1.6 SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................ 12 1.7 OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS ................................................................. 13
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................... 17 2.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW ........................................................................... 17 2.2 CHANGE ................................................................................................... 18
2.2.1 Change at the organisational level ................................................ 19 2.2.2 Change at the individual level........................................................ 22 2.2.3 Inhibiting factors for individual change......................................... 25
2.3 TEACHER KNOWLEDGE....................................................................... 27 2.3.1 Defining teachers’ craft knowledge ............................................... 30 2.3.2 Research into teachers’ craft knowledge ....................................... 31
2.4 CURRICULUM EVALUATION IN AUSTRALIA ................................. 37 2.4.1 The fidelity perspective................................................................... 38 2.4.2 The mutual adaptation perspective ................................................ 42 2.4.3 Curriculum enactment perspective................................................. 45 2.4.4 Summation of research................................................................... 49
2.5 INTERNATIONAL CURRICULUM EVALUATION............................. 52 2.5.1 Curriculum evaluation in the United Kingdom.............................. 52 2.5.2 Curriculum reform in the United States ......................................... 57
2.6 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ........................................................ 60 2.6.1 The nature of professional development ........................................ 61 2.6.2 Professional development models .................................................. 63 2.6.3 Elements of professional development ........................................... 71
2.7 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 74 2.7.1 Theoretical framework ................................................................... 76 2.7.2 Theoretical proposition .................................................................. 77 2.7.3 Concluding statement ..................................................................... 78
vii
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................ 81 3.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW............................................................................ 81 3.2 EDUCATIONAL CRITICISM .................................................................. 81
3.2.1 Structure and stages of educational criticism ................................ 82 3.2.2 Examples of educational criticism.................................................. 84 3.2.3 Comparing educational criticism with other methodologies ......... 86
3.3 VERIFICATION AND PROCESS OF DATA ANALYSIS .................... 88 3.4 THE RESEARCHER AS AN EDUCATIONAL CRITIC......................... 92 3.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ..................................................................... 95
CHAPTER 4 PROCEDURE, METHODS AND ANALYSIS.................... 97 4.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW............................................................................ 97 4.2 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY .................................................................... 97 4.3 PARTICIPANTS........................................................................................ 98 4.4 COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA .......................................... 99
4.4.1 Structural corroboration ................................................................ 99 4.4.2 Consensual validation .................................................................. 102 4.4.3 Referential adequacy .................................................................... 103
4.5 THE ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER ..................................................... 106 4.6 ETHICAL ISSUES................................................................................... 107 4.7 PRESENTATION OF DATA .................................................................. 109
CHAPTER 5 TWO SIDES OF THE COIN............................................... 111 5.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW.......................................................................... 111 5.2 THE QUEENSLAND SCIENCE SYLLABUS ....................................... 112 5.3 CONTEXT ............................................................................................... 112
5.3.1 Character description................................................................... 113 5.3.2 School setting................................................................................ 114
5.4 ISSUES OF SCIENCE EDUCATION..................................................... 119 5.5 PLANNING.............................................................................................. 125 5.6 IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................. 136 5.7 ASSESSMENT......................................................................................... 144 5.8 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE........................... 149 5.9 EPILOGUE............................................................................................... 153
5.9.1 Referential adequacy with the participating teachers.................. 153 5.9.2 Referential adequacy with a group of teachers and administrators
......................................................................................................... 154 5.9.3 Referential adequacy with a group of academics......................... 156
5.10 CONCLUDING STATEMENT............................................................. 157
CHAPTER 6 TEACHER STRATEGIES .................................................. 159 6.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW.......................................................................... 159 6.2 STRATEGIES .......................................................................................... 161
6.2.1 Planning ....................................................................................... 163 6.2.2 Implementation ............................................................................. 173 6.2.3 Assessment .................................................................................... 186
6.3 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 190
CHAPTER 7 TEACHERS’ BELIEFS ....................................................... 193 7.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW.......................................................................... 193 7.2 KNOWLEDGE FILTER MODEL........................................................... 193
viii
7.2.1 Teachers’ expressed beliefs.......................................................... 196 7.2.2 Teachers’ entrenched beliefs........................................................ 200 7.2.3 Teachers’ manifested beliefs ........................................................ 206 7.2.4 Three factors that explain teachers’ beliefs and actions.............. 209
7.3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING ARGUMENT................................ 217 7.3.1 Summary....................................................................................... 217 7.3.2 Concluding argument ................................................................... 218
CHAPTER 8 SUPPORTING TEACHERS AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................... 221 8.1 PREAMBLE............................................................................................. 221 8.2 CHAPTER OVERVIEW ......................................................................... 222 8.3 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH AND FINDINGS.................................... 222
8.3.1 Summary....................................................................................... 222 8.3.2 Findings........................................................................................ 224
8.4 IMPLICATIONS...................................................................................... 228 8.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY........................................................... 231 8.6 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 232 8.7 MODEL FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT .............................. 233
8.7.1 Four guidelines for professional development............................. 234 8.8 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE ................................................... 237 8.9 CONCLUDING STATEMENT............................................................... 239
REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 241
APPENDICES .............................................................................................. 255
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2.1 CONTINUUM OF RESEARCH INTO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT. 38
FIGURE 2.2 COMPARING RESEARCH INTO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT. 51
FIGURE 2.3 KNOWLEDGE FILTER MODEL. 77
FIGURE 3.1 DISCLOSURE APPROACH 84
FIGURE 3.2 DATA ANALYSIS PROCESS 91
FIGURE 4.1 TIMELINE OF RESEARCH PROCESS 99
FIGURE 7.1 KNOWLEDGE FILTER MODEL. 195
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1 THREE FIELDS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT. 51
TABLE 3.1 RESEARCH USING EDUCATIONAL CRITICISM. 86
TABLE 6.1. SUMMARY OF TEACHERS' STRATEGIES. 162
LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE................................................. 256 APPENDIX B BENCH MARKING INDIVIDUAL LESSONS................... 258 APPENDIX C LIST OF TEACHERS’ STATEMENTS ............................... 260 APPENDIX D CODING................................................................................ 265 APPENDIX E BELIEFS AND MOTIVATION............................................ 268 APPENDIX F PLANNING............................................................................ 271 APPENDIX G IMPLEMENTATION............................................................ 276 APPENDIX H ASSESSMENT...................................................................... 281 APPENDIX I PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ..................................... 285 APPENDIX J LETTER REQUESTING TEACHERS’ PARTICIPATION.. 286
x
SIGNED DECLARATION
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a
degree or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my
knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously submitted or
written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signed: ……………………………… Date: ……………………………
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My sincere thanks and appreciation to the following people who have provided
the necessary support and encouragement to complete this thesis:
Dr James J. Watters, my principle supervisor who has provided the intellectual
challenges, the guidance and the support at all stages of this thesis from which
I have grown professionally;
Professor Lyn D. English and Dr Ian Ginns, my associate supervisors who have
provided critical insight and encouragement;
The seven teachers who willingly gave of their time to participate in the study;
My son Israel who has provided computer technical support and
encouragement;
My daughter Shalom, a teacher of this generation, for her support and
encouragement;
And my wife and companion Bernice, who has provided me with her
unwavering constant encouragement and support at every stage of the thesis.
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to the classroom teacher.
xii
PAPERS DERIVED FROM THIS RESEARCH Publication Keys, P. M. (2001). Educational Criticism: Where does it fit within the
traditions of research? In P. Singh & E. McWilliam (Eds.), Designing educational research: Theories, methods, and practices (pp. 275-284). Flaxton, Qld Australia: Post Pressed.
Conference Papers
Keys, P. M. (2000, December). Developing a good science syllabus for an optimistic future: A classroom teacher's perspective. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Keys, P. M. (2003, March). Teachers bending the science curriculum. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia. (Nominated for the 2004 NARST Outstanding Paper Award)
Keys, P. (2003, July). The science curriculum running the gauntlet of teacher beliefs. Paper presented at the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
xiii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PREAMBLE AND CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This thesis is a report on an investigation of primary and secondary teachers in
the state of Queensland, Australia, managing curriculum change in science
education. The outcomes of this research will seek to add to the existing body
of knowledge in three areas: teacher knowledge (Munby, Russell, & Martin,
2001), organisational change (Ford, 1992; Fullan, 1993; Hargreaves,
Lieberman, Fullan, & Hopkins, 1998; Kotter, 1996, 1998; Lewin, 1952; Senior,
1997) and professional development (Guskey, 1998; van Driel, Beijaard, &
Verloop, 2001) with the aim of providing greater understanding of curriculum
development and implementation.
A background to the study is first presented in this chapter in order to set the
context of the study in relation to current curriculum development (Section
1.2). This is followed by the scope of the study, which discusses teacher
knowledge (Section 1.3). The elaborations of the problem are then presented
together with the four research questions (Section 1.4). The purpose of the
study and its significance are then presented successively (Section 1.5 and
Section 1.6). The chapter concludes with an overview of the thesis (Section
1.7).
1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Educational reform in science education was a major concern in the latter part
of the previous millennium and continues to be so in this millennium. In
particular reform has centred on the change of emphasis in science education to
scientific literacy as opposed to science education being a preparation for
future scientists (Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001). There appear to be
three major influences currently impacting on curriculum reform in science
education: outcomes based education, constructivist learning and curriculum
integration.
1
This section will first present an understanding of the current international
curriculum reform agenda exemplified by the United States and the United
Kingdom. The US and the UK were chosen because of their influence in
education reform at the international level. Secondly, this section will discuss
the influence of international reform upon curriculum in Australia and thirdly,
will conclude with the contextual issues of outcomes education, constructivism
and integration and the influence of teacher knowledge. The purpose of the
background of the study is to provide the context and overview in which the
research is based.
1.2.1 International curriculum reform
International curriculum reform in science education has been of the utmost
concern for the past decade and will continue to be so in the future as science
forms an integral part of our society (Goodrum et al., 2001; Lappan, 2000;
Yager, 2000a, 2000b). The thrust of this reform agenda has been brought on by
a number of factors: student standards and expectations, teacher and parent
dissatisfaction, political influence, globalisation of the economy and
industrial/technological change (Cuban, 1992, 1998; Kotter, 1998; Lappan,
2000; Yager, 2000a, 2000b). Within this global reform agenda the literature
seems to indicate that there have been three major influences that have
impacted on science education. These are outcomes based education (Smyth &
Dow, 1998; Spady & Marshall, 1991), integration (Czerniak, Weber,
Sandmann, & Ahern, 1999; Hargreaves & Moore, 2000; Venville, Wallace,
Rennie, & Malone, 2002) and constructivism (Colburn, 2000; Gil-Pérez et al.,
2002; Matthews, 2002; Yager, 1991, 1995).
In the United States, curriculum reform in science education is advocated in the
National Science Education Standards, Project 2061 and Benchmarks for
science literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993;
National Research Council, 1996). Each of these documents reflects an
outcomes based and constructivist approach to learning. Outcomes based
education and constructivism in the United States has played a key role in
curriculum reform (Colburn, 2000; Gil-Pérez et al., 2002; Matthews, 2002;
Spady & Marshall, 1991; Yager, 1991, 1995, 1999). To facilitate the
2
implementation of an outcomes based approach to learning, integration has
often been used as the vehicle to effectively achieve the desired outcome
statements (Czerniak et al., 1999; Hargreaves & Moore, 2000). For example,
one success story of curriculum reform is the Iowa Scope, Sequence and
Coordination (SS&C) project (Yager, 1999; Varrella, 2000). The Iowa (SS&C)
project demonstrated how it was possible to introduce a constructivist approach
to learning in classrooms by changing teachers’ beliefs. Changing teachers’
beliefs was accomplished by the teachers seeing the benefits of their efforts
(Yager, 1999). This reform took a total of seven years with senior leading
teachers who possessed a positive attitude toward life long learning (Varrella,
2000). This outcome demonstrated a need for continued research into teachers’
values and beliefs when a new curriculum is introduced (Anderson & Helms,
2001).
In the United Kingdom curriculum reform has undergone significant changes
with the introduction of the National Curriculum that utilises an outcomes
approach to learning (National Curriculum Council, 1991). The events that
characterise this reform in the United Kingdom serve to illustrate the need to
better appreciate and understand the nature and dynamics of curriculum
development, in particular the need to better understand the beliefs and
practices of the classroom teacher (Anderson & Helms, 2001; Donnelly, 2000;
Hacker & Rowe, 1997; Jenkins, 2000a, 2000b; Lunn & Solomon, 2000; Yager,
1999).
Educational reform in the United Kingdom has been viewed generally by the
critics as politically motivated for economic reasons rather than by educational
benefits for the students (Smyth & Dow, 1998). Research does not seem to
support directly this belief but does point to serious concerns in the reform
process that may lead to the perception that the National Curriculum was not in
the best interests of the students (Donnelly, 2000; Hacker & Rowe, 1997;
Jenkins, 2000a, 2000b; Lunn & Solomon, 2000). Studies have illustrated the
ways in which primary and secondary teachers felt restricted and stifled in their
lessons by the National Curriculum (Jenkins, 2000b; Lunn & Solomon, 2000).
Secondary science teachers expressed concerns about catering for students of
different levels of ability and expressed the feeling that the curriculum was
3
restrictive (Donnelly, 2000; Jenkins, 2000b). Primary teachers on the other
hand expressed concerns about the lack of creative freedom (Lunn & Solomon,
2000). There was a common feeling among the primary teachers that the
enjoyment of teaching science had been removed (Donnelly, 2000; Jenkins,
2000a, 2000b). Teachers expressed their concern about the amount of content
that needed to be covered in order to meet the demands of an outcomes
approach to learning science. The teachers found that they were reverting to a
didactic approach to teaching to ensure a completion of the required science
content and the learning outcomes (Hacker & Rowe, 1997). Furthermore
teachers were concerned about the lack of autonomy and professionalism
provided to them by the National Curriculum (Donnelly, 2000; Jenkins, 2000a,
2000b; Lunn & Solomon, 2000). There were clear indications of a conflict
between teachers’ beliefs and practices and those of the intended curriculum
(Hacker & Rowe, 1997).
Both the United States and the United Kingdom experiences provide an insight
into current international curriculum reform efforts and the need for teachers’
beliefs to be reconciled with current curriculum development. The UK and the
US experience will be explored in greater detail in Chapter Two under the
heading International Curriculum Evaluation.
1.2.2 Curriculum reform in Australia
Curriculum reform in Australia has not been insulated from what has taken
place internationally (Goodrum et al., 2001). Outcomes based education,
integration and constructivism have all influenced curriculum development in
Australia (Australian Education Council, 1989; Boston, 1999; Goodrum et al.,
2001; Kemp, 1999; Venville et al., 2002). Educational policy makers and
curriculum developers in Australia have welcomed an outcomes approach to
education (Kemp, 1999).
There have been two major governmental reforms that have been vehicles for
bringing about the current reform in Australian education. These were the
Hobart Declaration of 1989 and the Adelaide Declaration of 1999. The Hobart
Declaration of 1989 provided for the first time common agreed goals for all
schools across all states and territories in Australia. The declaration also
4
provided for the establishment of an Australian Curriculum Corporation, which
would play a major role in curriculum development (Australian Education
Council, 1989). Subsequently statements and profiles were developed for all
key learning areas (Curriculum Corporation, 1994a, 1994b). The Hobart
declaration of 1989 has since been superseded by the (1999) Adelaide
Declaration on National Goals for the Twenty-First Century (Ministerial
Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs - MCEETYA,
1999).
The Adelaide declaration of 1999 has revised the Hobart declaration goals by
rewriting the goals to reflect current international trends. This has resulted in
three major goals: student development, curriculum standards and social
justice. Specifically in curriculum, traditional subjects have been organised
under eight key learning areas: the arts, English, health and physical education,
languages other than English, mathematics, science, studies of society and
environment and technology (MCEETYA, 1999).
Until the introduction of these two governmental declarations curriculum
development was very much a state government concern (MCEETYA, 1999).
There was no national curriculum as such and state governments were
autonomous in their curriculum direction. The intention of these two reforms
was to unite the state governments of Australia with a common agreed path for
education. Education is still a state government responsibility, and a unified
approach to curriculum is still to be resolved at a national level.
As a result of these federal government reforms, the Queensland School
Curriculum Council was established as a statutory body by the state
government and it released the first of the eight new syllabus documents in
1999. This was the Years 1 to 10 science syllabus. The decision to divide the
Queensland curriculum into eight key learning areas was in keeping with the
goals of the Adelaide Declaration of 1999 (MCEETYA, 1999). Furthermore,
within this reform agenda emphasis was also placed upon the uniform adoption
of teaching science from a student centred, inquiry based learning approach
rather than being solely focused on teaching science content (Queensland
School Curriculum Council, 1999).
5
The new Queensland science syllabus is dissimilar from past Queensland
curriculum documents (Department of Education, Queensland 1966, 1981,
1982, 1983) and is very much in keeping with what has taken place
internationally. Teachers for the first time were asked to achieve three tasks as
an expectation of the new science syllabus first, review their own teaching
philosophy in terms of constructivist learning; second, implement an outcomes
based approach for planning and assessment and third, be involved in writing
and developing their own school based programs (Queensland School
Curriculum Council, 1999).
1.2.3 Contextual issues and the influence of teacher knowledge
Three major issues have impacted on curriculum reform both nationally and
internationally which form the context of the research: outcomes based
education, constructivism and the integration of curriculum. Each of these
issues has impacted in some way at all levels from government policymaking
to classroom teacher practice. At the same time, teacher knowledge has also
influenced the success of such curriculum reform at each level of curriculum
implementation.
1.2.3.1 Outcomes based education
With the use of outcomes education teachers have two concerns: assessment
and content. While teachers recognise the need for assessment they have
genuine anxiety over the quantity of assessment, the reporting framework of
assessment and valuable learning time consumed in proving that an outcome
has been achieved (Donnelly, 2000; Jenkins, 2000a, 2000b). Initial data
collected during the pilot study for the research for this thesis, further
supported teacher concerns about assessment, in that teachers indicated they
were having difficulty with assessing learning outcomes for students (Keys,
2000). Also anecdotal evidence collected during professional development
sessions with secondary science teachers indicated that secondary teachers
were equally concerned about assessing the students’ learning and reporting the
level of attainment in an understandable manner to the parents. The framework
6
of assessment and reporting appeared to be in conflict with that of the teachers’
beliefs.
The second concern is content and the associated time allocated to learn the
necessary content. Studies in the United Kingdom on the National Curriculum
have demonstrated that outcomes education has had a reverse effect on child-
centred learning. The focus has been directed toward the content that is to be
learned in the syllabus rather than the learning needs of students (Donnelly,
2000; Jenkins, 2000b). The teachers found the curriculum inflexible and time
restricting. The curriculum did not provide teachers with time for additional
practical experience for their students or to enrich the curriculum with topics of
interest (Donnelly, 2000; Jenkins, 2000b; Lunn, & Solomon, 2000). The
responses made by the teachers indicate that there is some conflict with the
teachers’ beliefs and an outcomes approach to learning.
1.2.3.2 Constructivist approach to learning
The second issue that needs to be reconciled with teachers’ beliefs is a
constructivist approach to learning. A constructivist approach seeks to
challenge misconceptions, scientifically inappropriate beliefs, build upon prior
student knowledge and experiences from which the student will construct a
better understanding of the scientific phenomena at hand (Colburn, 2000;
Yager, 1991, 1995). While a constructivist approach may have its merits, it
nevertheless may not be in harmony with the teacher’s beliefs and practices. A
constructivist approach to learning has raised some practical concerns for the
classroom teacher, concerns such as; a clear understanding and usage of the
term constructivism, the instruction of abstract concepts in science,
organisation of learning and student assessment of students and how to change
strongly held beliefs of students in a brief period of time (Colburn, 2000;
Matthews, 1998, 2002).
From a practitioner’s perspective, teaching within a constructivist framework
often requires more time and exerts high cognitive demands on learners
(Perkins, 1999). For the classroom teacher this raises practical questions: How
do I use my time economically? How do I effectively cater for the range of
abilities? Do I have a responsibility as a teacher to tell students the answer?
7
How do I effectively record and assess the students’ understanding and
progress? These are just some of the questions that reflect teachers’ beliefs
that in turn impact on a constructivist approach to learning and the new science
syllabus (Airasian & Walsh, 1997).
1.2.3.3 Curriculum integration
The third issue is curriculum integration. This is seen as a teaching strategy or
an approach that aims to address the various outcome statements of the
curriculum rather than a curriculum requirement. Despite the arguments for
integration, Czerniak et al. (1999) argued that there is little evidence to support
its benefits particularly in science and mathematics. Yet, Hargreaves and
Moore (2000) were able to demonstrate that using an integrated approach
brought a relevance to the learning experience of the student. Integration
removed the compartmentalisation of subjects and allowed students to see the
value of each subject area (Hargreaves & Moore, 2000).
For secondary science teachers there appears to be a number of philosophical
and practical issues that first need to be resolved before integration can be
considered (Czerniak et al., 1999; Venville et al., 2002). It is not a simple task
of matching subjects together under a common theme (Hargreaves & Moore,
2000; Venville et al., 2002). In secondary education it is a much more complex
issue. In Queensland, Australia, there is much debate over the decision of
integrating History and Geography as one subject (Beh, 2000; Lidstone, 2000).
A major concern is the possible dilution of subject matter in the trade off for
integration. Teachers feel that the quality and standard of the learning in their
field will drop (Lidstone, 2000). There are also the practical concerns of
organising class timetables and the logistics of curriculum planning across
departments that need to be taken into consideration. This is further
compounded by the fact that secondary teachers see themselves as subject
specialists trained only to teach one or two subject areas such as
mathematics/science and therefore, for secondary teachers the issue of
integration becomes a much more complex issue (Venville et al., 2002).
Yet for primary teachers integration is fairly commonplace. The use of
integration does not appear to be in conflict with teachers’ existing beliefs.
8
Teachers in these grades are normally expected to teach all the subjects except
for music, languages other than English and physical education where
respective specialist teachers are provided. Primary teachers have often used a
common theme such as “the ocean” to integrate subject areas and the teachers
have found integration a useful method for instruction.
Each of the above three issues: outcomes based education, constructivist
approach to learning and curriculum integration form the context in which the
research is situated.
1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The major focus then of this research are teacher beliefs or knowledge and its
influence on current curriculum reform in science education. In order to clarify
and delimit the scope of the study it is necessary to discuss the meaning of
knowledge, beliefs and teacher knowledge as it is presented in the following
research.
Knowledge is defined by how the knowledge is derived (Ayer, 1956; Lehrer,
1990; Peirce, 1998). Knowledge may be based on authority, perception, reason
or intuition and as a result the term knowledge is redefined in each particular
instance (Titus, Smith, & Nolan, 1995). Fundamentally the term knowledge as
it is used in this thesis is seen as belief in a set of truths held by the individual,
or in this case the classroom teacher, based upon reason (Titus et al., 1995).
Lewis (1970) explains that knowledge is belief and it is a laying claim to a
certain truth, which is based upon reason. Lehrer (1990) states that knowledge
implies believing. It is the belief and acceptance that a certain body of
knowledge to be true. This then raises the issue of whether or not certain
knowledge is true (Ayer, 1956). Even if the teacher is convinced that the
knowledge is true that knowledge needs to be verified. In order to determine
the truth of a teacher’s knowledge or how a teacher knows what he/she is
saying is correct, it is necessary to establish how that teacher has reached that
conclusion. Ayer refers to this as establishing an “accredited route of
knowledge” (p. 33). Hence the knowledge that a teacher has, may not be true
even though the teacher may be convinced otherwise (Ayer, 1956; Titus et al.,
1995).
9
The notion of beliefs therefore refers to the acceptance of a body of truths,
facts and principles held by the individual or teacher who has critically
evaluated the knowledge (Ayer, 1956; Lehrer, 1990; Lewis, 1970). It is not to
be confused with beliefs based upon authoritarianism where a person accepts
without question a certain body of knowledge based solely upon an authority
(Titus et al., 1995). Lehrer explains that knowledge must be supported by
evidence or justified before it can be accepted or believed. When there is the
acceptance or belief in a certain body of knowledge this will result in an
appropriate affirmative action by the individual or the teacher (Lehrer, 1990).
In order for knowledge to become practice the teacher must first accept or
believe (Lehrer, 1990) in that body of knowledge.
Therefore teacher knowledge can be considered to be a broad umbrella term
(Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001) used to apply to the body of knowledge that
comprises teachers’ beliefs (Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak, 1998, 2000; van Driel
et al., 2001), teacher craft knowledge (Cooper & McIntyre, 1996; van Driel,
Verloop, van Wervan, & Dekkers, 1997), teacher pedagogical content
knowledge (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987), teacher practical theories
(Feldman, 2000), personal pedagogical knowledge (Morine-Dershirmer &
Kent, 1999) and teacher practical knowledge (van Driel et al., 1997, 2001).
The difficulty lies in knowing how to reconcile teacher knowledge with the
current curriculum reform agenda and this raises the following problem.
1.4 PROBLEM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The key player in any educational reform is the classroom teacher. It would be
folly to ignore the influence that the teacher has in determining the direction
and ultimate shape of the curriculum (Cuban, 1992, 1998; van Driel et al.,
1997, 2001). Whenever a new innovation or concept is introduced there is
always a natural apprehension by teachers to accept the proposed change.
There are the feelings of inadequacy that a teacher has that his/her teaching
method is inferior and/or his/her job security is in question (Fullan, 1993;
Sikes, 1992). Such imposed changes have often led to low morale, reduced
work commitment, high staff attrition and failed curriculum implementation
(Benham, 2002; Brice, 1998; Eaton, 1998; Evans, 2002). This is because, the
10
change is accompanied by an increased accountability, increased workload and
at times, is followed by a lack of support and direction from administration,
parents and the community (Benham, 2002; Brice, 1998; Eaton, 1998; Evans,
2002). Whenever an innovation is introduced it is imperative that the
organisation needs to take into account the long-term effects on teaching staff.
At present Education Queensland is experiencing what may be described as
discontinuous change which Grundy (1993) describes as being typified by
rapid shifts in strategy, structure or culture or shifts in all three. The nature of
this type of change will be further explored in the second chapter. The
Queensland School Curriculum Council from 1999 to 2002 has released eight
curriculum documents to be implemented in the classroom. The first of these
eight new syllabus documents was the Years 1 to 10 science syllabus.
Throughout this curriculum change teachers were required to achieve three
tasks. Firstly, they were asked to review their own teaching philosophy;
secondly, implement an outcomes-based approach for planning and
assessment; and thirdly they must be involved in writing and developing their
own school based program. Furthermore, because the science syllabus is for
Years 1 to 10 it is a seamless syllabus requiring a uniform approach in
pedagogy for primary and secondary teachers. These are significant changes
which Queensland classroom teachers have never faced before.
Therefore in order to bring about effective curriculum reform, narrow the gap
between the intended and the enacted science curriculum and assist teachers
manage curriculum change it is necessary to resolve the problem of how
primary and secondary teacher knowledge (teachers’ beliefs or teachers’ craft
knowledge) shapes the science curriculum. Four research questions have
emerged from this problem:
1. What teacher knowledge has the primary and secondary teachers found
useful to make the science curriculum more meaningful to them?
2. In what way does the teacher knowledge of the primary and secondary
teachers differ in relation to the enactment of the science curriculum?
3. How has the science curriculum taken form or shape through the
primary and secondary teachers’ knowledge?
11
4. What type of support is necessary to assist the primary and secondary
teachers to manage curriculum change?
1.5 PURPOSE
The purpose of this research is to investigate the impact of teacher knowledge
in primary and secondary schools on new curriculum directions accompanying
a new science syllabus. In particular the research seeks to understand in what
way does the teacher knowledge of primary and secondary teachers differ in
relation to the enactment of the science curriculum and the impact of teacher
knowledge. Furthermore this research will seek to establish a model of
professional development to enable curriculum developers to better assist
teachers to deal with curriculum change.
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE
While there is a considerable curriculum reform agenda both internationally
and within Australia, there has not been a corresponding and diverse proportion
of curriculum evaluation of the reform efforts taking place. Predominantly the
research into curriculum evaluation internationally and within Australia has
been mostly in specific topic areas or measuring the degree of successful
implementation of the intended curriculum (Adams, Doig, & Rosier, 1990;
Brown & Mc Intyre, 1993; Cooper & Mc Intyre, 1996; Donnelly, 2000; Clark,
1999; Crocker, 1979; Goodrum et al., 2001; Henry, 1977; Jeans & Farnsworth,
1992; Jenkins, 2000b; Levitt, 2002; Peers, 2000; Peers, Diezmann, & Watters
2003; Varley 1975; Venville & Wallace, 1998; Yager 1999). Such an approach
would be described as the fidelity perspective of curriculum evaluation
(Snyder, Bolin, & Zumwalt, 1992). Using a fidelity perspective provides
information about what has or has not been successful but it does not explain
why. Curriculum evaluation from a fidelity perspective does not help to explain
the role of teachers’ beliefs in the reform process. The fidelity perspective
cannot determine whether or not a teacher’s beliefs are affecting the
implementation of the curriculum. It is outside the scope of such research.
In addition, there is little evidence of studies that provided a comparative
analysis of primary and secondary teachers’ implementation of a science
12
curriculum as will be demonstrated in Chapter Two. This lack of comparative
analysis between primary and secondary teachers raises a concern, particularly
when there is much emphasis placed upon the development of a grade one to
ten curriculum (MCEETYA, 1999; Queensland School Curriculum Council,
1999). There appears to be an assumption that curriculum adoption will be
uniform at all levels of the intended curriculum regardless of the possible
diverse views of the primary and secondary teachers.
Therefore this study is significant because firstly, contemporary research on
curriculum research has predominantly adopted a fidelity perspective that only
describes what happens and what does not happen. Such research does not
attempt to explain the role of teacher knowledge in the process of curriculum
reform. There is a need to understand the role of the classroom teacher’s beliefs
in curriculum implementation in order to bring about a more effective
curriculum reform. Secondly, in order to provide a seamless grade one to ten
science curriculum where there are no variations in pedagogy, it is necessary to
compare primary and secondary teacher knowledge to determine whether or
not the teachers’ beliefs are similar or dissimilar and how these beliefs in turn,
impact on the implementation of the curriculum. Thirdly, by understanding the
role of teachers’ beliefs in curriculum implementation, policy makers and
curriculum developers are better able to provide effective professional
development programs that will reconcile teachers’ beliefs with that of the
intended curriculum. As a result curriculum developers will be able to bring
about a closer alignment of the intended and the enacted curriculum.
1.7 OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS
The thesis is comprised of eight chapters. The background and significance,
teacher knowledge and issues, problem and purpose of the study have been
presented in the first chapter. Chapter Two is the review of literature and will
focus on the literature in relation to change, teacher knowledge, an evaluation
of curriculum reform in Australia and international curriculum reform and an
analysis of professional development. This chapter will reveal that first, there is
a dearth of literature that investigates the impact of teacher knowledge on
curriculum implementation and second, that there is a dearth of knowledge in
13
the comparison of teacher knowledge between primary and secondary teachers
in shaping curriculum. The chapter concludes with proposing a theoretical
model of curriculum development referred to as the knowledge filter and
proposes a theoretical proposition.
Chapter Three will present the research design and justify why educational
criticism (Eisner, 1991) was chosen as the appropriate research methodology. It
will discuss the verification process that was used in this research
methodology. The reader will also be introduced to the three stages of
educational criticism which will be used as a reporting framework for this
thesis.
Chapter Four provides a detailed documentation of the procedure, methods and
analysis of the data collection process. It will discuss the context of the study,
the selection of the participants and the schools, the process and verification of
data collection, the limitations of data collection, the role of the researcher and
a justification of the data presentation.
Chapters Five, Six, Seven and Eight form the three stages of educational
criticism (Eisner, 1991): the descriptive, the interpretative and the evaluative.
These three stages will be further explained in the research design of Chapter
Three. Though this approach has been chosen as a reporting framework for the
presentation of the thesis, it needs to be pointed out that there is no strict
demarcation as to where the descriptive stage of educational criticism finishes
and the interpretative stage begins.
Chapter Five is the descriptive stage and the data are presented as a dialogue
which is consistent with an educational criticism approach as a form of
literature (Barone, 2000). It will be argued in Chapter Four under the heading,
Presentation of data, that the type of genre used in this research is not unique
and is in keeping with the domains of ethnographic fiction (Rinehart, 1998)
and contemporary research in education (Barone, 2000; Eisner, 1985; Tippins,
Tobin, & Nichols, 1995).
Chapter Six is the first part of the interpretative stage of educational criticism
(Eisner, 1985; Noad, 1980). The interpretative stage will provide an
understanding of what has been presented in Chapter Five by addressing the
14
first two research questions and presenting nineteen strategies that the teachers
found either useful or not useful in implementing the science syllabus. It will
demonstrate how the teachers then used these strategies to shape the science
syllabus.
Chapter Seven will present the second part of the interpretative stage of the
research. The knowledge filter model proposed in Chapter Two is used to
answer the third research question by demonstrating how teachers’ beliefs
shape the science curriculum. It is here that the theoretical proposition
proposed in Chapter Two is refined.
Chapter Eight is the final chapter and it is the evaluative stage of educational
criticism. It will address the last research question by discussing the support
needed by teachers facing the challenges of curriculum change. This chapter
will conclude with a summary of what this thesis has achieved,
recommendations, and how the research contributes new knowledge to the
field.
15
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
The aim of this literature review is to establish what is known about change,
the impact of teacher knowledge on curriculum development and the role of
professional development in bringing about that change.
The literature review sought to achieve three main objectives:
identify and evaluate salient literature that compares primary and secondary
teachers engagement in science curriculum;
develop a theoretical framework regarding curriculum development; and
propose a theoretical proposition regarding primary and secondary teachers’
involvement in science curriculum change.
The review draws upon two broad fields of literature: education and
management. From these two fields a theoretical framework is developed for
analysing teachers’ management of curriculum change.
The literature review is divided into five major components: change (Section
2.2), teacher knowledge (Section 2.3), curriculum evaluation in Australia
(Section 2.4), international curriculum evaluation (Section 2.5) and
professional development (Section 2.6). At the end of the chapter a theoretical
framework and proposition is presented.
The review of the literature on change will focus on understanding the nature
and dynamics of change as it impacts upon the organisation and the individual
within the organisation.
The review of the topic teachers’ knowledge, will show that the nature of
teaching and the nature of the subject, in this case science, underpin teachers’
epistemological beliefs (Grossman, 1990; Morine-Dershirmer & Kent, 1999;
Shulman, 1987). The epistemological beliefs of teachers are demonstrated and
expressed as teachers’ craft knowledge, practical knowledge, or practical
theories which in turn impact upon curriculum development (Clough, 2000;
17
Feldman, 2000; Lederman & Niess, 1997a ; McComas, 1996; Sikes, 1992; van
Driel, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2001).
The focus of the review of curriculum evaluation in Australia will be on the
past thirty years of research in science curriculum development. The literature
will be evaluated by using Snyder, Bolin, and Zumwalt’s (1992) theoretical
framework for analysis. Snyder et al. provided three levels of curriculum
implementation and evaluation: the fidelity perspective, the mutual adaptation
perspective and the enactment perspective.
A review of international curriculum evaluation has also been undertaken that
highlighted the experiences in the United Kingdom and the United States of
America. The review demonstrates the need for research to be undertaken from
the perspective of the teacher as the key figure in educational reform.
The next component to be reviewed is professional development and how it
can be viewed as a vehicle for change. The three topics of professional
development that will be discussed include: the nature of professional
development, professional development models and the elements of successful
professional development.
In the final section of the chapter, the researcher provides a theoretical
framework for curriculum development. Within this theoretical framework is a
knowledge filter model that has been designed to help explain curriculum
development. Finally, a theoretical proposition is proposed that seeks to
explain primary and secondary teachers’ engagement with curriculum
development.
2.2 CHANGE
Everyone in every industry faces change and this phenomenon is neither
unique nor special to teachers. Regardless of how a school or a teacher may
perceive change, change will eventually take place. For the individual teacher
to continue to develop his or her expertise in this new economic and
technological climate the teacher needs to continue to reflect, evaluate, adapt to
change (Argyris, 1998; Drucker, 2002; Kotter, 1998). Schools, administrators
and teachers are left with three choices: first to resist the change, second to
18
allow themselves to be pushed along by change and accept what happens and
third to be at the cutting edge of the knowledge dissemination industry
(Argyris, 1998; Drucker, 1995, 2002; Kotter, 1998).
Change can be examined on two levels: the organisational level and at the
individual level within the organisation. Change at the organisational level
addresses issues such as organisational climate and development (Senior,
1997). Change at the individual level is a broad topic that addresses a whole
range of issues such as motivational theory, human behaviour in organisations,
and the beliefs of the individual and the relationship of the impact of these
beliefs on the organisation (Richardson & Placier, 2001).
2.2.1 Change at the organisational level
First, it is appropriate to provide a definition of a school within the context of
organisational theory. Drucker (1995) defined any organisation that is
“composed largely of specialists who direct and discipline their own
performance through organised feedback from colleagues, customers, and
headquarters” (p. 2) as an information-based organisation. Examples of these
are a hospital, a university, and a symphony orchestra (Drucker, 1995). Within
the organisation the workers who are specialists were known as knowledge
workers. Teachers are defined as knowledge workers (Drucker, 1995, 1998,
2002). A school therefore could be defined as an information-based
organisation depending on how rigid its organisational structure is and its
method of accountability. Given that teachers are a group of knowledge
workers it is therefore necessary to understand their particular needs and the
needs of their school in order to bring about effective change.
One means of achieving this change is through organisational development
(OD). Organisational development is viewed as the predominant approach used
for bringing about change in any organisation including schools (Kotter, 1996;
Schwahn & Spady, 1998). The foundation of the organisational development
process is the field theory of motivation developed by Lewin (1952). The field
theory highlighted the significance of psychological and non-psychological
factors affecting the change within an organisation. There are three stages of
organisational development that Lewin referred to, unfreezing, moving, and
19
freezing that form the process of change that occurs within the individual or
group. The decision to change is a procedure referred to as unfreezing stage,
while the change process of how to adapt the new innovation with group
acceptance is the moving stage and the establishing of a new innovation to
become a custom or part of the group is the freezing stage. Lewin provided an
example of the housewife who, once she has made a decision regarding a
change for the household, the decision had a freezing effect on the way things
were carried out around the house. The housewife purchased food products
such as milk and how those decisions were made were affected by non-
psychological and psychological factors. Lewin explained this by stating, “that
once the decision links motivation to action … it seems to have a ‘freezing’
effect which is partly due to the individual to stick to his decision and partly
due to the commitment to a group” (p. 233).
Currently there are numerous organisational development models all of which
have used Lewin’s (1952) theory as a stepping-stone toward new approaches
but the concept of OD remains predominantly the same. For example, Kotter
(1996) provides the following eight steps to organisational change:
Establishing a sense of urgency, creating a guiding coalition, developing a vision and strategy, communicating the change vision, empowering broad-based action, generating short-term wins, consolidating gains and producing more change and anchoring new approaches in the culture. (p. 21)
On close examination Kotter’s eight steps made use of Lewin’s theory by
commencing with the need to establish a sense of urgency (unfreezing based
upon psychological and non-psychological factors) and finishing with
restabilising the culture of the organisation with the new changes in place
(freezing). Schwahn and Spady’s (1998) rules of how to make change take
place closely aligns with the OD model by starting with a compelling reason to
change first (unfreezing) and closing with organisational support to sustain the
change (freeze the change). The OD process except for a few minor variations
has remained unchanged.
Change within schools can take anything from three to seven years depending
upon the nature of the change and the type of school (Fullan, 2000; Varrella,
20
2000; Yager, 1999). Grundy (1993) described three types of change that occur
within an organisation or a school:
Smooth incremental change involves a relatively smooth orderly manner of transition. Bumpy incremental is characterised by periods of relative tranquillity punctuated by acceleration in the pace of change. Discontinuous change is characterised by rapid shifts in, either strategy, structure or culture or in all three…and is influenced by internal and external forces. (pp. 24-25)
A school may be in any one of these three states of change from a smooth
incremental change where change is not taking place rapidly to a discontinuous
change where strategy, structure and culture are dramatically changed (Grundy,
1993). Yager (1999) in the Iowa Scope, Sequence and Coordination (SS&C)
project demonstrated that change could take up to seven years. It could be that
this discontinuous change described by Grundy (1993) may well characterise
the current scenario of Education Queensland or Australia’s education system
and also the condition of education internationally. A similar view was
proposed by Prawat (1992) who said that education was in the midst of a major
paradigm shift. He further explained that this change was influenced by
internal and external forces such as parent perceptions, the community,
industry and research. What is currently important is recognition of the degree
of change and a need to be in control of that change (Kotter, 1996; Lewin,
1952; Schwahn & Spady, 1998).
However the process of change in schools involves individual teacher’s beliefs
and is equally complex and demanding. Throughout the literature researchers
have stressed that when considering change, there is need to change teachers’
beliefs, a task that is not readily achieved (Bandura, 1997; Davis, 2003; Fullan,
2000; Ford, 1992; Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak, 2000; Varrella, 2000; van Driel,
Verloop, van Werven, & Dekkers, 1997; van Driel et al., 2001; Watters &
Ginns, 2000; Yager, 1999). Change cannot be blindly implemented without the
need to recognise the role of the classroom teacher. Therefore the sole
underpinning factor to bring about change in curriculum is a change in
teachers’ beliefs, a change at the individual level (Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak,
1998).
21
2.2.2 Change at the individual level
The imposition of change on any teacher can lead to low morale, job
dissatisfaction and reduced commitment (Benham, 2002; Brice, 1998; Eaton,
1998). Research has shown that teachers will either respond to imposed
curriculum change by embracing change, resisting and ignoring the change or
modifying the curriculum change. The last two options are often the norm
(Donnelly, 2000; Cooper & McIntyre, 1996; Czerniak, Lumpe, & Haney,
1997; Fetters, Czerniak, Fish, & Shawberry, 2002; Hacker & Rowe, 1997;
Jenkins, 2000b; Lumpe et al., 1998; Lunn & Solomon, 2000; Yager, 1999). To
change curriculum and pedagogy is to change a teacher’s beliefs in educating a
child. These beliefs of the teacher find their foundation in the teacher’s own
personal value system which, in turn, has been fashioned, shaped and
reinforced through personal experience as a student, formal teacher training,
teaching experience and family up bringing (van Driel et al., 2001; Watters &
Ginns, 1995; Walls, Nardi, von Minden, & Hoffman, 2002; Zeichner & Liston,
1996).
Curriculum writers and policy makers need to recognise that curriculum
change cannot be imposed and that it takes time to bring about change.
Teachers see their teaching as a reflection of their beliefs and in turn their
beliefs alter the intended curriculum (Cuban, 1992; Zeichner & Liston, 1996).
The experience in the United Kingdom serves to illustrate the importance of
understanding teacher beliefs and the impact that change can have on the
classroom teacher (Donnelly, 2000; Cooper & McIntyre, 1996; Hacker &
Rowe, 1997; Jenkins, 2000b; Lunn & Solomon, 2000). The United Kingdom
experience will be further discussed in Section 2.4.1, Curriculum Evaluation in
the United Kingdom.
In this reform process a teacher must consider why he/she should change. It is
an issue of purpose and motivation. Motivation is an important contributing
factor that cannot be taken for granted in any research into organisational
change (Ford, 1992). Teachers do not always perceive change as something for
the better. There is a common perception held by teachers that when a new
curriculum or teaching method is introduced that previous methods used by the
teacher were insufficient. The teachers are left feeling that they have failed to
22
provide the best for their students (Fullan, 1993; Sikes, 1992). The teacher
needs to know that the approach that he/she will adopt will have a long-term
benefit for the student (Yager, 1999). As an experienced classroom teacher, I
considered it important to change my pedagogy and planning only when I saw
the value of it for my students. Schwahn and Spady (1998) provided a list of
“compelling reasons” and explains that teachers do not change unless they
share a compelling reason. One compelling reason for a teacher is the benefit to
the student (Schwahn & Spady 1998). This is supported by the research of
Ritchie and Rigano (2002) that found teachers who self-initiated change did so
because they were dissatisfied with the student outcomes and not because of
directives given from outside.
However, there may be other compelling reasons for a teacher to consider
change. A teacher may choose to change for very personal selfish reasons none
of which fall into any of Schwann and Spady’s (1998) list of compelling
reasons. Nevertheless there is a need for a compelling reason to motivate
teachers to change. Collectively these reasons can be grouped into four
overlapping motivators. They are: conviction, dissatisfaction with the status
quo, a need to belong, and job security. Each of these would fall readily into a
motivational theory such as Ford’s (1992) motivational systems theory, or
Maslow’s (1970) hierarchy of needs or Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman’s
(1959) two-factor theory of motivation.
The first compelling reason is conviction (Ford, 1992; Herzberg et al., 1959;
Maslow, 1970). If a person has a strong conviction concerning something,
he/she will make a personal change and possibly influence a change in those
around him/her (Kotter, 1999; Schwahn & Spady, 1998). The conviction for a
teacher may come in the representation of his/her students’ lack of
performance in a given subject area. When a teacher is seeking to improve
students’ performance and believes that the only way to do so is to make a
change, he/she will make an effort to change (Feldman, 2000; Schwahn &
Spady, 1998). This was evident in the research of the Iowa SS&C project
where students’ performances and attitudes toward science were improved
because the teachers valued the change (Yager, 1999).
23
The second compelling reason to change is dissatisfaction with the status quo
(Ford, 1992; Herzberg et al., 1959; Maslow, 1970). A change in a teacher’s
beliefs will come about when he/she perceives that there is a need to change.
When the existing teaching approach is not achieving the desired results and
the new approach demonstrates a benefit for students then the teacher will
initiate a change (Feldman, 2000). People seek out change because they are
dissatisfied with their present circumstances. The individual recognises that the
only way to improve his/her situation is to make a deliberate change. Likewise,
teachers will make a change to their beliefs if they are dissatisfied with the
current student learning outcomes (Feldman, 2000; Ritchie & Rigano, 2002;
Schwahn & Spady, 1998). The conceptual change model by Feldman argues
that for a teacher to change his/her practical theory that he/she must be
discontent with his/her old practical theories and seek out new ones. Advocates
for organisational development models, commonly know as OD, achieve this
need for change by creating a state of anxiety or discontent within the
participants and thereby speeding up the process of change (Kotter, 1996;
Lewin, 1952; Senior, 1997). Yet, for these new practical theories to be
accepted they must be seen as beneficial to the teacher (Feldman, 2000).
The third compelling reason for teachers to change is if they know that their
livelihood depends upon it. In this case the individual is motivated by job
security. This is the second level of Maslow’s (1970) hierarchy of needs,
Herzberg’s et al. (1959) maintenance factors and Ford’s (1992) task/safety
goal. For example, teachers in the United Kingdom, because they were
concerned about job security became focused on meeting the course outcomes
and assessment rather than being student centred when teaching. As a result
assessment demonstrated meeting of curriculum expectations. (Donnelly, 2000;
Cooper & McIntyre, 1996; Hacker & Rowe, 1997; Jenkins, 2000b; Lunn &
Solomon, 2000). This focus on meeting course outcomes was not the desired
intent of the curriculum writers but nevertheless was the result because of the
political and public pressure placed on the school system.
The fourth compelling reason why teachers may change is the need to belong
(Ford, 1992). A sense of belonging is a very powerful motivator. People will
conform to something if the need to belong far outweighs their conviction of
24
moral issues. Ford referred to this sense of belonging in his taxonomy of
human goals as an integrative social relationship goal. This is the third level of
Maslow’s (1970) hierarchy of needs and Herzberg’s two-factor theory of
motivation (Herzberg et al., 1959; Maslow, 1970). The need to be part of the
group or a team member whose views are accepted and recognised by the rest
of the staff may be a sufficient compelling reason to change.
Even though it may be difficult to document such organisational behaviour, all
four compelling reasons: conviction, dissatisfaction with the status quo,
security, and a sense of belonging will in some way motivate the individual
teacher to make a change (Ford, 1992; Herzberg et al., 1959; Maslow 1970).
Nevertheless there needs to be consideration for factors that legitimately hinder
teachers from changing. Despite teachers intense desire to change
circumstances may be beyond his/her perceived immediate control and thus
prohibit the teacher from initiating change (Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak, 2000).
2.2.3 Inhibiting factors for individual change
There are three beliefs proposed by Ford (1992) that may hinder a teacher’s
ability to undertake change. These are contextual beliefs, capability beliefs or
perceived self-efficacy and goals. Ford listed the contextual beliefs and
capability beliefs as personal agency beliefs and stresses that personal agency
beliefs are important only when the individual has set a goal.
2.2.3.1 Contextual beliefs or factors
Often teachers provide reasons for not being able to implement a certain
teaching approach or a curriculum initiative because of certain contextual
factors. Ford (1992) described these as contextual beliefs because the person
perceives his/her ability to carry out a curriculum initiative or task as
dependent upon a certain favourable context or environmental factors (Ford,
1992; Lumpe et al., 2000). A teacher will reason that he/she will be able to
implement a curriculum initiative if certain favourable conditions are in place.
The influence of these contextual factors are exemplified in studies by Feldman
(2000), Johnson, Monk, and Swain (2000) and van Driel et al. (2001) which
will be discussed later in this chapter.
25
These contextual factors could be the lack of resources, time and
administration. Lumpe et al. (2000) has taken Ford’s contextual beliefs and has
identified twenty-eight contextual factors that were likely to have a certain
impact on the implementation of science instruction. These twenty-eight
factors were identified as contributing to the “enabling belief” or the belief of
the individual teacher to assist him/her to implement a more effective science
program. Whether or not some of these twenty-eight factors occurred within
the school also influenced the implementation of a more effective science
program. Lumpe et al.’s (2000) study was able to demonstrate that Ford’s
(1992) theory of context and capability beliefs were similar yet different.
2.2.3.2 Capability beliefs
The capability beliefs provided by Ford (1992) are similar to what Bandura
(1997) described as perceived self-efficacy beliefs. These are the perceived
ability and judgement of the individual to undertake a certain task (Bandura,
1997; Ford, 1992). In this case it is the teacher’s perceived ability to teach
science confidently. This perceived ability is based upon positive and negative
past experience of the individual and knowledge of science (Watters & Ginns,
1995). Bandura (1997) points out that peoples’ beliefs in their efficacy has
varied or diverse effects on their behaviour.
2.2.3.3 Goals
Ford (1992) in his motivational strategy theory (MST) argued that the link
between goals and personal agency beliefs (capacity and contextual beliefs)
needed to be recognised within research. Ford stated that, “Motivation
interventions that do not respect the goals emotions and personal agency
beliefs that a person brings to a situation may produce short term effects, but in
the long run they are likely to fail or backfire” (p. 202). It is what commonly
referred to as the, “what’s in it for me,” factor. This factor must be recognised.
Teachers like all other individuals do not change unless they have a compelling
reason to do so (Schwahn & Spady, 1998). Teachers who engage early in an
innovation may see the motivating factor as promotion. Teachers who engage
in the innovation later may see it for reasons of job security. Alternatively, a
26
teacher may see the curriculum change as having long-term benefit for the
student (Yager, 1999).
Fetters, Czerniak, Fish, and Shawberry, (2002) found that even after providing
extrinsic incentives for teachers in the first year of their professional
development program some of the teachers dropped out when they were asked
to implement their training in the following year. It was then necessary for the
professional providers to communicate the intrinsic benefits to the teacher in
terms of improved student learning and increased confidence in teaching
science (Fetters et al., 2002). This professional development project will be
discussed later in greater detail under the heading professional development.
Whether it is extrinsic or intrinsic or a combination of both, it is necessary to
provide legitimate motivational reasons for a teacher to want to make a change.
Therefore there needs to be an understanding of organisational development,
teacher knowledge, beliefs and motivation in order bring about sustained
change to minimise the loss of teachers and maximise the full potential of
experienced teachers.
2.3 TEACHER KNOWLEDGE
The domain of teachers’ knowledge is not simple rather it is complex and
interwoven (Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001). The study of teacher knowledge
has developed over the past twenty years and is a domain of knowledge that, in
comparison to that of other bodies of knowledge is still in its infancy with
numerous definitions (Munby et al., 2001). This research has adopted the same
broad definition of teacher knowledge as Munby et al. (2001) as being a body
of knowledge that comprises teachers’ beliefs (Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak,
1998, 2000; van Driel et al., 2001), teacher craft knowledge (Cooper &
McIntyre, 1996; van Driel et al., 1997), teacher pedagogical content knowledge
(Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987), teacher practical theories (Feldman, 2000),
personal pedagogical knowledge (Morine-Dershirmer & Kent, 1999), and
teacher practical knowledge (van Driel et al., 2001). Teacher knowledge is
viewed as the interaction between subject matter knowledge, pedagogical
content knowledge and teachers’ practical theories rather than distinct separate
27
domains that characterises teacher knowledge (Morine-Dershirmer & Kent
1999).
There is debate over whether or not teacher knowledge would be considered as
professional knowledge or research knowledge because it is contextually based
in the teacher’s experience (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002). Hiebert et al.
postulates that research knowledge is generalisable, trustworthy, scientific in
character and context independent, whereas teacher knowledge is characterised
by a concreteness and richness in contextual and personal experiences.
Therefore, in order for teacher knowledge to become professional knowledge
Hiebert et al. provide six criteria under the following statements: Teacher
knowledge must be linked to practice. It must be public and hence
communicated to fellow educators. Teacher knowledge must be storable and
shareable. It must be detailed, concrete and specific. It must be integrated.
Teacher knowledge must require a mechanism for verification and
improvement in order to prevent error. Because teacher knowledge is local the
body of knowledge produced may not be correct and it is therefore important to
set up a mechanism by which to verify that generated knowledge (Hiebert,
Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002).
Gustafson, Guilbert, and MacDonald (2002) demonstrated how teacher
knowledge can be linked to practice and how teacher knowledge can be used as
a body of knowledge in the professional growth of first year teachers. The
study demonstrated how experienced teachers played an important role in
shaping the teacher knowledge of thirteen first year elementary science
teachers during a mentoring process. The first year teachers were assigned to
work with experienced science teachers during their first year of teaching. The
first year teachers gained most from the program through their interactions and
observations of experienced science teachers. The study showed that these
interactions with experienced teachers contributed to the first year teacher’s
development of teacher knowledge specifically in general pedagogical
knowledge and curriculum knowledge. The study demonstrated the major
influence of experienced teachers’ craft knowledge in the shaping of first year
teachers’ beliefs and practices.
28
The classroom teacher’s knowledge is therefore a key in the process of
curriculum change (Hughes, 1991; Wise, Spiegel, & Bruning, 1999; Yager,
1999). The knowledge that the teacher holds will determine the shape and
direction of the new curriculum (Feldman, 2000; van Driel et al., 1997, 2001;
Yager, 1999). A true change in curriculum is not possible without a change of
teacher beliefs (Lumpe et al., 1998; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Change is not
necessarily a linear process and can be influenced by teachers’ ideologies,
beliefs and values concerning education, teaching, family values and life in
general (Feldman, 2000; Sikes, 1992; van Driel et al., 2001).
Two domains underpin teachers’ epistemological beliefs, the nature of teaching
and the nature of the subject matter. The nature of teaching takes into
consideration issues ranging from assessment (Bol, Nunnery, Stephenson, &
Mogge, 2000; Delandshere & Jones, 1999; Jenkins, 2000b; Leat & Nichols,
2000), to cooperative learning (Czerniak et al., 1997), integration (Hargreaves
& Moore, 2000; Venville, Wallace, Rennie, & Malone, 2002), teaching styles
(Hacker, 1997; Singleton, 1997) and why teachers set homework (Corno,
2000). Teaching may be seen as teaching students how to learn and fostering
the growth of the individual in all aspects of human development
(Fenstermacher, 1990; Labaree, 2000). The teacher may see his/her role and
responsibility as motivating and facilitating students’ learning (Labaree, 2000;
Richetti & Sheerin, 1999) alternatively they might see their role as the source
of knowledge in a science lesson (McRobbie & Tobin, 1995; Tobin &
McRobbie, 1996). All teachers have some kind of model that informs their
teaching. This knowledge is referred to as general pedagogical knowledge and
curriculum knowledge (Gustafson et al., 2002).
The second domain is the teacher’s understanding of the nature of particular
subject matter, in this case, the nature of science. Grossman (1990) and
Shulman (1987) both referred to this knowledge as pedagogical content
knowledge and subject matter knowledge. Research has tended to show that a
teacher’s understanding of the nature of the subject to be taught has a direct
impact on the way he/she teaches the subject (Archer, 1999; Ediger, 2000;
Klein, 1997). The teacher therefore struggles with two views of science.
Firstly, that teaching science provides the necessary skills for understanding
29
the world and therefore science is a way of investigating and explaining the
world (Singleton, 1997). Secondly, science is seen as a body of knowledge
with fixed laws, facts and universal principles to be learned (Lederman &
Niess, 1997a). If a teacher adopts the former then his/her approach may lean
more towards inquiry-based learning. If, on the other hand, the teacher adopts
the latter then their approach may fall into a science content transmission
approach to learning. Everyone who teaches science is guided by a collection
of beliefs or theory concerning his/her approach to teaching a subject
(Brickhouse, 1990; Singleton, 1997).
In practice these two belief domains of teaching and science are expressed in
terms of teachers’ craft knowledge (Cooper & McIntyre, 1996; Grossman,
1990; Morine-Dershirmer & Kent, 1999; van Driel et al., 1997, 2001). It may
be difficult however in practice to clearly distinguish between the two domains
as they may often overlap (Morine-Dershirmer & Kent, 1999). It is necessary
then for the purpose of this study to provide a clear definition of teachers’ craft
knowledge.
2.3.1 Defining teachers’ craft knowledge
The demonstration of teachers’ epistemological beliefs (Brickhouse, 1990;
Klein, 1997) is expressed through their professional knowledge. This
knowledge may also be commonly referred to as personal practical theories,
craft knowledge or practical knowledge (Feldman, 2000; van Driel et al., 1997,
2001), professional craft knowledge (Cooper & McIntyre, 1996) or
pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987). Cooper and McIntyre
(1996) define professional craft knowledge as:
The knowledge that teachers develop through the processes of reflection and practical problem-solving that they engage in to carry out the demands of their jobs. As such, this knowledge is informed by each teacher’s individual way of thinking and knowing. (p. 76)
Cooper and McIntyre (1996) placed emphasis on the practical nature of
professional craft knowledge and stated that professional craft knowledge did
not rely heavily upon the theoretical aspects of pedagogy. This concept is akin
to what Morine-Dershirmer and Kent (1999) describe as personal pedagogical
knowledge being an aspect of pedagogical knowledge. They explained,
30
“Personal pedagogical knowledge has two components: personal beliefs and
perceptions of teaching and learning; and personal practical experience
working in the classroom setting” (p. 36).
On the other hand Shulman (1987) divided professional craft knowledge into
seven categories: content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge,
curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of learners
and their characteristics, knowledge of educational contexts and knowledge of
educational ends, purposes and values and their philosophical and historical
grounds. Of these seven divisions Shulman (1987) placed special emphasis on
pedagogical content knowledge as a distinct body of knowledge for teaching:
It represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how a particular topics problems or issues are organised, represented and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of the learners and presented for instruction. (p. 8)
Grossman (1990) provided a model of four general areas of teacher knowledge
that encapsulates the seven categories presented by Shulman (1987) and other
definitions of professional craft knowledge. The four areas of teacher
knowledge are: subject matter knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge,
knowledge of context and pedagogical content knowledge. Yet as Morine-
Dershirmer and Kent (1999) pointed out, each of these components is not
readily identifiable within the teaching practice and in reality they flow
together in the classroom.
The purpose of this research is to understand better how teachers’ knowledge
shapes science curriculum. Therefore the term and definition of professional
craft knowledge provided by Cooper and McIntyre (1996) will be used in
conjunction with Morine-Dershirmer and Kent’s (1999) definition of personal
pedagogical knowledge that placed special emphasis upon teachers’ personal
beliefs of teaching and learning and personal practical experience in the
classroom.
2.3.2 Research into teachers’ craft knowledge
There is a growing recognition of the role of the teacher in curriculum
development and as a result the literature is pointing clearly towards a need to
31
better understand teachers’ epistemological beliefs in shaping the curriculum
(Feldman, 2000; van Driel et al., 1997, 2001). What will be presented next are
examples of studies that have demonstrated the need for research that enables
better understanding how teachers’ professional craft knowledge impact upon
the curriculum in the three phases of implementation: the planning phase, the
implementation phase and the assessment phase.
2.3.2.1 Planning phase
Recent research into teachers’ planning highlights the need for better
understanding teachers’ craft knowledge. Sánchez and Valcárcel (1999) found
that when teachers planned their lessons, guidance for developing a unit of
work came from the text and not from the curriculum document. This finding is
also supported by Yager’s (1999) study, in the Iowa Scope, Sequence and
Coordination (SS&C) project, where non–participating teachers who were
implementing the same science curriculum yet they relied heavily on textbooks
(Yager, 1999). The study by Sánchez and Valcárcel has important implications
for professional development. The study demonstrated that content was a vital
factor in directing the planning of a science unit. The use of textbooks played a
significant role and few teachers made modifications or adjustments to the text.
Two other notable findings worth mentioning are that Sánchez and Valcárcel
found teachers’ prior teaching experience provided direction for planning their
teaching and secondly teachers did not give a thought to assessment at the
planning stage (Sánchez & Valcárcel, 1999). The literature suggests that
planning will demonstrate teachers’ craft knowledge but this needs to be
addressed as part of the whole process of curriculum implementation to
establish the overall impact of teachers’ knowledge. The planning conducted
by teachers needs to be monitored in order to identify the changes that take
place during curriculum implementation and why such changes occurred.
2.3.2.2 Implementation phase
Teaching is the second phase of the enacted curriculum and beliefs regarding
cooperative learning, teaching styles and teachers’ beliefs regarding the nature
of the subject, play an important role in shaping the curriculum, all of which
32
form part of teachers’ craft knowledge. Four studies demonstrated directly the
impact of teachers’ knowledge on curriculum development. The studies by
Brown and McIntyre (1993) and Cooper and McIntyre (1996) examined the
impact of the National Curriculum on teachers’ professional craft knowledge in
the United Kingdom; the study by Hacker and Rowe (1997) investigated a
teacher’s style of teaching and how it was influenced by his/her beliefs and
thereby impacted on the direction of the curriculum in the UK; and van Driel’s
et al. (1997) study evaluated the impact of teachers’ craft knowledge on
curriculum development of a first year engineering course at a tertiary level in
Holland.
The studies by Brown and McIntyre (1993) and Cooper and McIntyre (1996)
will be explained in detail under the topic curriculum evaluation in the UK.
The study of Cooper and McIntyre is a continuation of the Brown and
McIntyre (1993) study. The purposes of the two studies were somewhat similar
as each sought to understand teachers’ craft knowledge. Brown and McIntyre
(1993) sought to understand teachers’ knowledge as it was applied in the
classroom. The aim was to identify what makes good teaching (Cooper &
McIntyre, 1996). The study by Cooper and McIntyre (1996) sought to
understand the impact of the National Curriculum on teachers’ craft
knowledge.
These two studies demonstrated how teachers’ craft knowledge impacted upon
implementing the National Curriculum. Even though the intent of the research
was to see the impact of the curriculum on teachers’ craft knowledge the
findings showed the contrary. The findings of Brown and McIntyre (1993) and
Cooper and McIntyre (1996) respectively, demonstrated that teachers judged
the success of their teaching in terms of student achievement. The teachers
responded to the curriculum in a critical and interpretative manner thus
indicating that they saw their role very differently when it came to curriculum
implementation. Teachers saw themselves as the “sculptors” of curriculum not
merely the implementers of curriculum.
Neither the study by Brown and McIntyre (1993) and Cooper and McIntyre
(1996) sought intentionally to understand how teachers’ beliefs affected the
implementation of the curriculum. The outcomes of both studies nevertheless
33
illustrate the need for further research into the impact of teachers’ craft
knowledge on curriculum implementation.
In another study of teachers’ craft knowledge van Driel et al. (1997) found that
teachers at the tertiary level had difficulty adopting a student centred approach
to teaching even though, in principle, the teachers supported the concept. The
problem emerged as a result of shifting from a content focus instruction model
to a student centred approach model of teaching. These university
teachers/lecturers perceived that academic rigor was related to the amount of
content to be covered within the first year of the engineering course. As a
result, this perception impacted directly on how the new curriculum was
implemented. The study by van Driel et al. was limited to experienced teachers
who had not undergone any formal teacher training. It would be beneficial to
see if such difficulties also arise with teachers who have been formally trained
to teach. Secondly, the study by van Driel et al. did not look in detail at the
planning and assessment phase. Its focus was primarily at the classroom
implementation phase. The study nevertheless indicated that teachers’ craft
knowledge does impact on curriculum implementation and indicates that such
influences could quite well exist at other levels of education.
The teacher’s style of teaching is also influenced by his/her beliefs which, in
turn have a direct impact on curriculum implementation (Hacker & Rowe,
1997; Perkins, 1999; Prawat, 1992). In a comparative study of teachers’
teaching styles from 1970s to the 1990s, Hacker and Rowe (1997) found that
secondary teachers’ teaching style in the United Kingdom had shifted from an
inquirer, problem solver approach of teaching to an informer didactic teaching
approach. The teachers focused on the teaching of the content rather than the
learning process of the student, despite the fact that the National Curriculum
(National Curriculum Council, 1991) advocated a student centred approach.
The reason for this shift is that the teachers felt that in order to cover all the
outcomes it was expedient to employ a didactic method of teaching and thereby
meet the demands of the school administration, government and community
(Hacker & Rowe, 1997). This experience is not uncommon and is
demonstrated in other studies in the UK (Jenkins, 2000b; Lunn & Solomon,
2000) and post professional development experiences of science teachers in
34
Egypt (Johnson et al., 2000), all of which will be discussed in detail later in this
chapter.
Other research showed that a teacher’s understanding of the nature of the
subject to be taught has a direct impact on the way he/she taught the subject
(Archer, 1999; Ediger, 2000; Klein, 1997). In mathematics education, research
has demonstrated that a teacher’s understanding of the nature of mathematics
affects the way that he/she teach (Archer, 1999; Klein, 1997). For example,
Archer studied four areas in Australian schools related to teaching practice in
mathematics for primary and secondary teachers: epistemological beliefs,
beliefs about motivation, beliefs about pedagogy and attributional beliefs that
were not specifically tied to teaching. Of the four beliefs, epistemological
beliefs concerning the nature of mathematics differed between primary and
secondary teachers. The primary teachers viewed mathematics as part of the
students’ everyday lives and linked to other curriculum areas. On the other
hand secondary teachers viewed mathematics as self-contained and the
teachers guided the students through the lessons (Archer, 1999).
Similarly, Klein (1997) found that teachers used the correct terminology and
some strategies of constructivism to teach mathematics but there was no
substantive change evident. The pre-service teachers’ epistemological beliefs
in Klein’s study remained unaffected. Their views concerning the nature of
mathematics and how it should be taught also remained unchanged (Klein,
1997). This is consistent with the findings of Feldman (2000) where pre-
service teachers’ practical theories (craft knowledge) remained unchanged
regardless of the negative impact on the student.
For a teacher to teach science in the classroom the teacher needs to deal with
his/her understanding of the nature of science. The teacher needs also to
address why he/she teaches science in the practical context of the classroom.
How a teacher answers these questions will very much influence how he/she
teaches science (Clough, 2000; Lederman & Niess, 1997a). For example,
McComas (1996) identified ten myths concerning science and their
implications for learning science which are categorised under the following
statements: A hypothesis becomes theory which becomes a law. A hypothesis
is an educated guess. A general and universal scientific method exists.
35
Evidence accumulated carefully will result in sure knowledge. Science and its
methods provide absolute proof. Science is procedural more than creative.
Science and its methods can answer all questions. Scientists are particularly
objective. Experiments are the principle route to scientific knowledge. All
work in science is reviewed to keep the process honest.
Each of the above myths has serious implications for classroom practice. If, for
example, a classroom teacher perceives that science is procedural more than
creative he/she may direct the students learning experience to emulate this
approach. If the teacher believes that experiments are the principle route to
scientific knowledge, then he/she will discount other problem solving strategies
that could be employed within the classroom (McComas, 1996).
An example of this occurring in science was revealed in a study by Czerniak et
al. (1997). They investigated the relationship of science teachers’ beliefs and
the use of cooperative learning and found that teachers’ beliefs had a
significant impact upon the use of cooperative learning. Czerniak et al. found
that some teachers saw cooperative learning as beneficial to the students and
others saw that such an approach would diminish the content within the
curriculum. This conflict of beliefs emphasises the struggle that a teacher has
between the importance of covering the content while at the same time
attempting to take a more student centred approach to learning (Sánchez &
Valcárcel, 1999; van Driel et al., 1997, 2001; Yager, 1999).
2.3.2.3 Assessment phase
Assessment is the third phase of curriculum implementation where teachers’
craft knowledge has a significant impact on curriculum reform (Bol et al.,
2000; Delandshere & Jones, 1999; Jenkins, 2000b; Leat & Nichols, 2000;
Lumpe et al., 2000). The outcomes of assessment are often seen as a reflection
on teacher and school performance (Bol et al., 2000; Jenkins, 2000b; Lumpe et
al., 2000). The study conducted by Delandshere and Jones (1999) found that
while curriculum was advocating child centred learning, the assessment
methods used by the teachers reflected the subject centred approach. Teachers
also undertook a subject centred approach, because they perceived it was
expected of them. The assessments that were made were designed to determine
36
the students’ understanding of that knowledge. Delandshere and Jones
explained, “Teachers considered assessment as a summative judgement of what
students know and can do and they did not appear to see much interaction
between the way they taught and the way their students learned” (p. 234).
These researchers found that the teachers’ assessments of students varied and
the assessments were not able to be reconciled because their beliefs of teaching
and learning differed. For example, students were given grades that were to
reflect understanding of content but teachers adjusted the grades because of the
student’s work ethic (Delandshere & Jones, 1999).
In concluding this section, it is argued that at each phase of curriculum
enactment (planning, teaching and assessment) an understanding of teachers’
craft knowledge concerning the nature of teaching and the nature of the subject
matter is of importance if there is to be an effective curriculum change.
Zeichner and Liston (1996) emphasised the point that teachers’ beliefs govern
their actions and these are rooted in who they are and how they perceive the
world. Understanding the role of teachers’ craft knowledge and their
relationship to the implementation of curriculum will provide more effective
curriculum development (Archer, 1999; Feldman, 2000; Lumpe et al., 1998;
van Driel et al., 1997, 2001; Yager, 1999). Hence, in any study examining the
process of change, an awareness of teachers’ craft knowledge will play a
salient role in curriculum reform.
2.4 CURRICULUM EVALUATION IN AUSTRALIA
Over the past twenty-five to thirty years, three perspectives have informed
research into curriculum change: the fidelity perspective, the mutual adaptation
perspective and the curriculum enactment perspective (Cho, 1998; Snyder et
al., 1992).
These three perspectives fidelity, mutual adaptation and enactment
perspectives have impacted upon the development and implementation of
curriculum change. The crucial difference between each of these three
perspectives lies in its purpose and the underlying assumptions and hence the
types of questions that are generated by the research are dissimilar. Figure 2.1
provides a continuum illustrating the difference in the nature of these three
37
perspectives as they impact on the research design. Briefly, the fidelity
perspective looks into the degree to which the intended curriculum has been
implemented. The mutual adaptation perspective takes a step further by
looking into how the curriculum has been adapted or how the teacher has made
adjustments to accommodate for the new curriculum. The enactment
perspective goes beyond these domains as it recognises from the start, that the
curriculum is re-formed by the key players; the students and the teachers.
Snyder et al.’s (1992) theoretical framework was used as a basis for analysing
research that has specifically addressed curriculum development and
change.
Research into curriculum implementation can be viewed along a continuum
FidelityThe role of the teacher and the student is not taken into consideration
Mutual adaptationMixed approach with some consideration givento the role of the teacher
EnactmentThe role of the teacher and the student is taken into consideration
Figure 2.1 Continuum of research into curriculum development.
2.4.1 The fidelity perspective
The fidelity perspective is an approach that aims to evaluate the extent to
which the intended written curriculum has been implemented within the
classroom. It is designed to provide feedback to the curriculum writers and
policy makers about the degree to which the intended curriculum has been
implemented. The researcher who approaches the research from a fidelity
perspective will seek to identify the factors that facilitated or hindered the
implementation of an intended curriculum. As a result appropriate instruments
such as scales and check lists are developed in an attempt to measure the
difference between the intended and the implemented curriculum (Snyder et
al., 1992).
The types of questions that have been asked are: Is there an alignment of
teaching paradigm of the proposed new science syllabus and a teacher’s
present beliefs concerning teaching and learning? To what extent has the new
38
syllabus been adapted by the teachers? What factors have contributed to the
implementation of the syllabus (Cho, 1998; Snyder et al., 1992)?
Snyder et al. (1992) explained that there are three underlying assumptions in
the fidelity perspective. The first was that curriculum knowledge was created
outside the classroom. Secondly the change to implementing curriculum was
linear, and finally evaluation of the curriculum was based upon determining if
the planned outcomes had been achieved. The fidelity perspective therefore
does not take into consideration the role that the classroom teacher and student
perform in shaping the curriculum at the enacted level of curriculum
implementation (Czerniak et al., 1997; Tobin & McRobbie, 1996, 1997).
Historically, research of this kind dominated the 1970s (Cho, 1998; Snyder et
al., 1992) and is evident in governmental or quasi-official reports (e.g.,
Australian Science Technology and Engineering Council [ASTEC], 1997).
There are occasions where the fidelity perspective had been used to evaluate
the learning of primary students engaging in science (e.g., Adams, Doig, &
Rosier, 1990; Clark, 1999) and recently in evaluating science education at a
national level (Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001).
Within Australia studies that have investigated science curriculum
implementation from a fidelity perspective were: Adams et al. (1990), Clark
(1999), Crocker (1979), Goodrum et al. (2001), Henry (1977) and Varley
(1975).
Crocker (1979) provided a teacher’s perspectives on curriculum change in
primary science. This research aimed to understand the distinction between the
adoption and implementation of the syllabus and employed action research
using a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis. Henry (1977)
investigated the degree to which the state of Victoria’s primary science had
been implemented and it once again used an empirical evaluation. Varley’s
(1975) study aimed to understand the perceptions of teachers in the
implementation of the 1966 Queensland science syllabus (Department of
Education, Queensland, 1966).
The study by Adams et al. (1990) focused upon student performances and how
these performances measured up to the Victorian curriculum guidelines. One
39
section of the study devoted its attention to the practical aspects of classroom
teaching and focused on the amount of time being used to teach science, the
use of computers, field trips and an awareness of gender issues. Yet it did not
investigate specifically the needs of teachers and how they interpreted the
curriculum and what practices they employed to implement the syllabus. Adam
et al. did not specifically deal with how the students and teachers were enacting
the curriculum.
The research by Clark (1999) examined the amount and nature of science
taught by upper primary classroom teachers. His investigation studied eight
schools in three states of Australia: Victoria, ACT and NSW. He observed
fourteen lessons taught by twelve teachers. Each school was visited for one
day. Once again, this research demonstrated a fidelity perspective to
curriculum implementation as it sought to establish to what degree the written
curriculum had been implemented. Clark’s research was unable to determine
the amount and nature of science being taught in the classroom because the
teachers were using an integrated approach to teaching science and the data
collection process was limited to just one observation per class. Nevertheless
the research was insightful in that it highlighted the need for further research
into understanding the current practices of classroom teachers teaching science.
The study further demonstrated that surveys or similar research methods do not
seem to provide an adequate understanding of the influence of teacher
knowledge. The study also indicated that there is a link in the amount of time
devoted to science and the teacher’s understanding of the nature of science.
Finally, Clark has highlighted, indirectly, the need to investigate teacher's craft
knowledge as they interpret, attempt to make sense of and implement a
prescribed science syllabus.
The research by Goodrum et al. (2001) was an investigation into the current
condition and quality of teaching and learning of science in primary and
secondary schools throughout Australia. The study is of particular interest
because it compared the ideal perceptions of teachers of science education with
that of the actual implementation of science education for both primary and
secondary education. Goodrum et al. found that there was a considerable gap
between the intended and the enacted science curriculum. The intended
40
curriculum was focused on students becoming scientifically literate however
the enactment of the curriculum centred on the learning of a certain body of
knowledge and the use of texts was deemed more important. This type of
response to the science curriculum was not only evident in the secondary but
also in the primary schools. The study also found that even at the primary level
experiments were more teacher directed than student initiated. As a result much
secondary science was considered to be irrelevant or uninteresting. In primary
schools, either science was not being taught at all or taught regularly with a
student centred approach resulting in high level of student satisfaction.
Goodrum et al. highlighted that the teacher is central to any curriculum reform
and without a change in the teacher’s beliefs and practices meaningful science
reform will not take place. Reaffirming, that undertaking such changes will
take time; and can only come about through effective ongoing professional
development that addresses teachers’ beliefs. Goodrum et al. states that a
culture needs to be developed that views professional development as ongoing
and part of teacher practice. A limitation of Goodrum et al. is characteristic of
reports that take on a fidelity perspective (Snyder et al., 1992) and measures
the disparity between the intended and the enacted. The Goodrum et al. report
provided only a broad picture of what was and is currently taking place in
science education and once again did not address the issue of how the teachers
shape the science curriculum in the context of their own classroom.
Overall research conducted into curriculum change (implementation) from a
fidelity perspective has provided an understanding of a broad picture of what is
taking, or not taking, place in science education and for this purpose it is
helpful. Yet such an approach is limited in depth, seeking only to measure or
assess the degree to which science is being implemented within the classroom
or in some cases identify a paradigm shift of instructional approaches or
beliefs. While this may be beneficial, it simply does not allow researchers to
obtain a better understanding of how teacher knowledge impacts on the
curriculum within the classroom. The above examples demonstrate that it is
outside the scope of such research to explore teacher knowledge (Munby et al.,
2001) and thereby produce a body of professional knowledge (Hiebert et al.,
2002) that would inform curriculum developers and policy makers.
41
2.4.2 The mutual adaptation perspective
The mutual adaptation perspective as illustrated in Figure 2.1, falls somewhere
along the continuum of research conducted between a fidelity perspective and
the curriculum enactment perspective. Mutual adaptation is a process where
adjustments in curriculum are recognised and are made by curriculum
developers (Snyder et al., 1992). Unlike the fidelity and the enactment
perspectives, mutual adaptation cannot be clearly defined by its research
questions (Snyder et al., 1992). The research questions tend to be a mixture of
fidelity and enactment perspectives. It is therefore difficult to identify clearly
research that is specifically using a mutual adaptation perspective. Principally
it is not considered a discrete domain of research like that of the fidelity and
enactment perspective (Snyder et al., 1992). There are four studies that
investigated curriculum change from a mutual adaptation perspective: Fleer
and Hardy (1994), Jeans and Farnsworth (1992), Peers, (2000), also cited in
Peers, Diezmann, and Watters (2003) and Venville and Wallace (1998).
There are two approaches that are considered in the research question for the
mutual adaptation perspective, the practical and critical approach to research
(Snyder et al., 1992). The critical approach asks the question, “How is the
curriculum shaped as it is played out in the classroom?” This type of question
falls to the right side of the midpoint on the continuum, leaning strongly
towards the enactment perspective but still possessing elements of the fidelity
perspective. An example of this type of research within Australia was Fleer and
Hardy’s (1994) evaluation of the challenges and problems in developing a K-3
science program that was in keeping with the National Statement and Profile in
Science. A major assumption made during the implementation of the program
and the research that reflects an influence of the fidelity perspective was related
to the issue that teachers would readily adopt or transfer their present teaching
skills to the teaching of science. This adoption did not take place and the
probable cause of this was firstly that teachers did not value science as highly
as other subject areas and secondly, these teachers had doubts concerning their
confidence to teach science.
The second type of question that can be asked is the practical approach
question, “To what degree has the planned curriculum been implemented and
42
what were the contributing factors?” This type of question falls to the left of
the mid point of the continuum and strongly leans towards a fidelity
perspective (Snyder et al., 1992). Examples of this type of research within
Australia were the studies by Jeans and Farnsworth (1992), Peers (2002) also
cited in Peers, Diezmann, and Watters (2003) and Venville and Wallace
(1998).
Jeans and Farnsworth’s (1992) research was an empirically based study that
allowed an opportunity for teachers to provide additional feedback into
understanding what is taught and how it is taught. There were two significant
findings. The first was that teachers viewed science education as very
important, but the study failed to determine the underlying reason for this.
Second, teachers used an integrated curriculum approach but no teacher used
science as the integrating device. This research did begin to provide some
insights into how teachers may enact primary science in the classroom and it
did give some indication as to how teachers may manage the new science
syllabus. Yet because of the nature and limitations of the research Jeans and
Farnsworth were unable provide an explanation.
The work of Peers (2000) and Peers et al., (2003) was a case study that used an
interpretative methodology to evaluate the change of beliefs and practices in a
primary school teacher implementing a trial science curriculum accompanied
by on-going professional support. Peer’s research is an example that used both
the critical and practical and because of this, it falls into the category of a
mutual adaptation perspective. The critical approach in the research by Peers
focused on the teacher and his professional growth during the implementation
of an innovative science curriculum. The study by Peers evaluated the changes
in an individual teacher during the implementation of the science program
initially over three months then extended over a two-year period. The
professional development and on-going professional support was provided by
Peers. She demonstrated through her research how the teacher reconciled his
own beliefs of science and the teaching of science with that of the curriculum
innovation. The research of Peers is also practical as it asked the important
question about what ways does the teacher change… and what changes occur
in the teacher’s beliefs when implementing a new science syllabus? Whilst this
43
question does focus on the teacher, it nevertheless made the assumption that
the teacher will change to adapt to the new syllabus and not the syllabus to the
teacher and therefore leans toward the fidelity perspective. This assumption is
the critical difference between Peers’ research and this research. She did not
provide an analysis of how the teacher’s beliefs and practices were impacting
on curriculum development. As Peer’s research made a valuable contribution
in the domain of professional development, in particular mentoring, it will
therefore be discussed further in Section 2.6.2 under the heading of
coaching/mentoring.
The work of Venville and Wallace (1998) provided a progress report of what
took place in the science teacher-leader project in Western Australia and the
experiences of those who participated in the program. The program did not
have a set curriculum document to focus upon and much of its support came
from using the reference material, Primary Investigations (Australian Academy
of Science, 1994). The report examined all levels of implementation from the
district level through to the classroom. It highlighted some of the experiences
of the teachers and how they managed the changes that took place. Once again,
because of the nature of the report, it proved to be limited in that it did not
investigate in detail how the experiences of teachers may have an impact upon
future curriculum development.
After an exhaustive review of literature the above four mentioned studies were
the only ones identified in Australia that demonstrated a mutual adaptation
perspective towards the evaluation of new science curriculum. Research at the
mutual adaptation perspective has established that science in the primary
school was frequently integrated with other subjects (Jeans & Farnsworth,
1992), that teachers did not value science as highly as other subject areas and
that these teachers had doubts concerning their confidence to teach science
(Fleer & Hardy, 1994; Peers, 2002; Peers et al., 2003). Nevertheless mutual
adaptation research has provided some insights into experiences of the teachers
and how they managed the changes that took place when they implemented a
new syllabus in the classroom (Venville & Wallace, 1998).
Yet research using a mutual adaptation perspective in Australia, and like its
international counterpart, have not provided a depth of understanding of certain
44
aspects of teacher knowledge such as explaining how and why teachers
integrate science with other subjects (Jeans & Farnsworth, 1992). The mutual
adaptation perspective has not provided the opportunity to look in detail into
interpreting how the experiences of teachers’ may have an impact upon future
curriculum development (Venville & Wallace, 1998) and neglected to
determine why science is or is not important to the classroom teacher (Fleer &
Hardy, 1994; Jeans & Farnsworth, 1992). While research from a mutual
adaptation perspective also identified a gap between the intended science
curriculum and the implemented science curriculum it only goes so far as to
suggest the probable cause that may be attributed to how teachers value science
and their confidence to teach science (Fleer & Hardy, 1994) and stopped short
of building a teacher knowledge base (Hiebert et al., 2002). Mutual adaptation
does not provide a clear picture of teacher knowledge and how that knowledge
influences the teaching of science. While Peers (2000) did identify that
teachers’ beliefs were impacting on the enacted curriculum the research did not
demonstrate how those beliefs were impacting on the new science syllabus.
Peers (2000) direct involvement as a professional provider during the data
collection period put the question of impact of beliefs outside the scope of her
research. Finally none of the research from a mutual adaptation perspective
drew a comparison between secondary and primary teachers or identified if
there is a common teacher knowledge held by either group.
2.4.3 Curriculum enactment perspective
As previously shown in Figure 2.1, the curriculum enactment perspective is to
the right side of the continuum as it is concerned with the role of the classroom
teacher and student and their effect upon the curriculum implementation. A
researcher conducting research from this perspective is concerned with how the
curriculum is shaped by the teacher (Snyder et al., 1992). This type of research
is not concerned with the degree to which the intended curriculum has been
implemented but is concerned with how the intended curriculum is inevitably
reshaped by the teacher and the student. The focus of such research is to
understand how those participants experience the mandated syllabus and
thereby understand how those experiences help teachers develop appropriate
45
approaches to curriculum development and implementation. The assumption of
this approach is that curriculum is not viewed as an event or something
manufactured from outside but rather shaped by those who participate in it
(Snyder et al., 1992).
The types of questions that can be asked when adapting the enactment
perspective are: What skills and knowledge has the teacher found useful to
make the curriculum more meaningful? How has the curriculum taken shape?
How do the classroom teacher and student experience the curriculum? How
will those experiences make a contribution to future curriculum
implementation (Snyder et al., 1992)?
Of the literature in Australia that focused upon issues of curriculum
development, only four research projects clearly demonstrated an enacted
curriculum perspective. Appleton and Harrison (2000), Ingvarson and
Loughran (1997), both focused on professional development while McRobbie
and Tobin (1995) and Tobin and McRobbie (1996, 1997) studied the teaching
experiences of a senior secondary chemistry teacher and Ritchie and Rigano
(2002) provided an understanding of teachers self-initiated change because of
poor student outcomes.
The purpose of Appleton and Harrison’s (2000) research was to identify the
professional development needs of primary teachers undertaking the new
Queensland science syllabus. The pilot study observed three teachers who were
asked to plan collaboratively a unit of work for a grade seven class as part of a
professional development exercise over three, two-hour sessions. The outcome
of the Appleton and Harrison’s research has raised the issue of an effective
model for professional development and how effective support needs to be
provided. This issue became more apparent when one of the participating
teachers was a curriculum consultant for the school in science education. The
study did not compare if there were any similarities to or comparisons with
secondary teachers undertaking the same experience.
The aim of the study conducted by Ingvarson and Loughran (1997) was to
discover what factors either inhibited or helped science teachers to meet their
professional expectations and to understand the context of the same science
46
teachers’ working environment. This research did not explicitly investigate a
particular curriculum or curriculum implementation but it did provide a very
insightful understanding of the secondary science teacher in relation to his/her
professional development needs and how those needs could be addressed.
Ingvarson and Loughran came to the conclusion that the SEPD (Science
Education Professional Development project) commissioned by the Federal
government of Australia did not adequately address the professional needs of
science teachers.
The third study by McRobbie and Tobin (1995) and Tobin and McRobbie
(1996, 1997) has clearly taken an enactment perspective to curriculum
research. Tobin and McRobbie endeavoured to understand better the teacher
and the student as they engaged in an aspect of the senior secondary science
syllabus – chemistry in Brisbane Australia. Tobin and McRobbie (1996)
describe four cultural myths that were found as hindrances in the reform of
science education. These were: the transmission myth, the myth of efficiency,
the myth of rigor and the myth of preparing students for examinations. Each of
these myths was found to be based upon the teacher’s and student’s
understanding of the nature of knowledge and the distribution of power.
Knowledge was seen as an entity and it was the teacher’s responsibility to
ensure that that knowledge was passed onto the students. It is clear that the
myths (actions) of the male science teacher were strongly linked to that of his
beliefs in the nature of knowledge and that knowledge had to be transmitted to
the students and he measured his effectiveness as a teacher by his ability to
transfer that science content knowledge to the student. The students also
assessed the teacher as effective if the teacher passed on that science content
knowledge in preparation for the final examination with the student’s ultimate
outcome being entrance into university. Furthermore, fellow teachers,
administration, parents and the community shared these four cultural myths or
beliefs and without collective change in these beliefs and support from these
other interest groups, reform is science education was unlikely to take place
(Tobin & McRobbie, 1996).
The result of Tobin and McRobbie’s (1997) study has highlighted the need for
further research into understanding the interactions between the micro-culture
47
of the classroom and the macro-culture of the whole school. The limitation of
the research was that it did not compare the experiences of the teacher with
other teachers to identify if those experiences were similar. Tobin and
McRobbie did provide an insight into teachers’ beliefs and/or myths and how
these myths impact on the curriculum. Yet, the research did not establish a
clear link between the practical skills or craft knowledge needed by the
classroom teacher to enact the science curriculum.
The study by Ritchie and Rigano (2002) was an interpretative case study of
two secondary teachers implementing an alternative approach to teaching year
ten science classes. The two teachers were a deputy principal and the head of a
science department. The study demonstrated that it was not necessary to
employ an external change agent in order to bring about change in teaching
practice and that these two teachers initiated the change themselves. It was
found that the following four factors that encouraged the teachers to change
their teaching practice: dissatisfaction with student outcomes, realisation that
there were better alternatives, a commitment to improve practice and a
supportive school community.
While the study by Ritchie and Rigano (2002) demonstrated that teachers are
capable of self-initiated change and that change can be motivated by
dissatisfaction with poor student outcomes, the question must be raised then,
would this have been the case if these teachers had not been in leadership
roles? The positions held by these two teachers indicated that they possessed
certain leadership qualities to self-initiate change. Furthermore, the school
community support that Ritchie and Rigano referred to is very much influenced
by their leadership role within the school. The study would find strength if had
been able to compare the practices of the two selected teachers with those of
other science teachers within the same school and if the other teachers had
been attempting to make changes of their own. Finally the study fell short by
not demonstrating the influence of the teachers’ practice on the curriculum
other than to provide anecdotal evidence of student feedback about their
impressions of the teaching approach used. Nevertheless the study did make a
contribution to knowledge in the domain of motivational theory as to why a
teacher would change his/her teaching practice.
48
It would appear that the main limitation of the above four studies which is
characteristic of an enactment perspective to research, is that the teacher
knowledge generated from the given research was based within the context of
the participants (Hiebert et al., 2002). The above studies perhaps with the
exception of Tobin and McRobbie (1996), have not provided a transferable
framework of understanding teacher knowledge in other contexts. This is
critical if that teacher knowledge is to be recognised as a body of professional
knowledge (Hiebert et al., 2002). The above mentioned studies have only
presented the importance and impact of teacher knowledge on professional
development and curriculum. While there was an exploration of teacher
knowledge there has been limited development in the formation of a body of
professional knowledge (Hiebert et al., 2002). A conceptual framework of
teacher knowledge needs to be developed so that it is transferable to other
contexts.
2.4.4 Summation of research
Over the past twenty-five years the extent of research in science curriculum in
Australia seems to have been deficient in curriculum development and what
research has been undertaken has been predominantly in the form of a fidelity
to the mutual adaptation perspective (e.g., Adams et al., 1990; Clark, 1999;
Crocker, 1979; Fleer & Hardy, 1994; Goodrum et al., 2001; Jeans &
Farnsworth, 1992; Peers, 2000; Peers et al., 2003; Venville & Wallace, 1998).
Much of the previous research was empirical in nature and lacked the
qualitative dimension that provides a rich understanding of challenges that are
faced by the classroom teacher. At times teacher concerns were mentioned but
this was limited and outside the boundaries of the research because of the
nature of the investigation. Only recently, some researchers have begun to turn
their attention to an enactment perspective with the view that it is the teacher
who will reshape the curriculum (e.g., Appleton & Harrison, 2000; Ingvarson
& Loughran, 1997; McRobbie & Tobin, 1995; Tobin & McRobbie, 1997;
Ritchie & Rigano, 2002).
The research literature addressing curriculum development in Australia was
categorised into three perspectives of curriculum development and compiled
49
into a table (see Table 2.1) and is represented in a pie graph (see Figure 2.2).
Only the identified research that clearly approached curriculum development
from the perspective that curriculum is shaped by its stakeholders was placed
in the enactment perspective. All of the rest was listed under the heading of
fidelity and mutual adaptation. The table and pie graph both serve to illustrate
the concentration of research into curriculum development is predominantly at
the fidelity/mutual adaptation perspective. This outcome supports the findings
of Cho (1998) and Snyder et al. (1992) that the bulk of research is still from
fidelity/mutual adaptation perspectives and there is limited research that can be
truly identified at the enactment perspective. This outcome illustrates the need
for further research that focuses more on the questions of how and why. Only
until why and how is further investigated will educators be better informed as
to how to narrow the gap between the intended and the enacted curriculum
(Cho, 1998; Snyder et al., 1992). Educators will then be able to provide more
effective professional development models that address the gap between the
intended and the enacted.
Furthermore, there were only two studies in Australia that provided some
comparison between primary and secondary teachers in mathematics and
science education respectively (Archer, 1999; Goodrum et al., 2001). Whilst
the Goodrum et al. (2001) report provided an understanding of science
education within Australia for primary and secondary education, it was
evaluative in nature and did not explore teachers enacting the science
curriculum. There was no mention in the Goodrum et al. (2001) report of
teachers’ craft knowledge or how teacher knowledge impacted on the enacted
science curriculum. With the exception of Tobin and McRobbie (1996) there
has been little mention of teacher knowledge in the other Australian based
research. Finally, only three Australian research studies could be found that
sought to make a connection between the impact of professional development
and the implementation of the science curriculum (Appleton & Harrison, 2000;
Ingvarson & Loughran, 1997; Peers, 2000; Peers et al., 2003). The result of the
literature review demonstrates that there is a need to focus some research into
curriculum development for science education from an enactment perspective
50
and furthermore address the lack of research that compares the teacher
knowledge of primary and secondary teachers in Australia.
Table 2.1 Three Fields of Curriculum Development.
Fidelity perspective Mutual adaptation Enactment perspective
Adams, Doig, and Rosier (1990)
Fleer and Hardy (1994) Appleton and Harrison (2000)
ASTEC (1997) Jeans and Farnsworth (1992) Ingvarson and Loughran (1997)
Clark (1999) Venville and Wallace (1998) McRobbie and Tobin (1995)
Crocker (1979) Peers (2000); Peers et al. (2003)
Tobin and McRobbie (1996). Continuation of the McRobbie and Tobin (1995)
Goodrum, Hacking, and Rennie (2001)
Tobin and McRobbie (1997). Continuation of the McRobbie and Tobin (1995)
Henry (1977) Ritchie and Rigano (2002)
Varley (1975)
Fidelity & MutualadaptationEnactment
Figure 2.2 Comparing research into curriculum development.
51
2.5 INTERNATIONAL CURRICULUM EVALUATION
This chapter has already reviewed a number of research projects that have
addressed certain aspects of the curriculum in various countries. The purpose
of this section is twofold. Firstly, it is to provide an insight into the experiences
and lessons learned by two nations: the United Kingdom and the United States
of America. Secondly, it is to have gained an understanding of the extent and
nature of the research conducted in curriculum development and change.
2.5.1 Curriculum evaluation in the United Kingdom
As mentioned earlier, the United Kingdom has undergone substantial change
with the introduction of the National Curriculum since 1991 (National
Curriculum Council, 1991). In this section four studies have evaluated the
National Curriculum as a whole are reported on. The first study by Brown and
McIntyre (1993) and Cooper and McIntyre (1996) investigated the impact of
the National Curriculum on teachers’ professional craft knowledge. The second
study by Donnelly (2000) and Jenkins (2000b) investigates the impact of the
National Curriculum on secondary science teachers’ work. The third study
undertaken by Hacker and Rowe (1997), investigated teaching and learning
behaviours and the fourth study by Lunn and Solomon (2000) examined
primary teachers’ professional self-identity. Each of these studies was
evaluated from the perspective of Snyder et al.’s (1992) curriculum evaluation
framework and key issues will be discussed. The findings of the four studies
make obvious the need to better understand the role of teachers and their
epistemological beliefs in curriculum reform.
The first study was conducted by Brown and McIntyre (1993) and Cooper and
McIntyre (1996). The research of Cooper and McIntyre was a continuation of
Brown and McIntyre. These two related research projects in the United
Kingdom have directly addressed the topic of professional craft knowledge in
relation to the nature of teaching and curriculum.
The purpose of Brown and McIntyre’s (1993) study was to investigate the
application of teacher knowledge within the classroom. Sixteen teachers
participated in the study, four primary and twelve secondary. The method of
52
data collection was to ask the teacher, immediately following the lesson, what
brought about his/her actions. The reliability of the data were based upon the
consistency in the interviews with what the teacher had said immediately after
the lesson and consistency with what the other teachers said. These results
were then presented to other teachers and researchers who concurred with the
experiences of the classroom teachers.
Brown and McIntyre’s (1993) study appeared to have three limitations. First, it
was undertaken in a cross curricula manner and hence was not subject focused.
This approach therefore did not provide opportunity for any in-depth analysis
of teaching methods or behaviour that may be unique to a particular subject
area. Second, Brown and McIntyre (1993) observed only the implementation of
the lesson and not the planning and assessment of a unit. To understand better
teachers’ craft knowledge it would have been advantageous to have observed
the planning, the implementation and the assessment of the unit. Third, the
study did not look specifically at teachers and their engagement with
curriculum development but rather how the curriculum was impacting on the
teacher.
Two findings of Brown and McIntyre (1993) study were:
Teachers most commonly judged their teaching in terms of the achievement or maintenance of states of pupil activity, which they took to be normally desirable for particular phases and types of lessons; and teachers generally had a considerable repertoire of tactics, which they could use in order to attain their short-term goals. (p. 110)
The study conducted by Cooper and McIntyre (1996) was a continuation of
Brown and McIntrye (1993). What is noticeable with Cooper and McIntyre’s
research is that, while there was the intent of better understanding of teachers’
pedagogical knowledge there is also the underlying assumption that the
curriculum will impact and change teachers’ beliefs rather than how a teachers’
beliefs will affect the curriculum. This was demonstrated by one of Cooper and
McIntyre’s aims which was to explore the impact of the National Curriculum’s
impact on teachers’ craft knowledge. The nature of this research question
comes from a fidelity perspective, an approach described by Snyder et al.
(1992) as having the assumption that the curriculum will change the teacher
and his/her teaching practice. Perhaps if it had been from an enacted
53
perspective, again a term used by Snyder et al. as a view which sees the teacher
as the person who shapes the curriculum, the question would have read: “How
will teachers’ craft knowledge affect the direction and shape of the National
Curriculum?”
An outcome of Cooper and McIntyre’s (1996) study that is relevant to this
literature review was teachers’ responses toward the National Curriculum. The
study showed that the teachers responded to the curriculum in a critical and
interpretative manner indicating that the teachers saw their role very differently
when it came to curriculum implementation:
The National Curriculum became an issue on which they focused their professional and scholarly knowledge about effective ways of teaching and about pupils’ learning needs, as well as, in some cases, the knowledge they have derived as scholars in their teaching subjects. (p. 152)
This reported behaviour by teachers demonstrated the enactment of curriculum.
In spite of this behaviour, as explained earlier, neither studies (Brown &
McIntyre, 1993; Cooper & McIntyre, 1996) focused on how the teacher shaped
the curriculum. Their research did not intentionally seek to understand how
teachers’ beliefs affected the implementation of the curriculum. While this was
a limitation of the research it nevertheless illustrates the need for further
research into teacher knowledge.
The second study is the Economic Research Council study based at the
University of Leeds, was reported on separately by Donnelly (2000) and
Jenkins (2000b). Fundamentally the reports investigated the impact of the
National Curriculum on secondary science teachers’ work. Both reports
(Donnelly, 2000; Jenkins, 2000b) drew their findings from the data generated
by one of eight different questionnaires (four each in science and history). Five
hundred secondary schools in England and Wales were selected at random to
participate in the questionnaires. There were 296 teachers who responded to the
questionnaire but only teachers with ten or more years experience were
considered and seventy-seven percent of these respondents were heads of
departments (Jenkins, 2000b).
In summary, the report by Jenkins (2000b) highlighted three significant areas
that needed to be addressed in curriculum development. Firstly, the curriculum
54
was structured in such a way that forced teachers’ to focus more on assessment
than learning by the student. Second, the curriculum was prescriptive to such
an extent that it did not permit flexibility in planning, or developing units of
work to cater for a range of student needs. Third, the government should
consult with teachers about curriculum policy and to recognise teachers’
professional expertise in science education or any other curriculum area
(Jenkins, 2000b). These findings of Jenkins were in accord with those of
Donnelly (2000).
The reports by Donnelly (2000) and Jenkins (2000b) fall into the mutual
adaptation perspective because they explored issues of the impact of the
National Curriculum on the teachers’ work and at the same time how the
teacher has adapted to the curriculum. While their studies have demonstrated
significant issues of concern, they did not discuss teachers enacting the
curriculum through their craft knowledge (Donnelly, 2000; Jenkins, 2000b).
Furthermore the studies focused on teachers in key leadership positions and
hence it only provided a perspective from the heads of department and not the
classroom teacher (Donnelly, 2000; Jenkins, 2000b). This shortcoming
demonstrates that the real issues for the classroom teacher may not have been
fully explored and only serves to illustrate a greater level of concern for the
teachers.
The third study, which has already been mentioned, is by Hacker and Rowe
(1997). This research compared the teaching styles during the implementation
of the National Curriculum in the 1990s with that of the teaching styles
observed in the classrooms by Eggleston, Galton, and Jones (1975, 1976) in the
1970s. Sixty teachers in thirty-four secondary schools participated in the study.
The study replicated the research methods of Eggleston et al. (1975, 1976) in
order to determine if there had been a change in teaching styles. Three
instructional categories were used to describe the teachers’ teaching practice:
the problem-solver, the informer and the inquirer. The outcome of the study
showed an increase in preference for an informer style of instruction.
Approximately two-thirds of the teachers used a teacher directed approach
compared to only one-third of teachers in Eggleston et al. (1976) study.
Reasons for this shift were indicated by the teachers’ concern over financial
55
constraints, overload of curriculum content and time constraints. The Hacker
and Rowe study exemplified curriculum evaluation at the enactment
perspective (Snyder et al., 1992) because it sought to understand the classroom
teachers’ behaviour and challenge of the intended curriculum. The study
supported the assertion that curriculum is fashioned by the classroom teacher
but at the same time is affected or governed by perceived external forces to
meet certain expected demands placed upon him/her as a teacher (Feldman,
2000; Johnson et al., 2000; van Driel et al., 2001).
The final study of the English National Curriculum was by Lunn and Solomon
(2000) whose purpose was to investigate teachers’ self image as science
teachers. With the understanding that if science teaching was part of the
teachers’ value system then it will be demonstrated in the teachers’
professional self-identity (Lunn & Solomon, 2000). Seven teachers participated
in the study and were deliberately selected from a range of primary schools and
year levels. In-depth interviews of one to two hours focused on the teacher’s
personal history and profession. The interview included two questions that
covered their views of the English National Curriculum and ways that they
could improve it. Data were analysed through a systemic network analysis and
presented in a biographical manner (Lunn & Solomon, 2000).
The research by Lunn and Solomon (2000) leaned strongly toward the enacted
curriculum perspective (Snyder et al., 1992). Yet the research did not fully
explore in detail how the teachers’ self image shaped the curriculum through
planning and implementation of the science curriculum. The research primarily
focused on the responses from the interviews. Two questions concerning the
appropriateness of the science content in the English National Curriculum and
whether there were ways to improve the science curriculum were asked (Lunn
& Solomon, 2000). The responses of the teachers demonstrated that they
constantly desired to shape the curriculum to their personal professional image,
as stated in one case example where the teacher explained in an interview just
how he accomplished this. This professional self-image illustrated that the
teacher wanted to implement a curriculum that reflected his/her values, beliefs,
interests and knowledge in science education. However the research showed
clearly that given the opportunity teachers would shape a curriculum to their
56
understanding and ability and yet still feel constrained by bureaucratic
expectations of meeting assessment standards (Donnelly, 2000; Jenkins, 2000b;
Hacker & Rowe, 1997). The research concluded with the need to allow a
greater participation by the classroom teacher in curriculum development and a
greater provision for creativity.
Each of the above studies of the English National Curriculum has elucidated
that teachers changed the intended curriculum to be more in accordance with
the external demands of assessment and further demonstrated that they were
meeting desirable standards set down by those in authority. This conundrum
has a connection to what Feldman (2000) described as the characteristics of
practical theories. In particular this teacher behaviour linked to Feldman’s
second characteristic of practical theories which he mentioned are determined
by context. In other words the utilisation of a practical theory is contingent to
the situation at hand. What remains then to be explored is an understanding of
just how teachers’ practical theories (craft knowledge) have shaped the
curriculum and why?
2.5.2 Curriculum reform in the United States
In the United States curriculum reform in science education was expressed in
the National Science Education Standards Project 2061: Benchmarks for
Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1993; National Research Council, 1996). The document reflected outcomes
based education and a constructivist approach to teaching and learning.
Outcomes based education and constructivism has played a key role in
curriculum reform within the United States (Colburn, 2000; Gil-Pérez et al.,
2002; Matthews, 2002; Spady & Marshall, 1991; Yager, 1991; 1995; 1999).
Furthermore to facilitate the implementation of an outcomes approach to
learning integration of subject areas has often been used as the vehicle to
effectively cover all the desired outcome statements (Czerniak, Weber,
Sandmann, & Ahern, 1999; Hargreaves & Moore, 2000). Two studies that
demonstrated current curriculum reform and evaluation in the United States
are: Levitt’s (2002) study which investigated the Allegheny Schools Science
57
Education and Technology Inc program and Yager’s (1999) study that
investigated the Iowa Scope, Sequence and Coordination (SS&C) project.
Levitt (2002) is an example of research that has taken a fidelity perspective
(Snyder et al., 1992) to curriculum evaluation. The purpose of the study was to
determine how closely aligned teachers’ beliefs were with the intended
curriculum. The study was an evaluation of the Allegheny Schools Science
Education and Technology Inc program (ASSET). Levitt found that the
teachers who had expressed their beliefs about student centred learning during
an interview and had demonstrated this in some form within the classroom
would be more closely aligned to the intended curriculum. Twenty of the one
hundred teachers in the program participated in the study and data were
collected by observing a lesson of each teacher and followed up by an
individual interview. The study demonstrated that research into teachers’
beliefs is pivotal in determining the success of curriculum implementation.
Furthermore this research served as an example that using a fidelity perspective
to explore teachers’ beliefs is limited because it does not provide an
opportunity to explain how the teachers’ beliefs influence curriculum reform
and why. The research merely demonstrated the gulf between the intended and
the enacted curriculum or in this case, the difference between the set of beliefs
of the teachers to that of the intended curriculum.
A second example of curriculum reform in the USA is the Iowa Scope,
Sequence and Coordination (SS&C) project (Yager, 1999). The Iowa project
demonstrated how it was possible to introduce a constructivist approach to
learning in the classroom by changing teachers’ beliefs. This change in
teachers’ beliefs was facilitated by the teachers seeing the benefits in the
teaching and learning of the students (Yager, 1999).
The Iowa (SS&C) project involved twenty school districts over a four-year
period from 1990-1994. The school districts were chosen on the basis of their
use of science, technology and society (STS) approach to learning science
using a constructivist philosophy. Funding for this project came from the
National Science Foundation (Yager, 1999). The purpose of the study was to
determine the change in teaching and in student learning. This study was
predominately a fidelity study (Snyder et al., 1992) as it sought to measure the
58
success of the program by the degree to which teachers had adopted the new
curriculum and its teaching philosophy. The success was measured by the
students’ results and the teachers’ change in pedagogy. The students’ results
were demonstrated in six domains: the concept, process, application, creativity,
attitude and world-view (Yager, 1999). Pre and post-test assessment
instruments in each of these domains were conducted and compared with a
control group of students not participating in the project. These students were
engaged in a conventional approach to teaching and learning prescribed from
textbooks but were using the same curriculum (R. Yager, personal
communication, August 30, 2001). The analysis of the results from the data
demonstrated that the students of the Iowa (SS&C) project showed growth in
all six areas with an improved attitude toward science, classes, teachers and
careers in comparison to the control group.
With regard to teaching Yager (1999) showed that the Iowa (SS&C) project
displayed four outcomes:
An increase in teacher confidence to teach science, improved teacher understanding of the nature of science and technology, teachers’ teaching practices reflecting a constructivist learning approach and teachers undertaking action research projects. (p. 183)
Once again the teachers were compared to teachers of a control group who
employed traditional methods such as reliance upon textbooks. To determine
the difference in teaching, teachers were video taped and results were
compared with predetermined descriptions of constructivist teaching.
The success of the Iowa (SS&C) project may be attributed to the concerted
effort by its reformers and the characteristics of the teachers. This was
demonstrated by the financial and organised on-going intensive support
program (Yager, 1999) that covered a period of seven years (Varrella, 2000).
Furthermore its effectiveness may also be attributed to senior teachers who
were considered leaders in the field of science education and who actively
engaged in school reform efforts at every level: local, state and national
(Varrella, 2000). These were teachers who were characterised as lifelong
learners. The combination of continued organised financial support and
committed teachers made the project a success even though, it did take seven
years.
59
What needs to be ascertained is whether or not the teachers in the Iowa (SS&C)
project are continuing to use a constructivist approach or have they reverted to
their traditional methods of teaching? Has there been sustained change or have
the teachers merged the constructivist approach with that of their existing
beliefs? There is no guarantee that such a change will last and can be
reproduced elsewhere (Fullan, 2000). What is not clear is the type of support
mechanism that was put into place in order to bring about the change in
teachers’ pedagogy. The underlying approach of the project was on teachers’
beliefs, so how was it possible to change teachers’ beliefs significantly enough
to match with the intended curriculum? How this was accomplished in terms of
professional development was not clearly understood. This research was
typical of a fidelity perspective (Snyder et al., 1992) to curriculum
development. Other unanswered questions are to do with teachers’ planning
and assessment of students’ work. There is a need for continued research in
implementing the National Standards for Education and that there are still
many unanswered questions in particular about teachers’ beliefs (Anderson &
Helms, 2001). Overall the research by Yager (1999) has raised concerns over
the need to explore appropriate professional development models that will
facilitate sustained change.
2.6 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Professional development in government schools in Queensland is currently
managed either by the head of department, the deputy principal or the principal
depending upon the type and size of the school. Professional development is
usually provided in a mixed fashion either on a pupil free day, part of an
afternoon staff meeting, or as a special afternoon professional development
session and the decision for this approach is dependent upon the prioritisation
of funding. When considering the concerns regarding professional
development there are three issues and each of these will be discussed in this
section: the nature of professional development, professional development
models and elements of professional development.
60
2.6.1 The nature of professional development
Professional development is often provided whenever a new program is
introduced. It is often viewed as the catalyst for change (Appleton & Harrison,
2000; Guskey & Sparks, 1999; Kimmel, Deek, Farrell, & O'Shea, 1999) a
catalyst that will change teachers’ beliefs concerning the teaching and learning
almost overnight (Kimmel et al., 1999). Teachers however, view professional
development as a mandatory requirement attached with an equally compulsory
change. This then results in a strong resistance to change (Hargreaves &
Fullan, 1992). Therefore, when considering the nature of professional
development there are two aspects to consider: how professional development
is influenced by research and how professional development is implemented.
2.6.1.1 The Influence of research on professional development
Professional development is often perceived to be successful by how closely
teachers have aligned themselves to the newly introduced curriculum. Yet
research shows that teachers did not align or change themselves with the
intended curriculum (e.g., Jenkins, 2000b; Hacker & Rowe, 1997).
Aligning teachers’ beliefs to that of the intended curriculum is a view that
predominantly comes from a fidelity perspective (Cho, 1998; Cuban, 1998;
Snyder et al., 1992). Such research into the effectiveness of the change process
tends to be biased as it seeks to support the change agent (Richardson &
Placier, 2001). Often the underlying motive of these types of professional
development is to disregard what is already taking place in the classroom and
to impose a new approach to instruction or curriculum reform (Hargreaves &
Fullan, 1992).
One example that illustrates the need to understand teachers’ beliefs, when
providing professional development, is the research by Fetters, Czerniak, Fish,
and Shawberry (2002). This research investigated the influence of teachers’
beliefs in a professional development program that was sponsored by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) Local Systemic Change (LSC) project
referred to as the Toledo Area Partnership in Education: Support Teachers as
Resources to Improve Elementary Science (TAPESTRIES). This involved an
extensively funded five-year program that allowed the teachers to attend
61
summer schools and follow up workshops. The purpose of the project was to
change teachers’ method of teaching from a textbook approach to teaching
science to that of using science kits as the basis for teaching science. The
elementary teachers who participated in the professional development program
lacked the confidence and scientific knowledge that would affect their
willingness to use science kits in the classroom. Fetters et al. found that in
order to move teaching practice from a textbook based science lessons to the
use of science kits it was necessary to provide a professional development
program that allowed teachers to reflect on their teaching beliefs and the
change process that was taking place.
2.6.1.2 Implementing professional development
Professional development needs to be an ongoing process allowing the teachers
to meet together and engage in professional dialogue and reflective teaching.
Research has demonstrated that there are considerable benefits in a
professional development program that engages its teachers in reflective
teaching (Cardellichio, 1997; Hosking & Teberg, 1999; Moallem, 1997;
Scottish Council for Research in Education, 1995). Administrators and
educators need to plan ongoing professional development that provides time
for teachers to engage in planning and reflective dialogue (Fetters et al., 2002;
Guskey, 1998; Moallem, 1997).
Yet the excuse made by some administrators is that there is never enough time
to provide on-going professional development program that engages teachers
in planning and reflective dialogue (Fetters et al., 2002; Guskey, 1998;
Moallem, 1997). Guskey (1998) provides six strategies to overcome this
problem:
Add professional development days to the school calendar; add professional hours to the school day; add professional staff to allow additional release time; alter the weekly school schedule; incorporate block scheduling with provision of a shared planning period; and alter daily school or class schedules. (pp. 35-37)
Depending on the situation of the school some of these approaches may or may
not be feasible. The point of Guskey’s (1998) examples is that if professional
62
development is valued then creative and innovative ways will be found to
provide teachers with the time.
An example of professional development that illustrates the need for on-going
support is the study presented by Johnson et al. (2000). Science teachers from
Egypt were sent to the United Kingdom to participate in professional
development programs sponsored by the Egyptian government. This was part
of a larger initiative of the Egyptian government to up skill 5000 teachers in
subject areas (Johnson et al., 2000). The study by Johnson et al. reports on part
of that initiative. In particular Johnson et al. investigated the changes and the
challenges faced by 45 Egyptian science teachers who underwent a twelve
week intensive program in constructivist approaches to science education at
Kings College. The study sought to understand why teachers teach the way
they do. Of the 45 science teachers, 21 teachers were visited and followed up a
year later in Egypt to monitor the development and changes that had taken
place. While these science teachers readily accepted the shift in pedagogy, they
were not able to fully implement a constructivist approach to teaching and
learning. This was because of the administrative, financial, physical, collegial
and cultural constraints placed upon the teachers. Johnson et al. referred to
these as environmental factors that needed to be addressed in conjunction with
teachers’ professional development if lasting change was to take place. Two of
the recommendations from Johnson et al. study that placed exigency on this
thesis and leads into the next topic are:
The nature of in-service provision itself needs to be re examined and theories re-inspected … [and secondly] central policy makers and educators should learn from what is happening at the educational periphery, in the teachers working environment and not be threatened by it. (p. 23)
2.6.2 Professional development models
As stated by Johnson et al. (2000) professional development needs to be re-
examined. There needs to be innovative and creative ways to effectively
organise, plan and provide professional development that is supported by the
environmental factors such as government and school administration for on-
going professional growth within the organisation (Johnson et al., 2000). Three
professional development models will now be analysed. These are: action
63
research, the lab school and coaching/mentoring all of which endeavour to
identify and support teaching practice. From this analysis the common
elements of professional development models will be identified.
2.6.2.1 Action Research
Action research has been in existence for some time with initial work by Lewin
(1946) who introduced his cyclic action research model (Lederman & Niess,
1997b). The process in action research allows the classroom teacher to be in
control of his/her professional growth by providing the teacher a platform from
which to critically reflect on their teaching practice (Briscoe & Wells, 2002;
Fischer, 2001; Ginns, Heirdsfield, Atweh, & Watters, 2001; Goldston &
Shroyer, 2000). The focus of action research is to improve teaching practice
not just to add to knowledge (Elliot, 1991). Action research is an example of
fundamentally good reflective teaching with a conscious response (Hobson,
2001; Lederman & Niess, 1997b). The action research that the teacher engages
in does not necessarily need to be a problem it may be an idea that the
classroom teacher seeks to develop (Hopkins, 1993). Such topics can range
from behaviour management, integration, assessment and inclusive curriculum
to learning technologies. Action research unlike other professional
development models gives ownership and direction to the teacher (Goldston &
Shroyer, 2000).
There are a number of models that the teacher can make use of in conducting
action research, ranging from the early work by Lewin’s (1946) action research
model of five steps with a repeat cycle at the end, to Kemmis and McTaggart’s
(1988) four steps repeat cycle, to Elliot’s (1991) more complex and detailed
model involving three cycles that has several steps within each cycle. Action
research fundamentally has five major components with emphasis placed upon
the process as a cycle. These components involve: identifying a problem or an
idea that the teacher sees as significant, initial fact finding, planning a course of
action, the implementation of the plan and finally to critically evaluate the
effectiveness of the action plan in terms of student outcomes and performance.
These components are then repeated to make a cycle (Elliot, 1991; Hopkins,
1993; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Lewin, 1946). However, Fischer (2001)
64
stresses the need to go beyond the individual cycle of self-reflection to a more
dynamic process involving the interaction and dialogue between colleagues in
the planning, evaluation and reflection of action research.
In understanding the impact of action research in primary science and
mathematics education Goldston and Shroyer (2000) conducted a study of
thirty-three classroom teachers engaged in action research. The study revealed
two major factors hindered action research. These were firstly, that teachers did
not see their role as researchers. The teachers saw action research as something
additional to their teaching practice. Secondly, teachers felt that there was not
enough time to engage in action research (Goldston & Shroyer, 2000). The
teachers did not have a clear understanding that the collection of data could
also be qualitative not just quantitative in nature, and that data could already
exist in the classroom in the form of students’ notes or student behaviour
reports. As a result the teachers were viewing action research as additional
workload. To overcome this problem more release time was provided and
teachers worked in teams rather than individually. The action research did
however provide an opportunity for the teachers to grow professionally and to
reflect on their teaching practice. The study demonstrated that action research
empowered the teachers by allowing them to bring about educational reform
through their research (Goldston & Shroyer, 2000).
There is a concern though, that while teachers’ perceptions of action research
and the need for enough time to complete the research were overcome, the
researchers may not have addressed the long-term problem. The question must
be asked: When the program was completed did the teachers continue to
engage in action research? Will the teachers engage in action research if there
is no on-going support from administration? Secondly, time should not have
been considered an issue if action research was viewed as good reflective
teaching practice (Hobson, 2001; Lederman & Niess, 1997b). Action research
is something that a teacher engages in as part of his/her teaching not as an
adjunct to his/her teaching load. The issue of time may have arisen because of
the manner in which action research was introduced to the teachers. The
teachers’ perception of action research as an adjunct to their teaching may have
well been reinforced by the manner in which it was introduced. This perception
65
was indicative of the way Goldston and Shroyer (2000) provided detailed
sessions on research methods, which included research design, data collection
and analysis in addition to the professional development sessions in science
education. The participants may have become more focused upon the elements
of research rather than the research question. As a result the teachers viewed
action research as an adjunct to their existing teaching load which caused a
perceived greater demand of time and a need for teachers to work
collaboratively. Nevertheless the research by Goldston and Shroyer (2000)
serves to illustrate that action research is a very useful professional
development model that provides the classroom teacher with a platform from
which to grow professionally by engaging in critical research of his/her
teaching practice (Fischer, 2001).
Briscoe and Wells, (2002) in an interpretative study of a grade one teacher
demonstrated some of the benefits of action research for teacher professional
development in science education. The study followed the progress of a grade
one teacher engaged in action research to evaluate her assessment practices in
science. The study demonstrated that for the teacher to experience professional
growth first it was necessary for the teacher to be willing to take a risk to
commit to change. There were no external influences but a clear choice by the
teacher to reflect and improve her teaching practice through the use of action
research. This choice was however influenced by her postgraduate
requirements of either completing an examination or undertaking an action
research project as part of the course requirements. The second outcome of the
study demonstrated that action research challenged the teacher to reflect on her
beliefs. This engagement of teacher reflection was supported by consultation
with her peers, her reading of literature and the support that she was given by
the university. Action research assisted the teacher to critically reflect on her
teaching practices and beliefs. The third outcome of the study demonstrated
that action research not only affected the teacher but also her students.
2.6.2.2 The Lab School
The lab school is an innovative, creative model for professional development
that has demonstrated how teachers can engage in reflective teaching and
66
professional dialogue. In Chappaqua, New York, Cardellichio (1997) reported
on how a lab school was set up outside the normal school hours and did not
replace the normal school program. The lab school provided teachers with the
opportunity to trial and develop instructional and curriculum methods with
students and to reflect on the nature of teaching and learning. Cardellichio
(1997) explained that the lab school achieved three main goals that were to
provide practice in intellectual inquiry, to redesign the structure of schooling
and to enhance professional development. Within the goal of professional
development there were three objectives: to provide for reflective teaching, to
provide peer coaching and to provide professional growth experience that
included students (Cardellichio, 1997, pp. 1-3).
The lab school certainly provided an innovative and creative way of
professional development and there does not appear to be an equivalent in
Australia. One characteristic of the lab school is that the school exists not
because there was a mandatory change required but because educators saw the
need for on-going professional growth.
2.6.2.3 Coaching/mentoring
As explained at the beginning of this chapter the literature review will draw
upon two fields of learning; education and management. Therefore it is
necessary to make a brief clarification at this point to provide a working
definition of the term coaching and mentoring.
Coaching in education is often referred to as cognitive coaching (Costa &
Garmston, 1994) and in management the term coaching is often referred to as
executive coaching (Eggers & Clark, 2000). Costa and Garmston (1994)
defined the term coaching as a stagecoach metaphor likening coaching as
conveyance from one point in your career to the next. Evered and Selman
(1989, as cited in Costa & Garmston, 1994) stated that to coach meant to
convey a valued colleague from where he/she is to where he/she wanted to be.
While Eggers and Clark, (2000) emphasise that a coach is a thought partner,
who is not necessarily the expert but who knows what questions to ask. He/she
is able to assist team members to solve the problems themselves but does not
tell them what to do (Eggers & Clark, 2000). Kirwan-Taylor (2000) state that
67
coaching is about reminding you what you wanted to do. It is about improving
the skills and knowledge of people who wan to improve in their industry
(Kirwan-Taylor, 2000). Zeus and Skiffington (2002) explain that coaching is
not to be confused with counselling. The difference between coaching and
counselling is that counselling focuses on remediation and the problems
associated with not meeting a set standard. In coaching the focuses is on
allowing the coachee to use effectively the elements of empowerment, strength
and achievement to grow and develop (Zeus & Skiffington, 2002).
The term mentoring is often interchange with coaching (Whitmore, 1996; Zeus
and Skiffington, 2002), however there is some disagreement over the use of
these terms (Kirwan-Taylor, 2000). For example, the manner in which Awaya
et al. (2003) defined mentoring resembles that of coaching. With the one
exception, that the mentor is also part of the profession and is senior in
experience (Awaya et al., 2003) whereas in coaching the coach does not
necessarily need to be part of the profession (Eggers & Clark, 2000). Awaya et
al. (2003) provide five guidelines for mentoring that readily fit within the
definition of coaching: Mentoring is a journey a voyage of discovery.
Mentoring is a friendship between the mentor and mentored that is based on
the mentor’s greater experience and wisdom. The mentor is seen a person with
practical knowledge. The mentor provides encouragement and builds
confidence. Lastly, that the mentor provides opportunity for the mentored to
take risks and to test his/her ideas (Awaya et al., 2003).
From this collection of definitions two levels of coaching/mentoring can be
seen: the level that provides specific skills and knowledge for people who want
to improve themselves (Awaya et al., 2003; Kirwan-Taylor, 2000; Zeus &
Skiffington, 2002) and the second level as a ‘thought partner’ (Eggers & Clark,
2000) who values the individual and brings him/her along to where he/she
wants to be (Awaya et al., 2003; Costa & Garmston, 1994 Eggers & Clark,
2000; Kirwan-Taylor, 2000).
Unlike other professional development models coaching/mentoring is not a
short term event comprising of just an afternoon or one day session.
Coaching/mentoring is an approach that aims at providing professional growth
over a sustained period of time (Costa & Garmston, 1994; Whitmore, 1996;
68
Zeus & Skiffington, 2002). Coaching/mentoring may be provided by an
external coach or by a person within the organisation. There are obvious
advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. The coaching/mentoring
process may be one to one, or as a group (Costa & Garmston, 1994; Whitmore,
1996). Coaching/mentoring may be conducted as peer coaching: teacher to
teacher (Costa & Garmston, 1994) or by a coach outside the organisation who
is not necessarily an expert in the specific field (Whitmore, 1996; Zeus &
Skiffington, 2002).
To determine what is currently taking place in the United States a number of
schools using cognitive coaching were identified and emailed questions
concerning coaching practices within their school. An example of responses
obtained was from W. Bailey (personal communication, January 18, 2001),
staff developer and peer coach of Jefferson Elementary School, San Diego
provided the following overview of what is taking place in his school:
The coaching model I use with my staff is as follows: the bulk of my time is spent with 3 teachers -coaching them, learning with them and building capacity in them to lead others on the staff and being model classrooms for others to see. I also have the staff divided into learning groups. They are released from their classrooms one day per month and the day is spent in individual or small group learning. I facilitate those days and provide information for the groups. We have book studies (reading program). The entire staff has selected one book and meets to discuss certain pages two times per month. We also meet in full staff once per month for a staff development focus.
The approach taken here by W. Bailey (personal communication, January 18,
2001) is as an internal coach and makes use of both an individual and group
approach.
In Australia there appeared to be no research that made specific reference to
coaching teachers. However, as explained earlier in this chapter, the research
by Peers (2000) and Peers et al. (2003) made a contribution in the domain of
professional development, in particular coaching. While Peers does not use the
term coaching but rather the term mentoring, her description of the professional
support that she provided to her case study had all the characteristics of a
coaching program and could be defined as such (Awaya et al., 2003; Costa &
Garmston, 1994; Kirwan-Taylor, 2000; Whitmore, 1996; Zeus & Skiffington,
2002). Peer’s research served to illustrate the effectiveness of
69
coaching/mentoring to bring about a change in a teacher’s beliefs and practices
in teaching science. The professional development sessions, as explained by
Peers, was based on the principles of constructivism. Peers cited five elements
that assisted the teacher’s conceptual change in beliefs: support from
professional development presenter often referred to as a mentor, discussion
with colleagues, readings on science teaching practices, videos about other
teachers teaching science and professional development workshops. All of
these are characteristics of coaching or mentoring. The difference is that Peers
has broken them down into precise elements for her professional support for
her case study and has frequently used the term mentoring to describe her role
in the study. It may have been more appropriate to have had described Peer’s
research as the components of a mentoring program rather than that of the
supporting conditions of a professional development program. Nevertheless the
research served to illustrate effectively that coaching or in this case, mentoring
of an individual over a sustained period is an effective tool for bringing about
change in teacher’s practices and beliefs.
Furthermore, while there is no professional development program referred to as
coaching per se in Australia, the action research that has been taking place
would be considered as a form of coaching (Ferman & Page, 2000; Ginns et
al., 2001). Also the term ‘critical friend’ a term which is used in the United
States as a form of peer mentoring facilitated by the assistance of an external
coach (Bambino, 2002) has been used in the trialling of the New Basics
curriculum project (Education Queensland, 2000, 2001a) and the Quality
teacher program (Education Queensland, 2001b).
Yet within the United States coaching has been seen as a distinct endeavour
with many school districts employing teachers to be full time coaches for their
teaching staff (Rothstein, 2000). W. Myers (personal communication, January
5, 2001), an associate superintendent for instruction at the Community
Consolidated school district Wheeling, Illinios said, though he had no research
evidence to support his claim, made the following observation:
70
We found that our attempts to improve instruction required a tremendous amount of support for teachers to learn, practice and implement new strategies. Cognitive coaching has greatly facilitated the change process and created a climate that allows people to take risks - our goal from the beginning.
His anecdotal evidence is consistent with the research (e.g., Edwards & Green,
1999; Edwards, Green, Lyons, Rogers, & Swords, 1998; Townsend, 1995;
Uzat, 1998).
2.6.3 Elements of professional development
Arising from the models of professional development there appears to be seven
elements of professional development that continually emerge from the
literature. Although each of these elements are not necessarily the exact words
used by the writers, or in any particular order, they nonetheless summarise the
literature that has been reviewed so far. These seven elements are: professional
dialogue and reflective teaching, constructivist approach to learning, external
support, an atmosphere of trust, support of the school leadership, establishment
of clear goals, and ongoing part of the school culture. (Abdal-Haqq, 1996;
Awaya et al., 2003; Briscoe & Wells, 2002; Costa & Garmston, 1994; Fischer,
2001; Goldston & Shroyer, 2000; Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Hobson, 2001;
Joyce & Showers, 1988, 1989; Lederman & Niess, 1997b; Moallem, 1997;
Peers, 2000; Whitmore, 1996; Wise et al., 1999).
First there is the need for professional dialogue and reflective teaching.
Because these two elements work very much simultaneously they have been
placed as one category. Professional dialogue is the discussion and interaction
between peers of the same profession with similar experiences (Costa &
Garmston, 1994). Reflective teaching involves teachers critically reflecting on
their current teaching practice (Moallem, 1997; Uzat, 1998). Professional
dialogue and reflective teaching are part of the action research model (Briscoe
& Wells, 2002; Fischer, 2001; Hobson, 2001; Lederman & Niess, 1997b) and
an outcome of the experience in the Lab school (Cardellichio, 1997) and Peers’
(2000) research.
Second, there is the need to use a constructivist approach to professional
development. A constructivist approach to learning applied in professional
71
development would be an essential link with that of professional dialogue and
reflective teaching because as Abbott and Ryan (1999, p. 67) explained, “Each
new fact or experience is assimilated into a web of understanding that already
exists in that person's mind.” Constructivism strongly advocates that the
teacher assist the student to make a connection with his/her experiences prior to
the subject being studied (Colburn, 2000; Yager, 1995). This principle is also
applicable for professional development programs provided for the teacher.
This was illustrated in the conceptual change process of the Peers’ (2000) case
study. Perkins (1999) explained that constructivism performs three distinct
roles: the active learner, the social learner and the creative learner:
The active learner: Knowledge and understanding is actively acquired. Instead of just listening, reading and working through routine exercises, they discuss, debate, hypothesize, investigate and take view - points.
The social learner: Knowledge and understanding as socially constructed. We do not construct them (knowledge and understanding) individually; we construct them in dialogue with others.
The creative learner: Knowledge and understanding as created or recreated. Constructivists hold that learners need to create or recreate knowledge for themselves. Teachers should guide them to rediscover scientific theories, historical perspectives etc. (pp. 7-8)
Each of these three roles, the active learner, the social learner and the creative
learner, is very much characteristic of teachers engaging in professional
dialogue and reflective teaching practice. In essence, constructivism could be
used as a tool where the coach and teacher are making a connection with that
of the teachers’ classroom experience (Abdal-Haqq, 1996).
Third, there is a need for external support. In each of the three models
presented: action research, the lab school and coaching/mentoring
demonstrated the role of external support. This support can be as a coach
(Costa & Garmston, 1994) or as a mentor (Awaya et al., 2003; Peers, 2000), or
the support from an academic (Briscoe & Wells, 2002; Goldston & Shroyer,
2000). This external support provides opportunities for feedback and
evaluation.
Fourth, there is a need to create an atmosphere of trust. Creating an atmosphere
of trust is crucial and one in which teachers are able to discuss with their coach
without the fear of loss of respect or a possible threat to job security (Awaya et
72
al., 2003; Costa & Garmston, 1994). Some school districts in the United States
of America have gone so far as to ensure the atmosphere of trust by insisting
that the coach was a union member who could not recommend disciplinary
action for the teacher who did not improve (Rothstein, 2000).
Fifth, there needs to be the support of the school leadership (Johnson et al.,
2000; Ritchie & Rigano, 2002). Johnson et al. (2000) have shown that external
factors needed to be conducive and supportive. This support is paramount if
effective professional development is to take place and for the outcomes of the
professional development to be attained. The role of the administration and
principal is to encourage on-going professional development within the school
and to see that the organisational structure and policies do not inhibit the
change (Johnson et al., 2000; Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Ritchie & Rigano,
2002; Uzat, 1998).
Sixth, there is a need to establish clear goals. Goals need to be clearly
established in a professional development program. Goals should be expressed
in terms of the teacher’s professional growth and student achievement
(Guskey, 1998). Without these goals there is the loss of direction and a sense
that the professional development is not meeting the needs of the teachers
(Guskey, 1998). Hargreaves and Fullan (1992) stress the importance of a
common vision and shared goals by all stakeholders. Without a common vision
and goals change is never effectively realised (Guskey, 1998; Hargreaves &
Fullen, 1992).
Seventh, professional development should be ongoing and part of the school
culture (Goodrum et al., 2001). Professional development should be provided
over a longer period of time to sustain change (Abdal-Haqq, 1996; Fetters et
al., 2002; Guskey, 1998; Kimmel et al., 1999; Peers, 2000). As Garet, Porter,
Desimone, Birman, and Yoon (2001) highlighted that for professional
development to be effective it needed to be over a sustained period of time and
it had be integrated into the school culture.
These seven elements were identified in the three professional development
models and in the research literature: professional dialogue and reflective
teaching, constructivist approach to learning, an atmosphere of trust, on-going
73
external support, the support of the school leadership and the setting of goals
appear to be essential elements of an effective professional development
program.
Finally in support of the above seven elements Garet et al. (2001) conducted a
comparative study into the effectiveness of various characteristics or elements
of professional development by empirically testing the Eisenhower
professional development program with mathematics and science teachers. The
study revealed professional development was likely to be of higher quality
when it is both sustained over time and involved a substantial number of hours
(Garet et al., 2001).
2.7 CONCLUSION
The following conclusions can be drawn from the review of literature.
First, regardless of how a teacher may feel or perceive change, rapid change is
taking place in intended education. This change may well be described as a
discontinuous change where there are external factors influencing the
organisation forcing it to change rapidly (Grundy, 1993; Prawat, 1992).
Teachers will respond to this imposed change by either resisting or reshaping
the change to best suit their needs (Czerniak et al., 1997; Delandshere & Jones
1999; Hacker & Rowe, 1997). Nevertheless teachers can be motivated to make
a change depending upon their circumstances (Maslow, 1970; Herzberg et al.,
1959) as successfully demonstrated in the Iowa (SS&C) project (Yager, 1999)
and in the case study by Peers (2000). To bring about this change in teachers,
Lewin’s (1952) model of organisational development of unfreezing, change
and refreezing process still forms the basis of this change process (Kotter,
1996; Schwahn & Spady, 1998).
Second, teacher’s craft knowledge is central to his/her beliefs about teaching
and learning and is the key to better understanding how curriculum is enacted
in the classroom (Archer, 1999; Cooper & McIntyre, 1996; Feldman, 2000;
Klein, 1997; van Driel et al., 1997; Wise et al., 1999; Yager, 1999). Two
domains underpin teachers’ craft knowledge; the nature of teaching and the
nature of the subject. The literature review revealed that a true change in
74
curriculum is not possible without a change in teacher belief system (Peers,
2000; Yager, 1999). Research has demonstrated that there is a link between
teacher beliefs and teaching practice and that there is a need for continued
research in this field if there is to be effective curriculum change (Anderson &
Helms, 2001). The craft knowledge of teachers affects the outcome of the
intended curriculum (Brown & McIntyre, 1993; Cooper & McIntyre, 1996;
Jenkins, 2000b; Lunn & Solomon, 2000; van Driel et al., 1997). What is not
known is how teachers shape the curriculum through their craft knowledge.
Limited research was found that demonstrated how teacher knowledge
impacted on the enacted curriculum.
Third, research into curriculum evaluation was found to be motivated from
either one of three perspectives: fidelity, mutually adaptation; and curriculum
enactment perspective (Cho, 1998; Snyder et al., 1992). It was found that the
fidelity and mutual adaptation models of curriculum development dominated
research and less research has been undertaken from the enacted level (Cho,
1998; Snyder et al., 1992). This was also found to be the case in Australia. It
further demonstrates that a limited amount of research has looked at how
teachers shape the science curriculum within the classroom. Curriculum
evaluation internationally, in particular the UK and the USA, demonstrated the
need to better understand the role of the classroom teacher in curriculum
development and the need to provide the necessary support to bring about
change (Brown & McIntyre, 1993; Cooper & McIntyre, 1996; Donnelly, 2000;
Jenkins, 2000b Johnson et al., 2000; Lunn & Solomon, 2000; Sánchez &
Valcárcel, 1999; van Driel et al., 1997; Yager, 1999).
Fourth, there is an apparent lack of literature comparing primary and secondary
teachers in science education. Only two studies provided some comparison of
primary and secondary teachers (Archer, 1999; Goodrum et al., 2001).
However, these two studies were limited. Archer’s study focused on
mathematics and Goodrum et al.’s report focused on the evaluation of the
intended curriculum at a national level and not the enactment of the science
curriculum. Neither was any literature found in the domain of teacher
knowledge to indicate that there was a difference between primary and
secondary teachers. The literature either addressed the nature of teaching and
75
beliefs in terms of the subject being taught, or in a general sense, but not as a
specific comparison between primary and secondary teachers.
The fifth and final conclusion to be drawn concerns professional development
which needs to be re-examined with a view of aligning professional
development with recent research that demonstrates the impact of teacher
knowledge on curriculum change if it is to be an effective agent of change. To
bring about effective change through professional development seven elements
consistently emerged in the three professional development models and the
research literature. These are: professional dialogue and reflective teaching, a
constructivist approach to learning, external support, an atmosphere of trust,
support of the school leadership, establishment of clear goals, and ongoing part
of the school culture (Cardellichio, 1997; Costa & Garmston, 1994; Fischer,
2001; Garet et al., 2001; Goldston & Shroyer, 2000; Goodrum et al., 2001;
Hobson, 2001; Kirwan-Taylor, 2000; Peers, 2000).
2.7.1 Theoretical framework
The literature review has demonstrated that curriculum undertakes a
metamorphosis, a process of change that is shaped and fashioned by its
implementers and participants namely, the teachers and the students (Cho,
1998; Cuban, 1992, 1998; Snyder et al., 1992). Considering this, the researcher
has developed a theoretical knowledge filter model that demonstrates
curriculum development as it filtered by teachers’ craft knowledge (Figure
2.3). As the intended curriculum passes through teachers’ craft knowledge it is
reshaped until finally the curriculum becomes what is known as the enacted
curriculum. There may be other filters that also impact upon the reshaping of
the curriculum but these are not the focus of this research. The primary focus
of this literature review is centred upon the filter – teachers’ craft knowledge
and how the craft knowledge impacts upon shaping the curriculum.
What the knowledge filter model hypothesises is that curriculum development
is a process not an event. The curriculum undergoes a metamorphosis as it is
impacted by teachers’ craft knowledge. The knowledge filter model
acknowledges that teachers’ craft knowledge reshapes the curriculum. What is
less known is just how teachers’ craft knowledge shapes a curriculum and how
76
a professional development program should be designed to take into
consideration this phenomenon.
Taking the above into consideration the research questions will focus on how
teachers shape the intended curriculum through their craft knowledge? How do
we make connections with existing teacher knowledge and proposed
curriculum change? How should professional development sessions be
provided the take into consideration teacher craft knowledge?
The intended science curriculum
How does teachers’craft knowledge shape the science curriculum?
Knowledge filter model
Teachers’ craft knowledge
Curriculum undergoes a
metamorphosisThe intended science curriculum is filtered through the teachers’ craft knowledge to become the enacted science curriculum.
The enactedscience curriculum
Figure 2.3 Knowledge filter model.
2.7.2 Theoretical proposition
To ensure that the study has clarity of direction the researcher has incorporated
the advice of Yin (1994), which advocates as preparation for conducting case
study analysis a general analytical strategy is needed and therefore a theoretical
proposition is the most preferred. Yin (1994) explained that this approach
would shape the data collection plan. The following theoretical proposition was
developed:
Primary and secondary teachers because they possess different sets of beliefs
and knowledge bases, will enact the new science syllabus in fundamentally
different ways. Their planning, instruction and assessment of students, together
77
with their discourse and dialogue with a third party will be different, exhibiting
different assumptions about teaching and learning in science. A comparative
case study will be used to explore this proposition.
2.7.3 Concluding statement
While research recognises that teachers’ beliefs do impact on the curriculum
there has been limited investigation as to why or how. One reason for this is
that contemporary research has predominantly been from a fidelity perspective
with the aim of measuring only the degree of successful implementation of the
curriculum. There is no explanation in this type of research as to why or how
the difference exists between the intended curriculum and the enacted
curriculum. A fidelity perspective to research does not afford that opportunity
to explore why or how, it can only demonstrate that there is a difference
whereas, an enactment perspective will provide this opportunity. An enactment
perspective will investigate curriculum development from the teacher’s
perspective and will provide possible explanations as to why and how the
teachers did what they did with the intended curriculum. That is why the first
and third research questions in Chapter One are asked:
What teacher knowledge has the primary and secondary teachers found useful
to make the science curriculum more meaningful to them?
How has the science curriculum taken form or shape through the primary and
secondary teachers’ knowledge?
Furthermore, the review of literature has revealed a gap in the research that
investigates the differences between primary and secondary teachers in their
beliefs about science teaching. The literature either addressed the nature of
teaching and beliefs in terms of the subject being taught, or in a general sense
only. There was no specific comparison between primary and secondary
teachers enacting the science curriculum. There is a need to compare the
beliefs and practices of primary and secondary teachers because of the current
emphasis on the development of a seamless grades one to ten curriculum. To
obtain this continuity there needs to be a science curriculum where there is
uniform adoption of similar strategies to teaching science (MCEETYA, 1999;
78
Queensland School Curriculum Council, 1999). If educators are encouraging
curriculum development to be consistent in teaching approach from grade one
to ten then it is necessary to determine if there are factors such as teacher
beliefs that would hinder such a concept from being successfully achieved.
Otherwise, curriculum programs that do not take into consideration the
possible diverse beliefs of primary and secondary teachers may find that the
end result is not a seamless curriculum but a curriculum that is merely stitched
across. For these reasons the second research question is asked:
In what way does the teacher knowledge of primary and secondary teachers
differ in relation to the enactment of the science curriculum?
Therefore, the research will be a comparative study of primary and secondary
teachers enacting the science syllabus. The study will use an enactment
perspective rather than that of a fidelity perspective in order to understand
teachers’ beliefs and how those beliefs impact on curriculum. By doing so, it
will afford the opportunity to investigate the various types of primary and
secondary teacher beliefs and how those beliefs influence the implementation
of the science curriculum. From this approach a theoretical framework will be
designed that will assist professional developers to address the issue of
teachers’ beliefs when implementing a change in curriculum and by doing so
address the final research question in Chapter One:
What type of support is necessary to assist the primary and secondary teachers
to manage curriculum change?
79
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to present the research design and to justify
educational criticism (Eisner, 1991) as the appropriate research methodology.
The link between the research methodology and the research questions will be
discussed together with the procedure, methods and data analysis in Chapter
Four.
This chapter will first discuss why educational criticism is the appropriate
methodology by addressing the structure and stages of educational criticism by
providing examples of other research using educational criticism and by
comparing educational criticism with other methodologies to demonstrate its
appropriateness for this research. The second task of this chapter is to discuss
the verification or validation process that was used in the research
methodology. This is presented in Section 3.3. Since the research design uses
educational criticism as its methodology and such a methodology requires the
researcher to be an expert in the field of research, the fourth task is to present
the researcher’s qualifications and experience that enable him to legitimately
use educational criticism. This is presented in Section 3.4. The chapter closes
with a final argument for educational criticism as the appropriate methodology.
3.2 EDUCATIONAL CRITICISM
There are three generic reasons why a particular methodology is chosen: first it
is chosen because it is seen as an appropriate vehicle in which to convey the
essence of truth as seen from the researcher’s point of view (Eisner, 1991).
Secondly the appropriate methodology is chosen on the basis that the
epistemological and ontological assumptions are congruent with the beliefs of
the researcher (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). Finally, the methodology is chosen
because it can effectively describe and analyse a phenomenon that meets the
desired objectives of the study (Creswell, 1998; Eisner & Flinders, 1994). This
81
section will demonstrate that educational criticism is the appropriate choice
based on the above reasons.
Educational criticism was originally founded in the arts and based upon the
work of Eisner (1991). The aim of this methodology is to enlighten in order to
improve (Eisner & Flinders, 1994). The methodology requires the researcher to
be an expert in his/her chosen field in much the same way as an art critic is an
expert in art. Unlike other research methodologies educational criticism
expects the researcher to have professional training as an educator and relevant
experience as a classroom teacher (Eisner, 1991). For example, Eisner (1985)
asserts that practitioners have a unique and central role to play in creating
knowledge about teaching and hence research that will evaluate practice
requires researchers to have sensitivity to the emerging qualities of classroom
life and to possess ideas, theories or models that allow him/her to realise what
is trivial and what is significant.
The incorporation of the views of the researcher in a methodology is not
unusual. For example, action research strongly incorporates the views of the
teacher researcher (Fischer, 2001). This combination of theoretical knowledge
and experiential knowledge provides the researcher with what this researcher
has termed as having a binocular view of the phenomenon at hand. Eisner
(1991) has used the term binocular vision in reference to combining a scientific
and artistic perspective to research. In this research the term binocular view is
used in reference to the two dimensions of educational criticism: theoretical
and experiential knowledge. By having a theoretical background through one
view and highly valued craft knowledge through the other (Shulman, 1987), a
balanced perspective with an increased depth of field is provided. Therefore it
is essential for this researcher to establish his credibility as an educational
critic. This will be done later in Section 3.4 of this chapter.
3.2.1 Structure and stages of educational criticism
Educational criticism and educational connoisseurship are two terms that are
often interchanged when this type of methodology is presented but, as shown
in Figure 3.1 educational criticism is a public disclosure and evaluation of an
educational program while educational connoisseurship is the personal
82
reflection on a matter (Eisner, 1985). As this study is a public disclosure of
teachers enacting a new science syllabus the term educational criticism is used.
There are three stages of educational criticism presented in Figure 3.1: the
descriptive, the interpretative and the evaluative or appraisal. The descriptive
provides a vivid rendering of the qualities perceived in the situation (Eisner,
1985; Noad, 1980). This can be seen in Chapter Five in the dialogue between
two primary teachers and one secondary teacher who are composite characters.
The second stage is the interpretative and it attempts to provide an
understanding of what has been rendered by using ideas, concepts, models and
theories from social science and history (Eisner, 1985; Noad, 1980). This can
be seen in Chapters Six and Seven where discussion is focused upon teachers’
strategies in dealing with a newly introduced science curriculum and teachers’
beliefs are looked at in terms of the knowledge filter model. The third stage is
the evaluative or the appraisal stage that attempts to assess the educational
significance of the events or objects described or interpreted (Eisner, 1985;
Noad, 1980). This can be seen in Chapter Eight where the impact of teachers’
beliefs and professional development are assessed in relation to the
implementation of a new science curriculum. There is some overlapping of
these three stages in Chapters Five, Six, Seven and Eight and it is not possible
to present a strict demarcation of each stage. Together these three stages are
referred to as the disclosure approach (Eisner, 1985). Eisner (1985) did not
prescribe how the disclosure approach was to be accomplished and leaves it to
the researcher to make that decision. In the review of other research theses that
have utilised educational criticism the disclosure approach was implicit in their
writing (Berryman, 1996; Palmer-Maloney, 1998; Schweber, 1999; Stueck,
1993; Townsend, 1995). For the purpose of clarity, the disclosure approach has
been chosen as an explicit framework for the reporting of this thesis.
83
Educational criticismArt of disclosure - Public
Educational connoisseurshipArt of appreciation - Private
Criticism can only be as rich as the critic’s appreciation
DescriptionRecreating classroomevents.
InterpretationProviding an understanding ofclassroom events using theories, research and models
AppraisalAssessing the educationalsignificance of the classroomevents
Disclosure approach
Figure 3.1 Disclosure approach (Noad, 1980, p.22, adapted from Eisner, 1979).
3.2.2 Examples of educational criticism
Educational criticism has been used occasionally since Eisner first introduced it
in the 1970s. Table 3.1 provides some research examples that have used this
methodology. There are two dissertations in Table 3.1 that are of relevance to
this study and which demonstrate effective use of educational criticism at the
enacted curriculum level. These are Schweber (1999) and Townsend (1995).
The study by Schweber (1999) presented a multiple case study of four
secondary teachers teaching about the Holocaust. The study sought to answer:
How experienced teachers teach about the Holocaust? What moral lessons do they convey implicitly and communicate explicitly? And what is their impact on students? Underpinning the research is the conceptual framework of the forces, which impact Holocaust curricula as they transformed through the stages of implementation. (p. 26)
The four case studies that were described in biographical format, were detailed
in separate chapters, each with a reflective conclusion. Following these four
chapters an additional chapter provided a cross case analysis of all four
teachers. The study demonstrated among other things that educational criticism
was an effective methodology to portray the enacted curriculum. Two findings
of Schweber (1999) illustrated this point:
84
All four (teachers) were inherently morally laden…Many moral lessons were embedded within the structure and activities and pedagogy of each unit…
In terms of student outcomes, a high engagement level was correlated with a high moral impact in all three of the four cases… (p. 247)
The other study by Townsend (1995) investigated the effects of cognitive
coaching on five female student teachers and five cooperating elementary
(primary) teachers over the period of a school year. This study is relevant
because it deals with an aspect of the current research in professional
development.
The purpose of Townsend’s study was to:
Describe the effects of cognitive coaching on student teachers and cooperating teachers as they worked together in a year-long Cognitive Coaching relationship and to explore the possible significance of including Cognitive Coaching in a pre-service teacher education program. (p. 4)
Townsend’s study used educational criticism to effectively demonstrate teacher
behaviour in terms of professional growth and development. A majority of the
studies in Table 3.1 focused on the classroom teacher and his/her interaction
with curriculum and the school.
Furthermore, Flinders, and Eisner (1994) summed up the significant
contribution educational criticism has made to the enacted curriculum by
stating that seventeen dissertations at Stanford University alone were focused
upon the enacted curriculum. Furthermore these researchers claim that the
purpose of educational criticism is centrally concerned with teaching and
curriculum; both of which are primary concerns of this thesis:
While these studies [referring to 17 dissertations conducted at Stanford University] have pursued a wide variety of open-ended research questions, their strong suit has been to elucidate through description and interpretation what Snyder, Bolin, and Zumwalt (1992) call “the enacted curriculum,” those qualities, understandings and patterns of meaning that comprise school experience as it is played out at the day-to-day levels of the classroom practice. Broadly stated, educational criticism is centrally concerned with what gives teaching and curriculum its distinctive character, significance, or purpose. (p. 342)
The arguments and examples presented demonstrate that educational criticism
is a methodology that is designed with the intent of exploring the enacted
curriculum and the classroom teacher. A second fundamental point, which will
85
be explained later, is that both research examples cited employed a case study
method. Educational criticism does not prescribe for the researcher a set
method for investigation. The appropriate method is left to the individual
researcher’s discretion.
Table 3.1 Research using Educational Criticism.
Title Author Year
Re-centring Christian Communication for children: The parables (Kindergarten, Fifth-grade)
Berryman, J 1996 Case study
Seeing schools through new lenses: A qualitative approach to observing in schools
Moore, C. & Ferguson, D.
1997 An instrument designed for the use of evaluating inclusive curriculum within a school
Context, control and characteristics of place: an educational critique of the geography content standards in Colorado (seventh-grade, standards based education)
Palmer-Maloney, J.
1998 Case study
Teaching history, teaching morality: Holocaust education in American public high schools
Schweber, S. 1999 Case study and biographical
The design of learning environments (playgrounds, elementary classrooms)
Stueck, L. E. 1993 Case study
Understanding the effects of cognitive coaching on student teachers and cooperating teachers
Townsend, S. 1995 Case study and biographical
3.2.3 Comparing educational criticism with other methodologies
While Creswell (1998) discussed five traditions of research: biography,
phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography and case study, he did not
address educational criticism. This raised the question as to where educational
criticism fitted within the five traditions of research methodologies. In a
personal email communication Creswell had the following opinion of
educational criticism (J. Creswell personal communication, July 20, 2000):
Educational criticism a la Eisner does not fit neatly into any of my five traditions currently in the book. Educational criticism may well be a conceptual or theoretical lens to use with any of the five traditions.
86
Thus in Creswell’s view educational criticism represented none of the five
traditions but could be a conceptual or theoretical framework used with any of
the five (J. Creswell personal communication, July 20, 2000). Conversely T.
Barone (personal communication August 8, 2000) partially disagreed,
“Educational criticism may be any of those (referring to the five traditions of
research as presented by Creswell, 1998), except grounded theory and
ethnography, because it is a form of literature rather than social science.” This
statement concurred with three dissertations that have been reviewed for this
study that had used educational criticism (Schweber, 1999; Townsend, 1995;
Palmer-Maloney, 1998). Each used a form of biography or a case study
approach. None of the three dissertations used grounded theory or ethnography.
Furthermore, unlike ethnography, educational criticism requires the researcher
to have a sound grasp of the complexities that make up pedagogy in practice
(Eisner & Flinders, 1994). A researcher may use ethnography but he/she
cannot use educational criticism unless he/she has an education background.
The only similarity between ethnography and educational criticism is that of
the participant observer. Yet for the ethnographer the participation commences
at the start of the investigation whereas for the educational critic it has been a
part of his/her development throughout his/her career. Ethnography also seeks
to build upon the understanding of a culture without bringing about any
influence or improvement (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994). However, taking
this approach may impede the researcher from evaluating the educational
significance of this research. These are three reasons why educational criticism
cannot be used as a conceptual framework or in conjunction with an
ethnographic study. There still, however remains the question of the use of
phenomenology.
Phenomenological research focuses on individual and subjective experience.
This method is most appropriate for case studies, which in turn may be used in
educational criticism. van Manen (1984) stated that phenomenology tries to
provide a deeper understanding of the nature or meaning of everyday
experiences. On the surface it appears that phenomenology and educational
criticism may have something in common. They can be both interpretative and
critical. Phenomenology asks, “What is this or that kind of experience like?”
87
Yet as van Manen (1984) explained it fails to ask how the occurrence of an
experience is related to the prevalence of other conditions or events whereas
educational criticism is able to provide an added dimension of seeing the
prevalence and impact of other contributing factors (Eisner, 1991).
Furthermore in phenomenology the data analysis requires the researcher to
bracket his/her experiences, a process where the researcher sets aside all
prejudgements and experiences in an attempt to understand the participants
(Creswell, 1998). This is a critical point of departure for educational criticism.
Educational criticism sees the experience of the researcher as a significant
factor in better understanding the phenomenon at hand (Eisner, 1991). The
researcher who employs educational criticism cannot bracket his/her
experience to understand the participants.
In the final analysis then, two of the traditions of Creswell (1998) can be used
with educational criticism: case study and biography. Educational criticism is a
conceptual framework, which may use any method, including quantitative
methods, so long as it does not conflict with its set of epistemological
assumptions (Barone, T. personal communication August 8, 2000; Eisner,
1991; Pitman & Maxwell, 1992). The analysis is consistent with the findings of
research employing educational criticism. In each of a number of reviewed
studies (Table 3.1), it was found that the researcher either used a biographical
or case study or a multi-case study approach except in the study by Moore
(1997), which is a design of an evaluation instrument of schools using
inclusive curriculum.
3.3 VERIFICATION AND PROCESS OF DATA ANALYSIS
This research has adopted Creswell’s (1998) recommendation for the use of the
term verification rather than using validity. Creswell pointed out that,
verification underscores the distinct approach to qualitative research. The terms
trustworthiness and authenticity were used in a general sense when discussing
the notion of credibility (Creswell, 1998). Creswell further asserts that, when
the researcher uses a post-modern perspective, he/she should employ different
frames of verification. Hence, the terms proposed by Eisner (1991) will be
used: structural corroboration, consensual validation and referential adequacy.
88
These three frames of verification will now be briefly elaborated upon. How
each of these three were achieved in this research will be taken up in the
Chapter Four.
3.3.1.1 Structural corroboration
Flinders and Eisner (1994, p. 354) explained that the weight and consistency of
cumulative data constitutes structural corroboration. In this research, the
provision of various types of data will support or contradict the researcher’s
interpretation of a condition. The question is therefore asked, “Does the variety
of evidence consistently support the argument?” Evidence that is corroborated
is evidence that either comes from a variety of data sources or its method of
data collection is different, both of which lead to the same plausible conclusion
(Flinders & Eisner, 1994).
3.3.1.2 Consensual validation
Consensual validation involves classroom teachers who have undergone the
same or similar experiences with curriculum change in science to share with
each other their experiences and/or to read the experiences of others. This
sharing and evaluation of teaching experience among colleagues seeks to
achieve a consensual validation (Flinders & Eisner, 1994). So by submitting to
the participants in this study the notes and transcripts during the focus sessions,
the participant/s either affirmed or denied the experiences presented thereby
establishing consensual validation. This will be further elaborated upon in
Chapter Four.
3.3.1.3 Referential adequacy
Referential adequacy provides a description of the scenario. It places together
the corroborative evidence in a way that provides a rich description of the
teacher’s thoughts, feelings and responses toward the new science syllabus and
thereby enables the reader to follow the line of evidence presented by the critic
or the researcher. Referential adequacy explained by Flinders and Eisner
(1994) seeks to establish three things. The first is that the weight of evidence is
consistent with the interpretation of its meaning. The second is that recurrent
89
90
examples and details point in the direction the critic (researcher) has said, to
finally it is where the reader should be able to trace the line of evidence and
reasoning that has led to the critic’s conclusion. This was achieved by
presenting the dialogue, without the critic’s interpretations, in Chapter Five, to
three interest focus groups which were: the primary and secondary
participating teachers, another group of teachers not involved in the study, and
a group of academics whose expertise is in the field of science education. Stake
(1995, 2000) refers to this as naturalistic generalisation. Naturalistic
generalisation recognises the vicarious experience of the reader as he/she may
personally identify with the case (Stake, 1995, 2000). This is generally useful
when a single case is presented to the reader. Though the case is particular, the
reader can make generalisations because he/she can identify with the case
(Stake, 1995, 2000). The responses of these three interest focus groups are
provided in Section 5.9 and are not to be confused with the focus group
sessions held with the participants during consensual validation. Figure 3.2
provides a graphic representation of the data analysis process that was involved
in this research.
Structural corroboration:Interviews, demographic survey, benchmarking constructivism,audio and video taped sessions, classroom observations,and artefacts.
Consensual validationComparative analysis of the primary and secondary teachers was conducted. List of statements were extrapolated from the data and presented to the teachers to validate.
Independent group of teachers analysis of dialogue.
Academics in science education analysis of dialogue.
Primary teachers
Focus group sessions
Comparative analysis of individual primary teachers.
Referential adequacyWeight of evidence is consistent, recurrent examples, and able to trace the line of reasoning.
Focus group sessions
P1 P3 P4
Secondary teachersanalysis of dialogue.
Primary teachersanalysis of dialogue.
Naturalistic generalisationsmade at each level (Stake, 1995, 2000).
Comparative analysis of individual secondary teachers.
Secondary teachers
Focus group sessions
P2S3S2S1
Figure 3.2 Data analysis process
3.4 THE RESEARCHER AS AN EDUCATIONAL CRITIC
The assumption of educational criticism is that the researcher needs to be an
expert in the respective field of research much the same way that an art critic
needs to be an expert in art (Eisner, 1991). Consequently the educational
researcher is expected to have professional training as an educator and relevant
experience as a classroom teacher. This amalgam provides the researcher with
a “binocular view” of the phenomenon at hand. That is, the researcher may
take a dual perspective on a problem, informed by craft knowledge (Cooper &
McIntyre, 1996; Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987) and informed by the
accepted domain knowledge.
The researcher has the opportunity to view curriculum development through
eighteen years of teaching experience and a sound theoretical knowledge of
teaching, management and curriculum development. The first six years of the
researcher’s experience were in secondary teaching in private schools overseas
and in New South Wales, followed by twelve years in primary education with
Education Queensland and three years as a part time lecturer in pre-service
teacher education.
In high school, I taught commerce, history, science and English. In primary
school I taught grades seven, five and three and as a specialist science teacher
for all grades one through to seven. In the university I have been involved in
teaching of pre-service teachers in primary science and mathematics education.
In addition to teaching I have been involved extensively in the management
and facilitation of school based curriculum development for both private and
public schools. I have also been involved in providing professional
development for secondary and primary schools in curriculum development
and science education.
My professional training is in primary and secondary education and
educational management with a Bachelor of Science in Education, a Masters of
Management in Educational Management and a Graduate Diploma of
Teaching.
92
All of the above provides professional evidence that serves to qualify me as an
educational critic. However, it does not provide a biographical description of
me with regards to my beliefs as a teacher and how those beliefs impact on me
as a critic. It is therefore necessary to provide a brief description of my
experience as a teacher portraying my beliefs and motivation behind this
research.
My twenty-one years of teaching have been an enriching and varied
experience. I have never been content with teaching just the one-year level or
subject area year after year. The challenges of teaching and learning have been
a driving motivation and interest to me. Hence whenever I felt that I had
learned all there was to know with a given experience or felt stagnated by my
existing experience I sought new opportunities of teaching. This motivation has
led me into teaching students from secondary to primary school respectively.
This interest in teaching and learning has opened opportunities for me to teach
and observe other teachers’ classes. As I taught these classes, it became
apparent to me that each teacher whether he/she be primary or secondary had a
unique approach and style of teaching. Yet there were many practices that
teachers had in common. On one occasion when I was working as a science
specialist in a primary school, taking the different primary grades, I compared
how the grade one teacher taught her class to that of the grade five teacher.
Both teachers had a pre-determined way of teaching their lesson. I recorded the
ideas from both classes with the aim of enriching my own teaching practice.
This became a fairly conscious habit of mine. When I visited other classes, I
took notes. I would observe the latter part of a mathematics or language lesson
before I conducted the science lesson. I would think to myself, “Here is a good
idea. I’ll use this approach the next time I teach a language lesson or
incorporate it into my science lesson.” There were times between lessons
where I would question and discuss with the teacher his/her teaching strategy
for that lesson. This teacher behaviour I later learned had a formal name: craft
knowledge (Shulman, 1994). Nor did I know that the critically reflective
analysis that I engaged in was a form of educational criticism (Eisner, 1985) or
consistent with the epistemological views of teacher action research (Fischer,
2001; Hobson, 2001). Fischer (2001, p. 29) emphasised the point, “Effective
93
teaching is informed by personal knowledge, trial and error, reflection on
practice and conversation with colleagues.” This was exactly, what I had been
doing.
Another aspect that I learned from my varied teaching experience was that my
teaching practice changed over the years. For example, I moved from being
subject focused to becoming more student focused. As I reflect on my
experience, this occurred unintentionally rather than intentionally, when I
moved from secondary teaching to primary teaching. This change became
more apparent to me as I progressed down the year levels from a grade seven
class then to a grade five and finally to a grade three class. I constantly
challenged myself with one question; “How can I effectively communicate
with these students?” In effect, the years of teaching experience were reshaping
my whole philosophy to teaching and learning. I know now, that had I returned
to a secondary class my teaching approach would be quite substantially
different.
The third aspect that needs to be understood was that I actively sought out new
opportunities to develop my skills as a teacher. I believe that for a person to
grow he/she must actively seek opportunities regardless of the nature of the
experience whether it is good or bad, it provides the opportunity to learn. For
example, when an opportunity to teach grade three presented itself I convinced
the principal to assign me to teach the class. His opinion was that the best
teachers for lower primary were women not men. Nevertheless, because the
current teacher had gone on maternity leave at the beginning of the year and
was to return the following semester he reluctantly agreed to a trial period. The
trial period lasted for the whole school year because the parents of the class
insisted that I stay as the teacher for the remainder of the year. That year was a
very enriching and rewarding experience.
In this research I will have the opportunity to open up a new understanding of
the classroom teacher from the perspective of an educational critic, who has a
sound twenty-one years of theoretical and experiential knowledge. I will
endeavour to communicate through an enlightened eye (Eisner, 1991) the
classroom teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices from a perspective not seen
before. The descriptions will provide a vicarious experience that can be
94
identified with (Stake, 2000). It is with this binocular view of theoretical and
experiential knowledge, as a teacher/researcher I will endeavour to present a
greater ‘depth of field’ of how teachers shape the curriculum through their craft
knowledge.
3.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
A specific question often asked concerning the choice of a methodology is:
What strengths does the methodology bring to the analysis? Unfortunately the
analogy used in educational criticism of an art critic has somewhat detracted
from the strength and qualities of the methodology. For this reason I concur
with Hatch (1994) who argued, “We should not justify such a critical approach
to education on an ambiguous relationship to art. We need educational
criticism because we need to have meaningful description of what happens
when teaching and learning take place” (p. 364). Furthermore educational
criticism provides a teacher’s perspective to the study similar to that of action
research where the views of the teacher are incorporated (Fischer, 2001).
Educational criticism also draws upon the experience and body of knowledge
that the researcher has as an educator to the interpretation and analysis of
teachers’ craft knowledge (Eisner, 1991). Finally, as with feminist research
methodology, educational criticism seeks to build a bridge of understanding
between the researcher and the researched (Bloom, 1998; Reinharz, 1992).
These are the strengths of educational criticism.
95
CHAPTER 4 PROCEDURE, METHODS AND ANALYSIS
4.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed documentation of the
procedure, methods and analysis of the data collection process. Section 4.2 will
provide the context of the study; a description of the schools, the reason these
two schools were chosen and the schools’ involvement with the new science
syllabus up to the time of the research. Section 4.3 is a description of the
number of participants and why they were chosen. This will be followed by the
data collection process and analysis detailed in Section 4.4 using the three
means of verification: structural corroboration, consensual validation and
referential adequacy. In this section links to the research questions are made.
The role of the researcher will be discussed in Section 4.5 and will be
illustrated by a transcribed segment during the final focus group session.
Ethical issues of the study will be presented in Section 4.6, which will discuss
concerns about the use of videotaping of lessons and the exclusion of sensitive
material in the dialogue chapter. This chapter will conclude with a justification
in Section 4.7 for using a dialogue approach for the presentation of the data in
Chapter Five.
4.2 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
The study was conducted over a period of more than one school semester
(twenty-six weeks) and participants were selected from one large primary state
school and one large state high school in the southern Brisbane region. The
choice of these two schools was based upon the size, the use of the new science
syllabus, the right of access, and previous involvement with the schools. Size
of the school was an important factor as it provided the researcher with a
greater range of participants and the assurance that the participants would have
a number of years teaching experience. The two schools were also an ideal
choice because it was their first semester to officially implement the new
97
science syllabus and secondly the researcher had no prior involvement in any
professional development programs at these two schools.
The new syllabus was distributed to all the schools in 1999. The teachers had
some exposure to the new science syllabus when it was first distributed to the
schools. However, the syllabus was not expected to be implemented until 2002.
During this time Education Queensland provided professional development and
a few of the primary teachers trialled some of the modules/activities in the new
science syllabus. It was in the second semester of 2001 towards the end of the
year that the primary school and secondary school independently planned their
2002 school based science program. The researcher had a fortuitous
opportunity to be invited to observe one of the secondary school’s science
department planning sessions. The planning session was in preparation for the
following year’s implementation of the new science syllabus. A detailed
description of these two schools is provided in Section 5.1 of context of the
study in Chapter Five.
4.3 PARTICIPANTS
In order to explore the implementation of a new science curriculum it was
desirable to have at least six teachers representing science teaching at each year
level each with at least five years teaching experience. Teachers with five or
more years teaching experience were preferred because of their previous
experience with the past science curriculum and their well established craft
knowledge (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1994).
Seven teachers were identified and all volunteered to participate. The study
group consisted of: two lower primary teachers, one middle primary teacher,
one upper primary teacher and three secondary science teachers representing
years eight, nine and ten. The reason for four primary teachers was because one
of the lower primary teachers, at the commencement of the data collection
process nearly withdrew so another teacher was asked to participate. However,
the uncertain teacher decided to continue. Their teaching experience ranged
from nine to thirty years, with teaching qualifications ranging from a three-year
teaching diploma through to a four-year bachelor’s degree in Education. This
diversity of classroom teachers provided the researcher with an opportunity to
98
observe the whole syllabus implemented at each level over one semester. The
teachers’ participation commenced at the beginning of the school year 2002
and continued for the duration of the first semester.
4.4 COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Data were collected at each phase of the curriculum implementation process of
the planning, the implementation and the assessment phases. The collection
and analysis of data took place just over one school semester and during the
last week of the previous year school term, a total of twenty-six weeks. Figure
4.1 provides a timeline of the research process. The high school permitted the
researcher to observe the planning process at the end of the year in preparation
for the following year. The data collection and analysis in education criticism
involved three means of verification: structural corroboration, consensual
validation and referential adequacy. The purpose of each established the
credibility and rigour of the research (Flinders & Eisner, 1994). One school
semester (two school terms) was found to be adequate time to address how
teachers’ enacted the new science curriculum. Because this research is focused
on teachers’ enactment (Snyder et al., 1992) of the new curriculum it does not
seek to measure the degree of successful, in terms of fidelity, implementation
and therefore does not require a longer duration.
School Term Term 4 and 1 Term 2 Term 3
School week 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5
Structural corroboration
Consensual validation
Referential adequacy
Figure 4.1 Timeline of research process
4.4.1 Structural corroboration
Structural corroboration was established by collecting data from five sources: a
demographic profile of the participants (see Appendix A), audio and video
99
taped classroom observations, fully transcribed audio-taped teacher interviews,
artefacts (individual teacher planning documents, school planning documents
and student notes) and a checklist for benchmarking teachers’ teaching which
was a modified approach to Yager’s (1991) constructivist approach to teaching
(see Appendix B). Each of these pieces of evidence contributed to the
structural corroboration of evidence that began to address the first research
question:
What teacher knowledge has the primary and secondary teachers found useful
to make the science curriculum more meaningful to them?
Each of the five sources of data collection will now be discussed in more
detail. While the data sources are numbered first, second, third and so on, this
does not suggest that they were necessarily implemented in this order.
Nevertheless a close order of implementation of data collection process is
presented.
The first source of data came from the demographic profile (see Appendix A).
This profile sought to establish background information about each
participating teacher. The profile also determined the nature, the type and
amount of professional development that the participating teacher had with the
new science syllabus. Finally, it sought to determine the participating teachers’
understanding of key concepts within the new syllabus such as; working
scientifically, constructivism and outcomes education.
The second source of data came from the classroom observations. The teachers
in the study were observed teaching on at least four separate occasions at the
beginning, the middle and the concluding portion of a science unit. The focus
of the observations was to observe how the teachers introduced the unit of
work, followed through with the development and understanding of that
particular unit and finally the assessment of the unit. The observations also
determined if what the teacher had said during the interview sessions was being
carried out in the classroom. The classroom observations were recorded in
detail with all the lessons audio taped and fully transcribed. Three lessons of
three of the primary teachers and three lessons of the three secondary teachers
were video taped. One of the primary teachers refused to have any lessons
video taped. These classroom observations provided the opportunity to follow
100
the development of a unit of work from its planning, implementation to its
assessment.
The third source of data came from individual teacher interviews. Each of the
teachers was formally interviewed on four separate occasions for
approximately forty-five to sixty minutes with each of these interviews
focusing on each of the three phases of curriculum implementation: planning
implementation and assessment. Less formal five to ten-minute interviews
were also conducted between classes with the teacher usually after the lesson.
The focus of these less formal interviews dealt with either a particular
observation or just the teacher’s spontaneous comments reflecting upon the
lesson as a whole. These were also recorded and transcribed.
The fourth source of data came from artefacts. These consisted of individual
teacher planning, school planning documents, a copy of at least two sets of
student notes and the teachers’ borrowing records of science equipment from
the science storeroom. The teachers, the students and the school willingly
provided these items. In particular, the choice of students’ notes that were
obtained from the students was perceived by the teacher as examples of quality
learning in science. This was purposely requested because such students would
keep a thorough detailed record of the science lesson or lessons. These
artefacts proved to be a valuable source of data to substantiate teachers’
statements made during interviews.
The fifth source of date came from a modified checklist of Yager’s (1991)
benchmarking teaching model of constructivist approach to teaching,
(Appendix B). This checklist was used in conjunction with three, of the five
classroom observations conducted with each teacher. The checklist was also
used as a focal point in some of the interviews with the teachers when
discussing the implementation of a lesson. It provided an opportunity for the
teacher to reflect on his/her teaching practice in relation to Yager’s (1991)
guide to a constructivist approach to teaching. Indirectly, the checklist also
provided a source of information on teachers’ craft knowledge.
101
4.4.2 Consensual validation
Answers to the second research question began to emerge during the
consensual validation process:
In what way does the teacher knowledge of primary and secondary teachers
differ in relation to the enactment of the science curriculum?
Consensual validation was achieved by providing the participating teachers
with a range of statements that were based upon the compilation of evidence
and analysis of data collected from the five sources: the demographic profile,
classroom observations, teacher interviews, artefacts and the modified checklist
of bench marking teachers. There were three steps in the consensual validation
process: firstly extrapolating from the data a list of statements, secondly asking
the teachers to read through the list of statements and thirdly conducting a
separate focus group session for the primary and secondary teachers to validate
the list of statements.
The first step was to extrapolate from the data a compiled list of statements for
the teachers to respond to (Appendix C). The statements consisted of either
direct quotes made by the teacher or statements made by the researcher based
upon the evidence collected. The statements and quotes were representative of
the beliefs and views of the teachers consistent with the researcher’s
observations and collected artefacts. The direct quotes used in the list were
taken from the audio transcripts, which were meticulously examined through
the use of a coding system (Miles & Huberman, 1994) first trialled in a pilot
study (Keys, 2000) and later redeveloped for the main study (Appendix D).
The QSR Nvivo 1.2 software (QSR International Pty Ltd., 1999), a qualitative
data analysis program was utilised to assist in the coding, analysis and
conducting searches of the audio taped transcripts. These data were compared
with the classroom observations, artefacts and other data collected from the
teachers’ demographic profiles. During this first step, statements and direct
quotes were grouped into five categories or themes: issues with science
education, planning, implementation, assessment and professional
development. The statements made by the primary teachers and secondary
teachers were then collapsed together to make one list. The researcher
102
maintained a record of the source of statements whether they originated from
the primary school or the secondary school.
In the second step the participating teachers were asked to read through the
statements and to tick or cross the statements that they agreed or disagreed
with. Both the primary and secondary teachers were given the same list of
statements. The teachers were not told whether the statements were of primary
or secondary school origin. The second step was conducted three weeks prior
to a focus group session. The responses were collected and tabulated on a
spreadsheet to identify the differences in beliefs and teaching practices among
the primary and secondary teachers or within the teaching group itself. The
responses revealed that within the primary and secondary teaching groups
certain differences appeared. It was necessary to address these differences in
the third step with the teachers in the focus group session.
In the third step of consensual validation the list of teachers’ statements
(Appendix C) was then taken back to each group and in separate focus group
sessions, where the differences and similarities of the responses were
discussed. During the focus session (Morgan, 1988) the teachers were provided
with an opportunity to elaborate on their reasons for support or non-support of
the statements. They were also provided with the opportunity to either reaffirm
their perspective or change views to agree with the group members. The final
responses were audio-taped and transcribed and the table of responses where
necessary were adjusted (Appendixes E to I is the final draft). This table, then
formed the basis of the dialogue presented in Chapter Five. It was utilised to
establish referential adequacy, which is the third measure of data verification.
4.4.3 Referential adequacy
The process of referential adequacy began to address the third question:
How has the science curriculum taken form or shape through the primary and
secondary teachers’ knowledge?
Referential adequacy required reading of the compiled dialogue presented in
Chapter Five by three interest groups. The construction of the compiled
dialogue presented in Chapter Five was based upon the outcomes of the
103
consensual validation process. The results from the table of responses in
Appendixes E to I, which was ratified by the two focus groups during the
consensual validation process, provided a framework for the dialogue. The
table of responses were grouped into five themes: issues with science
education, planning, implementation, assessment and professional
development. Each theme formed one of the five scenes of the dialogue. Using
the tables of responses (Appendixes E to I) together with the QSR Nvivo 1.2
data base software (QSR International Pty Ltd., 1999) the researcher again,
systematically went through the transcribed interviews at each point from
which the responses were originally derived, in order to ensure that the
constructed dialogue built around the table of responses, was in the correct
context. Furthermore the classroom observations and artefacts were drawn
upon again, to create the setting and to support the dialogue between the
composite characters of their ‘observations’ of each other’s classes. The final
product resulted in a dialogue between three composite characters representing
lower primary, middle/upper primary and secondary teachers. In the original
research design it was to be only two composite characters a primary and a
secondary teacher. However, after a careful analysis of the data a lower
primary teacher character began to emerge as well. This variation was
introduced because there were certain distinct teaching issues that separated the
lower primary teachers from the middle and upper primary teachers and that
needed to be expressed. Justification for the use of a dialogue will be presented
in the discussion of presentation of data in Section 4.6. This dialogue was then
presented to three interest groups for referential adequacy.
Referential adequacy was achieved in three ways: Firstly, the dialogue was
presented to the two groups of participating teachers in the main study to read
and comment on in two separate focus group sessions. Secondly, it was
presented to another group of teachers who had no previous involvement in the
study to read and comment on in another focus group session. Thirdly, it was
presented to a group of academics who were specialists in the field of science
education and curriculum development and who had no previous involvement
in the study, to read and comment on in a separate focus group session.
Consequently a total of three interest groups provided input into the referential
adequacy process over four focus group sessions.
104
The participants were asked to read the dialogue a week prior to the focus
group session. The participants were informed that the composite characters in
the dialogue did not represent any specific teacher. They were also informed of
the nature, purpose and style of genre used in the presentation of the data. By
providing this information to the participants it clarified the reason for the data
presentation method.
The document was presented to the participants in three sections with an
attached letter (Appendix J). The letter provided the purpose of, and
instructions for, the reading of the document. The first section of the document
provided the nature, purpose and style of the genre that was used in the
presentation of the data. The second section was the context of the dialogue,
which provided an understanding of the characters and the school setting. The
third section was the actual dialogue between the characters, which was broken
into five parts dealing with issues of science education, planning,
implementation, assessment and professional development.
The participants were informed that the majority of the statements made in the
dialogue were direct quotes taken verbatim from the participants and that there
may be some grammatical errors. Nevertheless, this constraint should not have
detracted from the meaning or the essence of the dialogue between the three
composite characters.
Each of the four focus group sessions were audio taped and portions
transcribed for analysis. In the first two sessions involving the participating
teachers there were no concerns about the dialogue of the composite characters.
They found it to be a true and accurate portrayal of what was currently taking
place in science education. There were some minor parts that the teachers
believed needed some correction. This dealt with mostly technical and
grammatical errors and the concern over the protection of anonymity that may
have been jeopardised by some statements made in the dialogue.
In the third focus group session the dialogue was presented to an independent
group of teachers and a school principal and in the fourth focus session the
dialogue was presented to a group of two academics both specialists in the field
of science education and who had not participated in the study. The same
instructions and time to read the dialogue were provided to the participants.
105
Once again both groups affirmed that the dialogue was a realistic portrayal of
teachers enacting the new science syllabus. Comments and feedback from
these focus group sessions assisted with establishing referential adequacy and
are provided in the epilogue of Chapter Five.
4.5 THE ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER
The role of the researcher was that of an observer. At no time was the
researcher involved in the decision making process of the planning,
development implementation or assessment of the new science syllabus. The
researcher listened, observed and took note of the concerns and issues
expressed by the teachers. The researcher had not provided at any time
professional development to either of the schools prior or during the data
collection period.
Throughout the interviews and focus group sessions the researcher’s role was
to encourage the teachers to critically reflect upon their teaching practice by
asking them such things as, “What caused that lesson to be successful? What
problems are you experiencing implementing the new science syllabus? Why
did you use a textbook?” These types of questions were asked to generate
teachers’ thinking about their teaching practice. Even during the last focus
group session of establishing referential adequacy, the teachers asked me what
I thought, whether or not they were on the right track. The questions and
comments below demonstrate clearly how I endeavoured to maintain my role
as an observer:
Researcher: So what did you think? What was your initial sort of reaction [referring to the dialogue]?
Teacher one: What did you get from it? What did you find?
Researcher: I got a lot from it.
Teacher two: Well tell us!
Teacher one: What we need to know is; are we on the right track or are we missing something?
Teacher three: That’s a judgement call.
Teacher one: What is your impression?
Teacher three: He won’t tell us that…
106
4.6 ETHICAL ISSUES
The school and participants were informed of the nature and purpose of the
research. Necessary clearances were obtained from Education Queensland
district office and the University Human Research Ethics committee prior to
the commencement of the research. The application submitted to the District
office of Education Queensland covered all the necessary issues as to who the
participants were, how the investigation was to be undertaken, confidentiality
of recorded information and the extent to which the recorded information was
used. Teachers participating in the research were asked to sign a consent form,
which outlined the purpose of the study, the method of data collection, the
extent of their involvement and the confidentiality and anonymity of material.
Consent had to be sought from parents or guardians of the students to collect
information from students’ notebooks and to videotape children in the
classroom.
The first ethical issue was obtaining parental permission to videotape their
children in the primary class. Even when it was explained that the focus of the
videotaping was on the teacher and not the children some parents did not
consent. In such cases it was necessary to reorganise the lesson and activities
to exclude these students from videotaping. This meant placing the non-
participating students in a group on their own or avoiding directing the camera
toward these students. This made the lesson somewhat orchestrated, in spite of
this the videotaping did provide useful evidence.
The second ethical issue involved the videotaping of the teachers. Not all of the
teachers felt comfortable being videotaped. One primary teacher who had
originally consented changed her mind on the day and nearly withdrew from
the study. Another primary teacher made it clear from the beginning that she
did not feel comfortable being videotaped. While another teacher in the
secondary school who willingly allowed the researcher to video the lesson
conducted a “special” lesson for the camera although this had not been
requested. It became clear to the researcher that videotaping lessons was not
necessarily the best data collection approach and hence video recordings were
supplemented with field notes.
107
The third ethical issue dealt with including or excluding a particular event in
the dialogue that participating teachers had to read prior to the focus group
session that was establishing referential adequacy. The event was subsequently
excluded from the dialogue since it was deemed inappropriate. The event
focused on the special lesson, previously mentioned, that one of the secondary
teachers had prepared for the camera. Although the teacher had been observed
previously on several occasions, on this particular occasion the teaching
approach used appeared to be inconsistent. This observation was supported by
an unsolicited student’s comment during the video taped lesson, “[The teacher]
doesn’t always teach like this only when you’re in the room.” At the end of this
session during a follow up taped interview I asked the teacher whether I could
observe and video the next science lesson, the reply was, “No, not now, I’m not
set up for it.” I assured the teacher that I was only interested in what was taking
place and the classroom observations were not an evaluation exercise. My
request was still refused. The response supported the student’s claim that the
previous video taped lesson was not an every day occurrence.
The following conversation between Judy the primary teacher and Sonia the
secondary teacher about the student’s comment depicts the event:
Judy: When I was observing one of your lessons a student said to me, “She doesn’t always teach like this, only when you’re in the room.”
Sonia: What student said that?
Judy: She didn’t tell me her name. It was just one of the students.
Sonia: That’s rubbish she doesn’t know what she is talking about.
Judy: Don’t worry about it. Students often say those sorts of things to stir their teacher.
Sonia’s response was later excluded from the dialogue of Chapter Five before
being submitted to the teachers to read. Below is the edited section that
replaced in the dialogue and still provided the same meaning. This may be seen
in Chapter 5, p. 143:
Tony: …Anyway, after morning tea can I observe your next science lesson? (p. 143)
Sonia: My next lesson?
108
Tony: Yeah, the one after this break, the year nine in the lab.
Sonia: No, not now I’m not set up for it.
4.7 PRESENTATION OF DATA
In Chapter Five the data are presented as a dialogue which is consistent with an
educational criticism approach as a form of literature (Barone, 2000). The
dialogue among composites provides a rich portrayal of the representative
teacher. It allows the reader the opportunity to focus on the individual teacher
and be able to identify with that teacher's experience. The type of genre used in
the research is not unique and is in keeping with the domains of ethnographic
fiction (Rinehart, 1998). Such an approach has been used to illustrate the
ontological and epistemological views of various interest or cultural groups.
For example, Oscar Wilde (1913) in The Critic as Artist cited in Foreman
(1966) included a discussion between two critics over their epistemological
beliefs of Art. In Hebrew literature the book of Job in the Bible contained an
ontological debate between Job and his four companions on the subject of
suffering and God (New American Standard). Contemporary research in
education has continued to use narrative approaches to provide understanding
into teaching (Barone, 2000; Eisner, 1985; Tippins, Tobin, & Nichols, 1995).
Tippins et al. (1995) presented the story of Mrs Half a Day in a dialogue of a
composite character of primary teachers in an interview regarding her
transition from using a traditional didactic teaching approach to that of a
constructivist approach to teaching.
The dialogue in Chapter Five is presented in six parts. In the first part the
context of the dialogue is provided. Here descriptions of the characters are
given together with a background to the school and the teachers’ classroom.
This provides an understanding of the schools and teachers who participated in
the study. The next five parts are the discussions between the three composite
characters dealing with science education issues, planning, implementation,
assessment and professional development. At the beginning of each section a
brief introduction to the topics of discussion is provided. The professional
dialogue and interaction between the three composite teachers will provide an
understanding of how teachers shaped the new science curriculum.
109
CHAPTER 5 TWO SIDES OF THE COIN
5.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This chapter presents the context and the dialogue among the three composite
characters. The context provides a description of the two participating schools
and a character description of the three composite characters and their
classrooms. The dialogue addresses five domains: issues of science education,
planning, implementation, assessment and professional development. It is the
dialogue within this chapter that was provided to the participants to read and
provide feedback for referential adequacy. As explained previously the
construction of the dialogue was based upon the outcomes of the consensual
validation process of the research. The results of the consensual validation
process also indicated the need to have three composite characters representing
the views of lower primary, middle/upper primary and secondary teachers.
Chapter Three discussed three stages of educational criticism (Eisner, 1985):
the descriptive, the interpretative and the evaluative stage (Figure 3.1). This
chapter of the research will be referred to as the descriptive stage of
educational criticism. It is the re-creation of classroom events or a vivid
rendering of the qualities perceived in the situation (Eisner, 1985). In this case
it is a re-creation of the implementation of the science curriculum over the first
term of the school year. Furthermore, in keeping with the research design it is
important for the reader to make an interpretation rather than an interpretation
being imposed upon the reader (Flinders & Eisner 1994). For this reason and
because the dialogue is the descriptive stage of the research no analysis is
provided in Chapter Five. Nevertheless at the end of this chapter an epilogue is
presented which provides feedback from the focus group sessions that
facilitated in establishing referential adequacy. The referential adequacy
process affirmed the accuracy of the dialogue and raised issues for further
discussion. Chapters Six and Seven will provide the analysis of the dialogue in
the interpretative stage of educational criticism.
111
5.2 THE QUEENSLAND SCIENCE SYLLABUS
To understand better some aspects of the dialogue between the three teachers it
is necessary to provide a brief overview of the format of the syllabus
documents. The science syllabus contains four basic parts: the syllabus
document, the source book, the initial inservice material and a collection of
source book modules. Each of these source book modules focuses on one
learning strand and on one or two core learning outcomes within the strand.
This material was provided to the schools on CD ROM (Queensland School
Curriculum Council, 2001). There was also a CD ROM that provided
professional development in the new science syllabus (Education Queensland,
1999).
The syllabus is divided into six outcome level statements to be covered over a
ten-year school program. Grade one to seven students are expected to have
accomplished levels one to four and grades eight to ten students are expected to
have achieved levels five to six. There are five content strands of science
within each level of the syllabus to be investigated: Earth and Beyond, Science
and Society, Natural and Processed Materials, Energy and Change and Life and
Living. Under each of these headings are the essential core and discretionary
learning outcomes to be covered by the teacher. There are three essential core
learning outcomes to be covered for each level of each strand making a total of
ninety core learning outcomes to be covered in the science syllabus over a ten
year period. This does not include the optional discretionary outcomes at each
level.
5.3 CONTEXT
In order to provide realism to this dialogue the scene, character description and
motive for the teachers coming together is first established. The scene is first
set at the high school, then moves between the classrooms of the three teachers
and concludes in the high school staff room. The primary school is only eight
kilometres away from the high school. The majority of the students from the
primary attend the high school once they have completed grade seven.
112
When the three teachers in the dialogue meet for the first time they learn some
interesting personal details about each other. This provides the reader with an
understanding of the participants in the study. Three teachers have volunteered
to provide a detailed report to the education department over concerns that
have arisen from the implementation of the new grade one to ten science
syllabus. The teachers’ union has also expressed its concern about the
effectiveness of professional development. This sets the motive and urgency of
the dialogue for dramatic effect.
Judy, Tony and Sonia are the three composite teachers in this dialogue. Judy
teaches grade three Tony teaches grade five and Sonia teaches secondary
science. In the dialogue each teacher has the opportunity to visit the other’s
classes on several occasions and to observe each other teach a science unit over
the school term. Their discussions take place during and at the end of their
visits over a school term. The discussion sessions are divided into five
sessions: issues of science education, planning, implementation, assessment
and professional development.
5.3.1 Character description
The character description is based upon the average number of years of
experience of the participants, the formal qualifications of the participants and
the professional and personal experiences of the participants in the study. There
is no one reference to any particular participant. These are composite
characters.
5.3.1.1 Primary teachers
Middle/upper primary teacher.
Tony is an experienced primary teacher who has been teaching with
government schools for the past twenty-two years. After graduating from
teachers’ college with a three-year diploma of teaching, Tony first taught at a
small three-teacher country primary school in the remote region of Northwest
Queensland. After two years, he moved to a regional school where he
completed his Bachelor of Education part time. Later he transferred to a large
113
suburban primary school located in the city where he has been teaching for the
past twelve years. During his teaching experience, Tony has taught grade three,
grade four, grade seven and currently teaches grade five.
Lower primary teacher
Judy is an experienced primary teacher who has been teaching with
government schools for the past thirteen years. After graduating with a
Bachelor of Education in primary teaching, Judy first taught at a country
primary school. After three years she transferred to her present school, the
Brisbane Suburban State School, the same school where Tony teaches and
where she has taught for the past ten years. During her teaching experience
Judy has taught grade one, a grade two/three composite and grade four and has
served in previous years as a key teacher for teaching and learning. She is
currently teaching grade three.
5.3.1.2 Secondary teacher
Sonia is an experienced secondary science teacher who has been with
government schools for the past sixteen years. After graduating from university
with a Bachelor of Science and a Diploma of Teaching, Sonia taught overseas
in the United Kingdom for two years. Upon returning to Australia and
receiving a teaching position with the government she taught at a small country
high-top school (a combined primary and secondary) that had approximately
180 students from grade one to grade ten. Since, Sonia has had three transfers;
firstly to a regional high school, then West City High School and subsequently
to her present school, Brisbane Suburban State High School, a large suburban
high school located eighteen kilometres from the city centre. Sonia has been
teaching at this school for the past five years. She is currently teaching year
eight and nine sciences, senior biology and senior chemistry.
5.3.2 School setting
The descriptions provided are of the two large Brisbane schools that
participated in the study. The only difference is that the participating primary
114
school in the research is not an official feeder school for the high school as
described in this dialogue. The names of the schools have also been changed.
5.3.2.1 Brisbane Suburban State School
Judy and Tony teach at Brisbane Suburban State School a large government
primary school located twenty kilometres from the city centre. Tony is one of
the longest serving teachers at the school. The school is twenty years old. It has
approximately 1200 students from pre-school to grade seven, forty-six
classroom teachers, three ESL (English as second language) teachers, two
learning support teachers, three deputy principals and a principal. The student
population is made up of medium to high-income bracket families and has a
twenty-five percent Asian population. The school has an active parent and
citizen group that has raised funds for the recent construction of a large modern
multipurpose sports facility. The school is recognised for its academic and
music programs. The quality of the classrooms, range from demountable
buildings to contemporary modular designs. The school is constructing
additional classrooms to cater for the growing student population and is a
feeder school to Brisbane Suburban State High.
TONY’S CLASSROOM
As you enter Tony’s classroom his desk is on the front left side facing the
students. Students’ books, a large ring binder, reference material and
permission notes for basketball teams etc cover Tony’s desk. In the same
corner as the desk is a bookcase overflowing with a variety of reference
materials. The students’ artwork hang from the ceiling on display. On the front
wall is a blackboard and in the right hand corner there is the entrance to a
withdrawal room. Written on the right side of the board are notes from a
previous lesson on the respiratory system. This quote remained on the board
for the duration of the term:
Most living things (organisms) require oxygen for their survival. Breathing in one function, which occurs constantly and without conscious effort … The blood filled with oxygen travels to the heart where it will be pumped out to all different parts of the body.
Tony’s classroom is one of the newer modular designs. It has four
interconnected classrooms under one roof in a semi-circular design, with each
115
classroom separated by a small withdrawal room. These rooms are used for
small group work activities. Each of the four classroom doors opens out to a
shared common room. This common room doubles as an unofficial staffroom
for the grade four and five teachers and as well as a wet area for student art
based activities. It is the unofficial staffroom because the principal prefers the
teachers to use the main staffroom next to the administration block.
Tony has arranged his classroom so that the students’ desks are either facing
the front of the room or are facing the left or right side of the room. There are
seven rows of desks facing the front of the room. On the left side of the room
facing the blackboard are three rows of desks, each row has three desks side by
side. On the right side of the room facing the blackboard there are four rows of
desks. The first three rows have two desks side by side but the last row has
only one. Adjoining the three rows of desks on the left side is another row of
four desks facing the right side of the room. On the right side of the room is
also another row of seven desks facing the left side of the room. There are
twenty-seven students in Tony’s class. Toward the back of the room are two
trapezoid tables placed together and used for group work. At the back of the
room in the right hand corner is a door which leads to the shared withdrawal
activity room. Located in this room along with tables and chairs are the
television and video recorder. Just outside the entrance to the room is the class
computer, which is networked to the central school database and has Internet
connection. Most of the right wall is aluminium sliding glass windows which
look out onto another teaching block. Against the left wall are three spare
student desks and two bookcases containing student reference material. This
was Tony’s classroom arrangement for the first semester.
JUDY’S CLASSROOM
Judy has a double teaching space and teaches twenty-four grade three students.
The teaching space between Judy and her teaching partner is separated by a
concertina wall, which can be opened up if the two teachers so desire. There is
a ramp that leads up to the classroom to provide wheelchair access. Judy has
arranged her students’ desks to face the front of the room. At the front of the
room is a large pin board, a blackboard and at the front right-hand side is the
entrance. There is approximately a two-metre space between the first row of
116
desks and the blackboard. There are seven rows of small student desks, four on
one side of the room and three on the other side of the room. There is an aisle
down the middle. Each row has three or four desks side by side except for the
last row on the left side facing the blackboard, which has five desks. Hanging
across the rows of desks at about eye height the students’ artwork and other
activities are displayed. Positioned in the middle of the front row of desks on
the left hand side is an overhead projector.
Judy’s desk is positioned at the end of the aisle against the back concertina wall
of the classroom and it faces the blackboard. On the right side of her desk is a
bookcase filled with a variety of resources and reference materials that Judy
has used over her teaching career. Between the bookcase and right-hand wall in
the corner are a sink and two trapezoid tables. This area is often used for small
group reading, art, or science activities. On the left rear-side facing the
blackboard is the class computer, which is networked to the central school
database and has Internet access. The classroom arrangement remained
unchanged throughout the semester.
As you enter the classroom on the left side is a small open area that Judy and
her students use as a focus area for discussion. Located at one end of this space
is a chair and easel. This is where the children huddle together on the floor to
listen to a story or discuss with their teacher what they are going to do in
mathematics or science.
5.3.2.2 Brisbane Suburban State High School
The secondary school that Sonia teaches at is Brisbane Suburban State High
and is located eighteen kilometres from the city centre. The school was
established in 1969. The design and architecture is reminiscent of typical
Australian educational period of the 1960s. Constructed in brick and timber
with a veranda and entrances to the classrooms at the side of the building, the
school is well recognised for its excellent academic record and performing arts
program. The school has more than eighteen hundred students with most of its
students coming from upper middle social economic backgrounds. It also has a
large Asian student population and therefore provides an extensive ESL
program (English as a Second Language program).
117
The Science department has eighteen teachers and three lab assistants and is
located in two staff rooms. There are nine teachers in the staffroom where
Sonia is. The staffroom is crowded with office desks side by side. There is the
kitchen sink tucked in the corner and next to it are two computers, which are
networked to the central school database and have Internet access. Across the
other side is a barrage of filing cabinets full of student records and notes. On
top of these cabinets are cardboard boxes and a mixed assortment of items. On
the other side of the room where the head of department sits there is a
bookshelf holding a range of resources and ring binders. Between each of the
adjoining teachers’ desks are small bookcases. On top of and in between each
adjoining desk is stacked with the individual teacher’s books defining their
space. There are a few additional chairs positioned in the room for pre-service
teachers or visitors. This is where Sonia works.
The school has seven science laboratories. All of these except for two, were
part of the original complex and have not had any major upgrade for some
time. The floors are covered with vinyl and portions have deteriorated exposing
the concrete surface beneath. There is dry rot in the corner of one lab which has
seen better days. The benches in the labs are painted black covering up the
numerous carvings and fossil evidence of students who had since moved on.
Along the front wall is the whiteboard and displayed along the same wall is an
orange fire blanket, a clock, a poster which reads, “What’s your Big 3 ideas,” a
small laminated poster of a resuscitation chart and various other notices. At the
front is the entrance to the preparation room and storeroom for the science
equipment. On the rear wall of the lab there is a chemical valency chart
displayed and a couple of A3 size student posters on the topic Elements, which
had been an activity which connected all of the chemical elements. Along the
left wall there are two large fish tanks sitting on top of the science benches.
One tank was half full and the other empty. Inside the half full tank was a small
footstool with a large rock placed on top. The tank had a pump operating inside
but it was covered in green algae. There did not appear to be any other sign of
life. The other empty tank was set up as a terrarium but appeared to be
neglected. Along the same wall were the Bunsen burners hanging on hooks off
118
the wall. This is the room in which Sonia teaches her grade eight and nine
science classes.
5.4 ISSUES OF SCIENCE EDUCATION
In this discussion, Sonia, Judy and Tony meet for the first time in the library at
Sonia’s high school. It is here that they learn something personal and
professional about each other. They find that despite their different teaching
areas they share common beliefs in science education. They discuss their
understanding of constructivism, the nature of science, teaching resources, the
importance of science and why they teach science, their confidence in teaching
science and their own experiences as students in science. Yet there are some
issues that they do not agree upon and these remain unresolved.
Judy: Hello, excuse me, we’re looking for Sonia.
Sonia: That’s me.
Judy: Sonia!
Sonia: Judy! Welcome to Suburban High.
Judy: Good to see you again.
Sonia: You look terrific. You haven’t changed a bit.
Judy: Thanks. You, look pretty good yourself. How long has it been?
Sonia: Twelve years.
Judy: That long.
Sonia: Time flies. The last time we worked together was at Country State School in 1990.
Judy: That was my first year out. Oh sorry; this is Tony.
Tony: G’day.
Judy: Tony teaches grade five at Suburban Primary.
Sonia: Here, sit down. I’ll just see if I can find another chair.
Tony: Thanks. Nice big library you’ve got here.
Sonia: I thought it would better for us to meet here than the staffroom.
119
Judy: Sonia and I taught together at Country State School. It was a high top school with grades one to ten. I was teaching grade one and grade two at that time. Sonia taught science in the secondary.
Sonia: And I did some science support teaching in the primary from time to time.
Judy: And with an English accent.
Sonia: What accent.
Judy: Sonia taught previously in the UK for a couple of years and used to put on this strong accent for a bit of fun.
Sonia: We had a jolly good time. So how long have you been at Suburban Primary?
Judy: Let’s see. I taught at Country Primary for my first three years and then transferred to Suburban primary in January 93. That makes it ten years.
Sonia: I’ve been at this school for the past five years.
Judy: Really!
Sonia: It’s amazing that we haven’t seen each other.
Judy: So where did you go?
Sonia: I left Country State School, in December 1990 and moved to Regional High for four years and then on to West City High for another four years and finally here at Suburban High for the past five years.
Tony: I taught at Regional Primary right across the road.
Sonia: Did you?
Tony: Small World.
Sonia: How long were you there for?
Tony: I was there from 83 to Christmas 91 and before that I taught at a three teacher school for two years in far northwest Queensland.
Judy: What was that like?
Tony: Best thing was fishing for barramundi and pig shooting on the weekends. Other than that there wasn’t much else to do. I been here at the present school since…
Judy: Since it started.
120
Tony: Not quite that long. It will be thirteen years.
Judy: I used to be a student at this school.
Sonia: Did you?
Sonia: I’ll have to dig out your file.
Tony: That should be interesting to read. Now we’ll really find out about Judy.
Sonia: I suppose we better make a start.
Tony: So what is it that they want from us?
Sonia: The department wants us to write up a progress report for this new grade one to ten science syllabus. They have asked our schools to work together because your primary school is a feeder school to our high school.
Judy: I’ve heard that the union is interested in this report.
Sonia: Yes they are. They have made it clear that the report should include a review of professional development.
Tony: In this letter it states that we are only to provide a review of the planning, implementation and assessment.
Sonia: Yes, that was until the Union insisted that professional development should be included.
Tony: Good idea.
Judy: So now there are four areas to report on.
Tony: It looks that way. So what else does this involve?
Judy: It says here on page six that we are to observe teachers teaching science and provide feedback.
Tony: I haven’t had anyone observe me for years; except for the student teachers.
Sonia: Nor I.
Judy: It also says that we are to keep a record of planning and assessment meetings throughout the semester, collect and compare student notes and interview and discuss the above four issues with teachers.
Tony: There goes my fishing. Why did I volunteer for this one?
Judy: Because no one else did. Remember ?
121
Sonia: So what do you think about this new science syllabus? All these new terms they come out with like constructivism, KLA’s (Key Learning Areas), rich tasks, new basics and productive pedagogies, jargon, jargon, jargon.
Judy: They just make up these new terms as they go along.
Tony: That might be the definition of constructivism. Making up new words for science. I still don’t fully understand what it means. Do you?
Sonia: No, not really. I understand the term but I really don’t have a working knowledge of it yet.
Tony: Neither do I. Something to do with building upon prior knowledge is the limit of my understanding.
Judy: I think it’s hands on, learning in your own way, in your own time.
Sonia: I look at it this way; if you don’t have a lab so much for constructivism. You know, I didn’t have a lab for the first three weeks of the term for my grade eight. How was I possibly going to teach science let alone constructivism?
Tony: Good for you; you’ve got a lab to fight over. Though I wouldn’t think that my science is ineffective because I don’t have a lab.
Judy: It would be ideal. Just a room, sometimes would be good.
Tony: But, it doesn’t stop me from teaching science.
Sonia: I need a lab to do pracs. Health and safety regulations don’t allow us to do experiments in the classroom. If you want kids to use any equipment or any chemicals, you have got to have a place for washing. You have got to have a heat source.
Tony: You don’t always need materials to develop a concept.
Sonia: The fact is, that when the kids are in a lab it makes the difference. It makes them think that we’re doing science. To develop a concept you’ve got to have hands on stuff.
Judy: For us the issue is getting and paying for your own equipment. You’ve always got to buy stuff out of your own pocket and its’ never at your fingertips. You always got to run around to get the stuff.
Sonia: You mean, that you actually buy your own science equipment?
Judy: Yes. I’m always at the shop buying stuff that I need.
Sonia: Really?
122
Judy: Well, not all of it, just the consumable items. We often need to buy such things as balloons, potato chips and baking soda etc. That’s where most of my costs and time is taken up.
Sonia: I think that it is unfair to expect kids to supply their own materials.
Judy: And paying for your own.
Tony: Kids get a real buzz out of science. It’s not something that you have to drag kids along to be involved in and there are some subjects where you feel having to push for kids to be involved in. But, science is one where very few children have a negative attitude. They look forward to the activities. They look forward to being able to get up out of their seats and do things and have a bit of a talk. Very rare that you have science lessons where kids are quiet and usually the noise is related to the activity.
Judy: Even if I didn’t enjoy science I still would teach science because the children really enjoy it.
Sonia: A good science class is where the teacher is someone who allows the students to investigate, lots of hands on and who is flexible when things go wrong as they often do in science.
Judy: I just try to make it a bit more fun and practical and hands on and less theory.
Tony: Not all of us have the knowledge or expertise that you do in secondary. If something goes wrong, it’s hard to explain why, to the students.
Judy: Sometimes I don’t feel confident in the content.
Tony: One of the teachers at our school, who is presently teaching grade seven is finding it a bit of a challenge to teach rocks in preparation for the year seven camp. She said she would much rather teach animals and plant life because she feels that she has a better knowledge of the subject. Because she often says, “I’m not scientific. I don’t have a lot of scientific general knowledge. I don’t feel confident in this.”
Sonia: We don’t have that problem in secondary; except when, teachers in Home Economics. and English are asked to teach science. They have difficulty with the concept themselves and content. They have to keep coming back to us to ask.
Judy: I heard that in one state that they were considering removing science from primary education?
Sonia: Why?
123
Judy: I don’t know why. Maybe they thought that it wasn’t being taught properly or something. How should I know what the system thinks?
Tony: I don’t think you can leave science out of education because whatever you do whether you’re doing geography and earthquakes you’re dealing with science. It is an important part of understanding the world.
Sonia: That’s right. You name it, it’s science. Science is a real life situation. Even in religion, you argue with science. Science education is preparing the student for the next year level.
Tony: It’s more than that. It’s not only preparing the student for the next year level. We teach science for other reasons other than the fact that next year they need to know this set of facts or this set of theories.
Sonia: Yes, I realise that.
Judy: It’s preparing them for life.
Sonia: But in years eight to ten, the student needs to be prepared to make appropriate choices in year eleven. The student needs to have written tests in science to prepare them. We experience a high attrition rate because the students think that they are able to do senior science and this needs to be addressed at the junior level.
Tony: Well, when I remember my science experience at school I didn’t enjoy the way science was taught in primary. It didn’t have impact on me. I didn’t really enjoy science much in secondary school either for that matter.
Sonia: Why’s that?
Tony: Now that I’m an adult, I enjoy the scientific process. Getting children doing things as a scientist. I can’t ever remember thinking of myself as a scientist when I was doing science. I only had to know all these different elements; hydrogen, helium lithium and beryllium. I could go through all of those. That seemed to be what science was all about. We always seemed to have a textbook in front of us. There was very rarely something ever done without a textbook coming out first. I didn’t enjoy science. I suppose your experience in science was much more enjoyable.
Sonia: I enjoyed science particularly high school. I remember all my science teachers in high school. We had a fellow named Jones, John Wright - Deputy at Bilma for 400 years. Bob Davies, yes most of those.
Judy: I enjoyed science. I didn’t do biology because I knew that there was too much work and I did physics for one week and I knew that the teacher wasn’t going to help me so I quit that.
124
Sonia: I did some science in primary. I remember doing a little bit, but not in upper primary. And, what I did it stands out in my memory. I remember making an electro magnet. You know wire around the nail. I remember going looking at stars and the horizon and doing some angle calculations and stuff like that. I did very little in grade six and seven most of it done before. Hands on stuff I might add.
Judy: I should have done chemistry and never ever did because I would have enjoyed. Just for the fun of it. I always wanted to be a teacher so you didn’t need chemistry. Can’t remember if I did well. Yeah, I did enjoy science but didn’t do much in primary school. So, I wasn’t influenced when I was in primary school.
Sonia: Are we going to include what we have just discussed in this report?
Judy: Did they ask for it?
Sonia: No.
Tony: Is it important? Is it significant to the report?
Sonia: I don’t know.
5.5 PLANNING
In this dialogue, Judy, Tony and Sonia meet at the unsanctioned year four and
five staffroom which adjoins Tony’s classroom. During this session they find
that they share similar planning experiences at the school level but their
individual planning is different. They also find that they have interpreted and
implemented the syllabus very differently. The three teachers discuss the
implementation and validity of integration and in this discussion reveals their
beliefs concerning mathematics and science. Strategies in dealing with the
outcomes are explored, the syllabus support material is scrutinised and the
usefulness of a science textbook or other commercial publications and the
previous government primary science sourcebook are evaluated.
Tony: G’day Judy
Judy: Hi Tony.
Tony: How was your day?
Judy: You know what’s it like on these wet days. Kids are bursting to go outside.
125
Tony: We’ve had four, five, seven wet days in a row not including the weekend. It’s getting like the wet season up north.
Judy: I know.
Tony: Kids can’t go outside during lunch and when they do, they bring all the mud back inside. The cleaners get upset.
Judy: I just tell my kids to leave their shoes at the door.
Tony: Is Sonia coming?
Judy: She rang me early this morning at home to say that she was coming.
Tony: Did you tell her that we’re meeting here?
Judy: Yes I told her that we were meeting here.
Tony: I suppose the traffic is holding her up.
Sonia: Hello everyone. Sorry I’m late there was an accident and the traffic was banked up for miles. Nice place you’ve got here.
Tony: It’s about four years old, one of the newer modular designs. It has four interconnected classrooms and this common area under one roof. Between each of the classrooms, there is a small withdrawal room.
Sonia: What do you use those rooms for?
Tony: Small group activities.
Sonia: Very impressive.
Judy: Not all of the classrooms are like this one. Mine is just your basic demountable come permanent classroom.
Sonia: So what’s this room for?
Tony: This common room is the wet area for student art activities.
Judy: It’s the unofficial staffroom.
Sonia: Why?
Tony: Because the principal would rather us use the main staffroom next to the administration block. We like it here.
Judy: And so does everyone else.
Tony: We’ve got everything here, fridge, sink, everything.
126
Sonia: Plenty of space, more room than our pokey little staffroom.
Tony: And it’s too far to walk up to the main staff room for morning tea.
Sonia: Well, we better get started with this review or else it will be Christmas before we know it.
Judy: I need to go by four-thirty to pick up my daughter from swimming.
Sonia: Swimming, on a cold wet day like this.
Judy: It’s in doors.
Sonia: Oh, that’s good.
Tony: Today we need to look at planning. Did you have any planning meeting last year for this new syllabus?
Sonia: Yes we had two full days at the end of the term. All of the science teachers were given time out from class teaching at the end last week of the school year to do planning.
Tony: We only had a day on the pupil free day to do all our planning.
Sonia: We met for two days on a Thursday and Friday in the school library. We organised ourselves into three groups for grade eight, nine and ten. There were about seven teachers in each group. Each group discussed what was to be taught for that particular year level based upon a science textbook that we had recently received and the new science syllabus. From that, we wrote our units of work and our assessment.
Judy: Did you negotiate which outcomes were to be taught at each year level?
Sonia: Negotiate? No. We didn’t negotiate. That was already decided. Year eight was level four, year nine level five and year ten level six for each of the outcome statements. We overlaid the core learning outcomes on top of the new text that we chose.
Tony: Just a moment, we also teach level four in grade seven.
Sonia; You do?
Tony: Yes, we do. How is that you are teaching level four. I understood that grades one to seven were to complete levels one to four and levels five and six in grades eight to ten.
Sonia: I don’t know. All I was told was that we taught level four and not to expect the primary school to cover this level.
127
Tony: In our planning we had to decide whether level three was from grade four to five and level four was from grade six to grade seven. Within those levels there was an overlap and we had to decide whether grade four was doing 3.1 or grade five was doing 3.1 outcome statement.
Sonia: So you negotiated this all on one day?
Tony: It was more like two pupil free days spread out over a semester not one.
Judy: Last year we got together and sorted out which outcomes the year fours thought that they taught and which outcomes the year threes thought that they taught. And we ended up with our list. These are the year three ones.
Sonia: Ok.
Judy: We not only did that with science but also with SOSE, Technology and all the rest. We got all of these and we sorted them out into units.
Sonia: We didn’t negotiate outcomes, we’re told what outcomes we have to have. We picked the relevant content. Like they’re written in the program which ones we’re going to do. Timing was negotiated. Each grade was designated an outcome level and from there we wrote our units and unit tests.
Tony: You wrote the tests at the same time as you did the planning?
Sonia: Yes that’s right, at the same time.
Judy: Why?
Sonia: Because we cover a certain amount of content. There was debate over what content should be taught in grade eight or better left until grade nine and vice versa based upon the new textbook.
Judy: Did you refer to the new syllabus?
Sonia: We didn’t refer much to the new science syllabus. The main concern that everyone had was whether or not we should be teaching this content or that content in the curriculum. Later we did start going through the syllabus matching up the content with the core learning outcomes.
Tony: So how did you treat the five science strands: earth and beyond, energy and change etc?
128
Sonia: Our focus was on the four traditional domains of science: geology, physics, chemistry and biology and the syllabus strands just fitted into it. We kept our planning within those four traditional domains and certain teachers by their expertise dictated to the rest of the group what should be taught in that domain.
Judy: How’s that?
Sonia: We have teachers who don’t yet understand the strand system in the KLAs; and to just to make it easier for them we used the four traditional domains. We are still concerned over the need to cover certain amount of material in preparation for year eleven and twelve and within a certain amount of time to do it in. Some of teachers expressed the need for students to know about tests because in year eleven and twelve, “That is what they are going to get.” Unlike you, we are concerned about the attrition rate of secondary students for year eleven and twelve chemistry or biology. Fifty percent of our students are dropping out of physics and chemistry. And for this, we have two sets of assessment: the assessment according to outcomes statements and assessment according to academic standards.
Tony: Why is that?
Sonia: Because they need to be prepared for year eleven and twelve.
Tony: Where do the outcome statements match up?
Sonia: Well, they don’t.
Tony: They don’t?
Sonia: We have the outcome statements and we also have the academic standards. We’re running the academic standards a,b,c,d,e and that is based on the tests that we give them during the middle and at the end of each unit. And, the outcome statements are determined by certain prac. experiences or certain tasks that the students have to do and upon the pencil and paper tests that we give them. How’s that different from what you did?
Tony: We met toward the end of last year on the pupil free day for a planning meeting.
Judy: Yes we did.
Tony: Each year level met and collaborated in their planning. This was easier to try and get everyone in your year level to do the same activity.
Sonia: Don’t you always do your planning together?
129
Judy: No, not always. We have worked together sometimes as year levels but not quite like this. We’re going through so much change at the present time that it is easier to do it that way. You know it is more of a hassle if you are doing your own thing. And someone else is doing something different over there. It should be easier to try to get every one on the same activity.
Sonia; What did you do with the outcome statements?
Judy: We got together and sorted out which outcomes the year fours thought that they taught and which outcomes the year threes thought that they taught. And we ended up with our list. We’ve got all of these and we sorted them out into units.
Sonia: All in one day?
Tony: Yes all in one day. Well, we tried to look at what we already taught and negotiated between year levels as to who should teach which outcomes.
Judy: We were running from room to room saying, “We don’t think we do this outcome do you guys do it. “And they say, I don’t know just leave it here and we will see where we can put it.” Or, we were selling off the ones we didn’t like. Finally, we pasted them onto a sheet and dropped a few in the garden on the way up to the office. We thought we could forget them.
Sonia: Is that right?
Judy: It was a trial and we needed to start somewhere. So, this was the way that we started. Once we trial it this year we will be going back and looking over it again. Though I feel that I really need a better understanding of each of these outcomes. We need some inservice, some practical activities to show us. You know how to do this. I guess that’s probably our next step.
Sonia: So how do you teach all of these outcomes?
Judy: Well after we had sorted out who is teaching what, we had to make up something like our rich tasks, like the New Basics idea of rich tasks. We called them our integrating device or our culminating activity. We had to make up four, one for each term. And, from there we integrated our science and SOSE subjects. We call it our integrated studies subject.
Sonia: Let me get this straight. Science and SOSE are taught together and maths and English are taught separate?
Judy: Yes, we have a separate Language and a separate maths sessions.
130
Sonia: Science is very separate. Science requires more problem solving than maths. Science is more discussion, experimentation and hands on than maths.
Tony: You need maths for science but you don’t need science for maths. A good scientist would need some good mathematical understanding.
Sonia: A scientist does need to have a good mathematical understanding especially when it comes to senior physics and chemistry, maths becomes crucial. But, in the junior science, it is separate.
Judy: There is a lot of maths in science for recording, reading tables, drawing graphs and data collection. You, need maths for measuring. In maths, we still do a lot of hands on discussion. You still discuss a lot of things with maths.
Tony: Maths we tend to have textbooks for and science we rarely have textbooks for.
Sonia: We have textbooks for science and, maths. A student cannot do senior science subjects unless he is good at maths. I am opposed to this sort of integrating approach at the secondary level because it leads to bad science teaching.
Judy: That’s how we planned it.
Sonia: It might lead to very good English teaching. It might lead to very good PE teaching but there are fewer of us and it is something that is not well understood. Some can do it, but you need a dedicated team and great communication. You need people who really want to see it done properly. As I said before non science specialist teaching year eight have actual difficulty with the concept themselves. They have to keep coming back to us to ask. It leads to poor concept development because the teacher doesn’t understand the concept because they are not scientists.
Tony: To be honest, anyone who tells you that in the primary that they are teaching core and integrated studies; well that’s not happening. In my classroom you can still see distinct subjects going on. Our present implementation of the unit does not really reflect an integrated approach because most of us are still teaching the subjects separately.
Sonia: What do you mean? I thought you just said that you were integrating.
Tony: Yes at the school planning level but not at the teaching level. I still think of myself as teaching subjects separately in the classroom even though we have an integrated studies subject of science and SOSE. I know in my class I still have a separate book for science and SOSE.
131
Judy: The children in my class have an integrated studies book and in the front is SOSE and in the back is science. We were told that we had to integrate. I’d be quite happy to teach science as science and social studies as social studies but that’s the way it is. When I planned my science from this unit I pulled out the science and planned my science lessons separately.
Tony: I teach science and SOSE on separate days and the children have separate exercise books. But in my science I know that I cover spelling, I do art, I do collage and that sort of thing. To me that is integrating a lot of the key learning areas. I think that there are a lot of other factors that come into my science lessons. I also do it this way because if I did have to give them separate marks I am able to quickly find that portion and to justify it to parents.
Sonia: So, the assessment had an impact on this idea of integration?
Tony: Yes it did and not only that, but we chose integration because it was the easiest way to cover the all these learning outcomes.
Judy: I honestly believe that we don’t teach every single outcome.
Sonia: What do you mean?
Judy: We can’t. We just don’t. Maybe not cull them we kind of join them.
Tony: Amalgamate them-amalgamated outcomes.
Sonia: Amalgamated outcomes, combining the outcomes because we’re not allowed to remove or cull any of them.
Tony: Write that down we’ll include it in the report.
Sonia: We just cut back on the content and just tick off the outcomes as we finish teaching them. The only thing that I have with outcomes is more work and an increased amount of record keeping.
Judy: We have created more work for ourselves.
Sonia: Outcomes based education you have to keep a folder on every student.
Judy: That’s right.
Sonia: It may not be a radical change in the way that we teach. I think that it is a good thing that more people are being pushed in that fashion. The paper work has increased the amount of work that we do. Even though I’m an advocate for this method, it has created more work for me. I’m not sure if there is a value of keeping a record of who has completed what outcomes.
132
Tony: Yes it has created more work for us in the short term but hopefully in the long term it will change. Did anyone ever use the CD support material?
Sonia: Oh, you mean the “coasters”.
Tony: Is that what you call them? We use them as Frisbees.
Sonia: No, we don’t get into the computers. In terms of the syllabus we have highly special lab equipment and it’s a basic waste of time. What about you? Did you ever use it?
Tony: The librarian told me today that I was the only person who borrowed it from the library.
Judy: It’s a terrible looking thing.
Tony: We did put it on the network and I did have had brief look at it.
Judy: I’ve got a hard copy, some of it here and some of it at home. I’m not sure if I’ve got it all. There’s so many bits and pieces. Like I’ve got one little green booklet now I don’t know whether there are other green booklets that are missing. From what I understand they just want us to work out what activities we’re doing for the rest of the outcomes. Is that right? (Looks for a nod of approval.)
Tony: Some of the teachers at our school are finding it difficult using four books for one syllabus, a challenge trying to cross reference things. How did you find the syllabus document?
Sonia: No problem. We have translated it. We do a work program which is basically what we draw on. We still have to do what’s on the work program. You basically look at how many weeks or sessions and how much you have got to cover in a particular time; and that’s it.
Tony: What I like about teaching science is that no one ever says that you have got to do this much in a year. I never let time be an issue. I do find that I have to get stuff done before report cards or have something there that they have done; something that they have learned that I can mark and judge. I like to cover one topic for two terms, something like that.
Sonia: You mean that you do your planning individually?
Tony: We plan as a whole year level our four integrated areas. But, when it comes to our detailed unit planning we do that individually. The teachers refer to the syllabus the modules, the old science sourcebook and a variety of references for ideas.
Judy: Some of the other teachers work on a thematic approach by using science or SOSE as their integrating device.
133
Sonia: Integrating device? What’s that?
Tony: Well an integrating device or focus can be a subject area such as science or a SOSE topic that brings all the other key learning areas together. A lot of primary teachers are using science and SOSE as a basis for their integration in planning.
Judy: I generally start with a theme and work back that way in planning my unit. But, then there are those teachers like Bill with his fish tank theme and Fred has his tadpoles who don’t change.
Sonia: Who’s Bill and Fred?
Judy: You know the sort of teachers. They have been teaching year four for years and they have their set things that they do. They will do science their way.
Sonia: Yes we’ve got a few of those in the secondary too.
Judy: My teaching partner and I were discussing this the other day and she said to me, “I would like to be able to teach science just as science, but I don’t know enough about science to be able to do that. I don’t believe that I have a lot of knowledge about science and I don’t feel confident with it.” And she also added that it was really important that she integrate because it feeds off other subjects. Meaning that the other subjects provided the content for the unit.
Tony: I noticed Sonia that in your work programme that you refer to only one textbook for all the outcomes.
Sonia: It would be nice for the kids to have three textbooks but it is the way that the kids do their work. There is one text in each subject and you can’t expect the parents to buy three textbooks for one subject.
Judy: Why do you use a textbook?
Sonia: It gives the kids security. It provides commonality of teaching between staff when you have a large number of classes. I suppose if there were only three science teachers, planning together, you could have more texts, but it is not possible with a large staff. And parents would expect the kids to do homework and the textbook provides it.
Tony: So you match up the outcomes with the science textbook?
134
Sonia: We match up the outcome statements with the chapters in the textbook. This is the basis of our work programme. We have the chapters in science text followed by the experiments from the text, the time frame and the outcome statements to be covered and a final column indicting what pages are not to be covered in the text. We have grouped the five strands of the science syllabus into the four domains of science: chemistry, physics, biology and earth sciences. Once we have developed the work programme then we don’t look at the syllabus again because that is the syllabus in action. We don’t run around holding a syllabus with one hand.
Judy: So you don’t refer to the four syllabus books?
Sonia: No, not once our work program is written up. We will get them out again when we rewrite the work program. They were out when we wrote the work program. So we actually transcribed the outcomes onto our work program.
Tony: Once you’ve done that?
Sonia: We don’t need it anymore. We will drag them out again in the last few weeks of school. We did all our referring to that when we started. We do it initially and that’s when we do it as a group.
Judy: Did you find it easy to work through?
Sonia: No, no problem. We have got experienced staff, people who specialise in different areas such as physics and chemistry and different year levels.
Tony: Some of our teachers find it a challenge, but for me I don’t worry about if there are four books. I ignore the ones that I’m not interested in and use the ones that I think that are good.
Sonia: You don’t use a textbook?
Tony: No.
Sonia: Would you want a textbook?
Tony: The higher up you get the more you are going to see its value or usefulness. When I was teaching in the lower school I didn’t need it.
Judy: There might be some things that I didn’t want but there be other things that I wanted for the lesson. Just like every textbook, I would pick and choose.
Tony: Do I think that it would be valuable, or even healthy maybe, but essential? No, though I have used the old science sourcebook and the new syllabus modules.
135
Sonia: We don’t use the new science modules. There is nothing radically different inside the modules. A lot of us are experienced staff here. There is nothing specifically new in those modules.
Judy: I thought they were pretty crummy. Some of them are like SOSE activities. Some of them I don’t like.
Tony: I like them. I think that there is a lot more opportunity to bring in other skills from other key learning areas and things like that. So in that respect I think it is a little bit better. I probably think that the only thing that is a bit of a worry is teachers’ access to the modules because not all teachers are going to go searching the internet to try and find the modules that they are suppose to include in their curriculum.
Sonia: I noticed in your unit planning that you had some commercial activity sheets.
Tony: You mean the black line masters?
Sonia: Yes those activity sheets.
Tony: Yes I have used them in my lesson preparation. I still use activities from the old primary science sourcebook.
Sonia: Why?
Judy: It doesn’t fall apart. If you dropped it on the floor it will still be in one piece and the pages are still together. There are loads more of activities. They’re all practical and hands on and easy to follow. They make sense.
Tony: I think it was a pretty good sourcebook. You wouldn’t want to throw it out. There are some things that you would be happy to see the end of. But I don’t think that the old science sourcebook is one of them. The old social studies one I am quite happy to see the end of that one. But the science one I thought was a pretty good effort.
Sonia: So how will we report planning? Is there a continuity of learning? Are we teaching the important aspects of science?
5.6 IMPLEMENTATION
During this session, Sonia, Judy and Tony meet in Tony’s classroom and
reflect upon their observations of each other’s science lessons. The teachers
share how they begin a lesson, the importance of a foundational component
and the role of concept maps. They discuss the importance of group work
/cooperative learning in science and the effectiveness of classroom observation.
136
The three teachers debate the question of how much is too much reading in
science and the issue of students writing and recording science experiments.
Tony: Hi Sonia.
Sonia: Hi Tony.
Tony: Make yourself comfortable. I just need to clear my desk here and find something for tomorrows’ sports programme before I forget.
Sonia: Where’s Judy?
Tony: Judy is on bus duty. She’ll be over soon.
Sonia: The last time I did bus duty was at Country State School. I didn’t think that you needed bus duty here.
Tony: We decided for the safety of the kids because there is so much traffic out there.
Judy: Thanks for waiting. I was on bus duty.
Sonia: You certainly do have a lot of things hanging off the walls and the ceiling. I can hardly walk through the room without hitting my head on some artwork or project [social studies].
Tony: It’s a bit different from the high school. You didn’t seem to have much on display except the good old chemistry valency table.
Judy: The labs weren’t much different to when I was at the school except they are bit older and well worn.
Sonia: Well we can’t decorate our rooms because we move from room to room. I counted around twenty-six students in your room Tony.
Tony: Actually, there are twenty-seven students. Two were away. One is sick and the other one went home to Taiwan.
Sonia: It did seem that you had a large Asian student population. Much like ours.
Tony: I noticed that you are using just whiteboards and not blackboards.
Sonia: We changed them years ago.
Judy: We’re still using chalk, especially for our handwriting activities. It seems to work better than the white boards.
Sonia: I couldn’t help but notice the writing on the board about the respiratory system. Do you always do a write up on the board for the students to copy down?
137
Tony: Yeah. I think I am still a believer that children should come away with a certain number of facts from what they learn. And it is not all about just exploration. But it is also about how I make sense of what I have discovered. Writing it up as a summary allows the children a chance to re-visit and because sometimes kids will almost have forgotten about it a week later. I like to give them a certain amount of facts. It also incorporates other aspects even as something as simple as just copying down from the blackboard. This is another important skill that children need to be able to learn. They need to make an accurate recall of the information that you presented.
Judy: It’s not much purpose in just copying what I have written. You want them to understand. You want them to do the learning and the doing. It takes a lot of effort to teach science, a lot of preparation and if you just say copy this down because I read it in a book they haven’t learnt anything. You have got to do it.
Sonia: But in your class Judy the student handouts or activity sheets there was information and facts for the students to know.
Judy: What do you mean?
Sonia: Well on the activity sheet that you gave the students for energy there was information on the importance of energy. It said, “Every body needs energy to make it work. Energy is used to keep our body temperature correct, to keep our insides working and to let us do physical activity. We get our energy from the food we eat etc etc…” Isn’t that the same as writing it on the board?
Judy: Now that you mention it, I suppose it is. But I think primary are more focused on the process in science than content.
Sonia: We also focus very much on the scientific process.
Sonia: Sometimes when I start a topic I get the kids to give the key words. I’ve had a situation where I have given a quiz before the lesson. However, I’m fairly teacher directed. I’ve never kept a record of what the students know.
Tony: Neither have I. Sometimes I have used concept maps to find out what the students know.
Sonia: I’ve used concept or mind maps too. They are very useful. I have used them in senior biology. But I never used them in junior science or as piece of assessment.
Judy: When I did my other unit on space activities I used concept maps. I taught them how to do a concept map first with something that they know about. I find that I get a lot more information out of the kids that way, than if I told them to write five things that they learnt about earth.
138
Tony: I can see the value of concept maps. It’s an important aspect in the children’s thinking. They need to realise that they have got to get a big picture of where they are going and not just start getting straight into the details. Right from the outset, they need to start to set some sort of framework of what we’re going to research. I haven’t used concept maps at the end of the unit as an assessment tool either.
Judy: We need some in-service on this.
Sonia: They still need to have a base knowledge. They need to know certain very fundamental things in science. What an atom is. We spend the first weeks in chemistry doing this. A basic knowledge in terms of every day living in terms of where do you put the radiator that sort of stuff. And things that heat up the same amount of energy. There is a certain amount of core knowledge that the students need to know.
Judy: I think knowledge is important. But that’s very much to do with their interest as well as what we do in class and what they have been exposed to in my class they are only little kids and they have only been at school for two years. If they haven’t had exposure at home, they don’t have a lot of knowledge. Whereas other children they’ve got books on dinosaurs and books on space. They come to the library and borrow what they are interested in; things scientific, animals, snakes, whatever.
Tony: I think they should have a base or foundational knowledge. I like to write a passage or something at the end of the lesson. I like to have some sort of crystallisation of what the main gist of what we were talking about the kids should have received. So even if they have at least written it down somewhere they can go back and read it.
Sonia: The students need to have an understanding of the terminology used in science. It’s essential.
Judy: Understanding yes, most definitely but not as spelling words. Not for the lower primary. They may put the words into their personal journal.
Tony: Children need a chance to discuss things and hear what other people think about certain topics.
Sonia: When I visited your class the other day it didn’t appear to me that they were doing much discussion more like a reading comprehension exercise to me.
Tony: Which lesson was that?
Sonia: I noticed it in a couple of lessons where you and the students were reading a book about your body?
Tony: You mean the book, “A day in the life of our body”?
139
Sonia: Yeah, that’s the one. Where the kids were taking turns in reading a page. The other one was where you were reading about inventions.
Tony: That was the book, “Inventions that have changed our lives.”
Sonia: Something like that.
Tony: I wouldn’t do that every time. It was just to motivate them and to get them thinking.
Sonia: I had also seen it in Judy’s group rotational activities where they were looking at earthworms.
Judy: Our earthworm unit?
Sonia: There were five groups. One was in the library completing an Internet activity and another was reading through a big book. Of the five group activities, I saw only one that didn’t require any sort of reading comprehension. That was the group observing the earthworms through a flexi camera. That was a pretty good set up that you had there.
Judy: When I think about my high school science that’s the way how we did things read out of a book and answer the questions. I can see why you might want to read but is not generally the way I would go about it. I wouldn’t do that every time. I had observed that in your science classes.
Sonia: Occasionally we do.
Judy: There seemed to be a lot of reading and answering questions out of the textbook in every lesson that I observed. Once where you were discussing diffusion and mass you had asked a student how they had come up with that answer and they replied, “That’s what’s in the book.” And another time you said, “Have a read of part C for me and I’m going to be asking you what you have to do.” And you said, “So you are going to make some observations what are you going to have to do?” The student replied by reading the answers from the book.
Sonia: I must admit a lot of science has been purely, read the textbook and answer the questions. Most of kids would say, “No I do not want to do this subject because science is boring”. That’s why we lose a lot. Depends on the equipment you have and what you can do to make it interesting. If you can make it interesting it works if it doesn’t then it becomes reading comprehension exercise.
Judy: I like to have a key question or pose a problem and let them plan for a long time and then give them help afterwards.
140
Sonia: Yeah, that’s right. Trying to step back and let them to sort out the issues. Because we are still programmed to be teacher directed. I’m still a little bit too teacher directed in this area. Sitting back and watching people stuff around. I know it’s worth doing, so I do it. At the same time they need guidance to get the idea and I think the textbook is quite explicit so they can work it out for themselves.
Tony: But the thing that is really hard with the children I think is observation. My observation of them is probably the most really important thing. Watching them in their group work, listening to them in their discussions, listening to them in their predictions; that sort of thing. And that is really, really hard to write down I guess. I don’t do a checklist as I’m going around during the day.
Sonia: My students already work together. I really don’t need division of groups and skills they already organise themselves. They have already got it. We have already reached that.
Judy: So you don’t have any dysfunctional groups?
Sonia: The front group where the teacher aide is working we have three or four dysfunctional kids there. I don’t think that we need to worry about that. The two girls in the back they are very self-sufficient. So there’s really no need. They were already doing that. It’s already done.
Tony: Group work is an important aspect of teaching science. It teaches them important skills for later on in schools such as working cooperatively. During your science lessons in the lab, you used group work but I didn’t see you teach them how to work as a group.
Sonia: I don’t really like group work because the reality is that only one or two kids do most of the work. The goods kids will do the extra work. And when do we get the time to teach the kids group work. We don’t get time to scratch ourselves. We did a survey once and the students still believe that the teacher who goes in and screens on the board and they copy it down is a good teacher. A lot of kids still think like that. If you ask them when do I learn best? It is when the teacher is putting notes on the board or watching a video. A lot of them put watching a video because they don’t have to participate. It’s not like what you do. You’re always teaching group work. Does that happen in all your subjects?
141
Tony: No. When I was teaching grade seven I didn’t feel that I had the time to be teaching it at that stage. I’m not a great fan of group work across a lot of subject areas. But I do believe that there are certain times where children need a chance to discuss things and hear what other people think about certain topics without it being directed by a teacher or something like that. Where they initiate the discussion and if it is something such as the activity we did yesterday where there are lot of answers in front of them. I think that it is an important skill for later on in schools so you need to start at a fairly simplistic level so that by the time they’re older they can start working effectively in groups. And at the same time establish a few rules about how we are going to work in groups and what sort of things are we doing right and wrong when we’re using that sort of method of working together. The other activity that we did had a little bit of group work involved, but it was mainly very much doing rather than talking. And I thought that maybe the children needed to set some ground rules as far as we can make sure that everyone feels included in the group.
Judy: I think that it is a skill that they need later on in life to be able to take turns to share and cooperate and communicate their findings to investigate things and talk to each other about what’s happening and often they don’t agree. Like it was out there today. They don’t agree about what the group wants to do and they have to decide. Sometimes is very difficult because they just can’t decide, some of them don’t want to change their opinions. And still aren’t happy when they have a group vote and the majority wins. They sit there and sulk because they didn’t get what they wanted. But I guess that’s the learning.
Sonia: I would like to teach kids to work cooperatively. I would like them to develop cooperation skills but not to the point where we’re cooperating so much on telling you all the answers. My philosophy is that kids are ultimately responsible for their own learning. Ultimately they are responsible.
Tony: We are similar in that we all start off with a whole class discussion and then move into some sort of group activity.
Sonia: Only in the lab not in the classroom would we do some form of group activity. I could hardly get into Judy’s classroom. I had to step over all these little people near the doorway.
Judy: I have the children come together on the floor and we have a discussion about what we have done in the past. I put up some questions for them to investigate. Before the children move off into their groups, I tell them what they need to do in each activity and how they are to work together as a group.
142
Tony: It was interesting to see that in your lab lessons that the students always wrote up their results on a photocopied science report. Is that used throughout the school?
Sonia: Yes. All year levels use the same report form. Students need to be able to write up a science experiment which includes observing, predicting and being able to generalise are important steps of investigation. This is what they need to write up an aim, hypothesis, method, materials, procedure and results. The students have to record it.
Tony: That’s not the case for us. In the middle and upper primary we may write something similar but there’s no standard approach. We discuss those things. I think it is a genre that they need to know for high school. They need that skill. When they get to high school someone will say, “Hey write up this science experiment”. The teacher might not have time to explain aim, hypothesis method etc. I think that it is something that they need to do for the future.
Judy: It’s not always done in the lower primary either because kids don’t do a lot of writing. I used to get the kids to write up their experiments like that. I really don’t think that it is the important thing these days. Maybe, in the upper primary it’s a genre that they need to know for high school. In the lower school they take so long to write it all down. It takes the whole science lesson. What’s the point of doing it if you want them to know the knowledge and have the understanding more than the actual writing it down. Maybe when they get older.
Sonia: In the secondary we’re in the writing game so the kids have to record it and have this data for future reference. In high school, everything is written. Each year level has the same reporting format for their experiments. It’s standard throughout the year levels.
Judy: We stress to the students the importance of keeping results just as a scientist would. Sometimes I would tell the students that a scientist always records his results. The students would record their results on a graph or keeping a diary of our plants or earthworms. Like we did this term.
Tony: And some of the commercial activity sheets that I have used had procedures methods and results. Anyway, after morning tea can I observe your next science lesson?
Sonia: My next lesson?
Tony: Yeah, the one after this break, the year nine in the lab.
Sonia: No, not now I’m not set up for it.
143
Judy: I don’t think I’ll be doing science tomorrow. It takes a lot of preparation. I find it difficult to teach science. You’ve always got to buy stuff out of your own pocket. It’s never at your fingertips and to have the stuff there that you need, you always got to run around and get the stuff.
Sonia: We need to give the lab assistants two days notice. You have to get it past the lab assistants.
Tony: Why? Are they the guardians?
Sonia: Yeah, they’re the guardians. And, their question is if it’s not in the textbook why do you want to do it?
Judy: Really?
Sonia: So the Head of Department has taken them to task a bit.
Tony: So what have we covered today?
Judy: We’ve discussed the importance of group work, cooperative learning in science, classroom observation, textbooks,
Tony: Teacher resources, the role of reading and comprehension in a science lesson.
Sonia: And the writing and recording of experiments.
Tony: I’m not so sure if the central office really wants to hear what we have to say.
Sonia: Of course not. They want a favourable report.
Judy: Well we’ve told them.
Sonia: We’ve told them how it is.
5.7 ASSESSMENT
In this session the three teachers express concern over the assessment and
reporting of outcome statements for the new science syllabus. The question of
standards is raised and what are the effective strategies that teachers find useful
and consider important in assessing students. The problem of reporting on
outcome statements concerns each teacher. What to do about remediation and
catering for the gifted student is raised. Lastly, the question of increased
workload due to increased reporting framework is of a concern to the teachers.
Sonia: Knock, knock. Hello.
144
Judy: Hi Sonia. Come on in.
Sonia: Thanks.
Judy: Watch your step, I’m just cleaning up after my art lesson.
Sonia: Hey, this is good stuff.
Judy: The kids love it.
Sonia: Is Tony around?
Judy: He should be over soon. He’s probably yakking to someone.
Tony: I heard that! (walking up the ramp to Judy’s classroom) If you must know, I was busy finalising the basketball competition for tomorrow. Someone has to do these things.
Sonia: Yes, we understand Tony.
Tony: Well we better make a start.
Judy: Let me just clear these tables and we can sit down. Hope you don’t mind sitting at the kid’s desks.
Tony: Watch you head. You’ll bump into some great works of art.
Sonia: They are small chairs.
Judy: You get use to it. Tony doesn’t teach art he gets his teaching partner next door to teach the lesson.
Tony: I teach her science and she teaches my art. It works very well.
Judy: What’s our agenda today?
Sonia: Assessment.
Tony: It’s a nightmare. Everyone is asking, “How are we going to assess and report these outcomes?”
Sonia: There needs to be standards for our assessment. We need to have common assessment/tests, assessment criteria to indicate that the outcomes have been satisfactorily achieved. If our assessment is different from each other then the whole thing is pointless.
Tony: There definitely needs to be some standards. I would have no problem with having standards for assessment. To accept your statement I would basically have to say that we all have to assess and teach children in the same way. And, I don’t think that is necessary and most teachers wouldn’t approve of it anyway.
145
Judy: What do some of these outcome statements mean? “The features of the earth changing of time.” It is not clear enough to me I would rather have someone say; “You have to teach this”. Then go ahead and teach it and not necessarily be left up to my own devices, which I am. I mean with the year two diagnostic net; the English and the maths we spent years discussing what each key indicator meant. We all had common understanding. If we don’t have that sort of discussion, we will all have a completely different understanding. Therefore our assessment is different so the whole thing is pointless.
Sonia: This is what we did. I based part of my assessment on how the students have completed the activities, which may also include a culminating activity. I do it from written work and from the exams. The test is testing what we do not just content but skills and applications of content. It doesn’t matter how many times I tell the Board of Secondary School Studies that she is a brilliant child they need written proof. We cannot use classroom observations for assessment. Exams are still important and you can’t get rid of them.
Judy: The way I see it is that the skills of observation, predicting and being able to generalise need to be assessed in science. For example: get the kids to design a paper aeroplane and get them to write down how they would make a better one. Looking at the skills that they have acquired whether it is observation or predicting. How they predict and what they use. I give them a good sort of mark in the skills area.
Tony: We’re trying to come up with activities where we can tick off a few of the outcomes at a time whether it is science and SOSE and English and all those sorts of things all involved in the one set of activities.
Judy: From my classroom observations we just tick off whether we think that the children have achieved the outcome.
Tony: Lower primary are much better at taking observations of their children. It has never been a strength of mine. It is an important part of my assessment. Though I suppose my worry is that when I see children going on beautifully I give them a test and they flunk hopelessly. So obviously, my observations weren’t really helping me out. I find that some kids really stand out but then I have to give them a bit of a test to be sure. I think the critical thing in using observation is that you have to have a pretty good understanding of that year level.
Judy: Do you use student’s bookwork in the secondary for assessment?
146
Sonia: No, though I do look through their books occasionally but not for assessment. We decided to write the year ten exams similar format to the year eleven. So they have knowledge, scientific process and a complex reasoning question. I mean you can’t say to the kid you definitely cannot do chemistry. But there’s no point for the kid who is struggling to get a C to do chemistry in year eleven. That’s why we set our exams that way.
Tony: I would never assess the students without looking at their bookwork. I would use bookwork, observations and tests.
Judy: For our assessment in our unit planning we based it on our observations, discussions with the student, annotated work samples, which are their bookwork and some peer assessment.
Sonia: So you write down your student observations?
Tony: No.
Judy: Observation is really hard. It’s really hard to write down your student observations during a lesson. Watching them work in their groups listening to them in their discussions, making predictions and that sort of thing. That is really really hard to write down.
Sonia: Do you use a checklist?
Judy: No. I don’t use a checklist.
Tony: I rely on my memory.
Judy: My observation of kids is probably the most really important thing.
Sonia: My concern is reporting all these outcomes. Parents don’t want to know every little detail about what we do in science. They just want to know is my kid good at science.
Tony: I think parents want to know what their child is doing in science, what they’re learning. I think more so now. I have just come across a lot of parents that are very keen in science over the years and just talk about the interests that the child has. I do think that the parents will kick up a stink if I just said, “Well they’re good at science.” A lot of the parents like to know what sort of things that their child might be able do and where they might head to later on in life. But then again, I would be happy not to assess outcomes because we don’t really provide remediation in science.
Judy: I don’t think that the outcomes are enough to differentiate between student performance.
147
Sonia: It’s a huge task. If you want to differentiate I mean it would mean using something like the criteria sheets that we use for grade eleven and twelve. If you’re going to differentiate you have to have the criteria. And that takes a lot of time.
Judy: Our concern is that level two of the outcomes goes for two years! So who cares. They’re all level two.
Tony: That’s right.
Judy: It doesn’t tell me who is good at science and who isn’t. The levels are too broad. The whole thing about the outcomes and the levels that they are so broad that if they are on these levels for a year and a half it doesn’t tell anybody anything except that they are on this level.
Tony: That is the whole thing about these levels. There are six of them. There should be ten of them, one for each year. Then we bring it down to an a b c d e level.
Judy: If a year nine student fails an outcome what happens to them?
Sonia: They must pass 75% of the outcome to get a satisfactory.
Judy: So do you provide remediation?
Sonia: No, they can repeat next year. It would be lovely if we had the time. It doesn’t come easily for some children a light bulb doesn’t suddenly come on. It does for the bright ones.
Tony: What about your gifted kids?
Sonia: The bright ones will learn in spite of us.
Judy: I still think that at the year two/three I would be happy not to assess. I would be happy not to assess because we don’t really remediate.
Sonia: So you don’t provide remediation in science?
Tony: No. In maths and language we do but not in science.
Judy: We don’t provide special remediation if the child is not up to scratch. For me the whole aspect of science is exposing the children to certain things and getting them involved and using hands activities and getting them to enjoy it.
Tony: I think we can agree that outcomes approach has increased the amount of assessment.
Sonia: Yes it has created more work more record keeping in the junior science.
148
Judy: I don’t assess each outcome and I don’t assess that way because their report cards haven’t changed since it was designed. We’re talking about changing our report cards to include the integrated studies and what we thought we do early next term is to get together and write down what we thought the children should know. And, then probably use those particular things on the report card. They want to have it done by this mid year.
Sonia: I am waiting for the department to come up with something. They said that some sort of common exam or common reporting card system will be in place. We haven’t heard any more than that beside what the Minister said. There is real confusion in high schools everybody is doing different things a real mixed up process.
Tony: In the meantime how are we going to assess students effectively to show that they have achieved the outcomes?
5.8 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE
Change is of real concern to Judy, Tony and Sonia. They do not feel threatened
by the change as seen in this next dialogue but they have genuine concerns
with the management issues of implementing the new science syllabus. They
are experienced teachers and believe that they have the professional knowledge
and expertise in their teaching to meet the challenge of change. Nevertheless
the teachers are disappointed in the level and lack of current professional
development in science education. Tony Judy and Sonia meet for the last time
in Sonia’s staffroom.
Sonia: Hi Judy, Hi Tony. Come on in.
Tony: How was your day?
Sonia: You know so, so. Typical day.
Judy: Well our meeting today should be fairly short. We need to just go over our final draft and cover issues on professional development.
Sonia: That’s good. I’ve had a splitting headache all day and I need to just get home.
Tony: Where’s the coffee?
Sonia: Around the filing cabinets next to the sink and computers and the cups are up the top.
Judy: This place is crowded.
149
Sonia: Tell me about it. We have nine staff in this pokey little 1960s staff room.
Judy: How do you work?
Sonia: We manage, some how.
Judy: How many science teachers are there?
Sonia: We have nineteen science teachers and three lab assistants. We have over eighteen hundred students and only seven labs and most of those could do with a change. At least, when I was teaching at Country State School I had a lab to myself.
Judy: That’s because you were the only, science teacher.
Sonia: Yes, that was good. I had a room to myself.
Judy: I couldn’t help but notice that the labs aren’t any different since I was a student here. The benches were all painted black to cover up the numerous inscriptions and there were few holes in the floor covering.
Sonia: The old labs have dry rot in the corners. But, there is the newer science block down the other end of the school.
Judy: You know I’ve enjoyed these sessions. It’s not often that you get to hear what others think about teaching science or any other subject.
Tony: Did you hear?
Sonia: What?
Tony: The department is offering fifty grand redundancy package to teachers who believe that they have grounds to resign based on stress etc or unable to meet the demands of change.
Sonia: That’s for me.
Judy: That’s one way to solve it.
Sonia: I don’t believe teachers are going to change unless there is some form of monitoring in place.
Judy: Monitoring from where and by whom?
Sonia: Monitoring can be by the Principal from within the department. Not really by the HOD because there is no clout there. But it can be from the principal or from an external source to the department. Otherwise the outcome statements will be ignored.
Tony: HOD?
150
Sonia: The head of the science department.
Tony: Our deputy hasn’t given us the last word or any word for that matter on planning science.
Judy: They do help with organising our outcome statements and all that. They work at a much bigger level. I don’t think that he really knows specifically what we are doing in science.
Tony: Teachers today are quite willing to change because they are open to it all the time.
Sonia: I’m not so sure.
Tony: You don’t have any choice but to change. I think when a new syllabus comes out there are just teachers who will come on board and run with it and others will eventually catch up.
Judy: I think we need to be forced to go through the books. We need to be forced to put our finger on something and ok do a lesson and come back and tell us what you found out that sort of thing. Otherwise we just keep the folder closed. You know what we’re like. We don’t change.
Sonia: True.
Judy: You know what it’s like we just don’t do it. We just need that helping hand to actually access documents.
Sonia: Some of the teachers don’t want to change. They get very angry about it. They are the ones that have been in the school for a long time. But, I like the challenge of change whether or not we agree or disagree in the end.
Judy: If you talk with teachers at the moment they feel very inundated with the work.
Tony: The year five’s aren’t.
Judy: That’s because you’re their mentor.
Sonia: I honestly don’t believe that the professional development I did has adequately prepared me for the changes to the new science syllabus. The professional development that we did have was not good, but we struggled through.
Tony: What we need is someone to come out with the package (syllabus documents etc) and say, “This is how it works.” All ready to go in one package and we would teach it well.
Sonia: No. What we need is to swap ideas.
151
Judy: I think it would be good to watch other teachers teach science or to watch someone show how to teach science.
Sonia: The problem with watching someone else teach is that we’ve all got our individual styles and personalities. I guess I don’t mind if they come into my room.
Judy: I have never seen another person teach science ever. No one ever told us how to teach science. They just taught us science.
Sonia: Did you see much of that district science rep?
Tony: No, not much. She came once to our school and told us where to open the science books.
Judy: We did have a little bit. A few schools got together on our pupil free days at ‘Greenacres State School’.
Tony: That’s right, we did too.
Judy: Allen Jones from regional office was part of our group and we just shared what our school had done with outcomes and where we were trying to head in the future.
Sonia: We haven’t had much support in our school. I knew that there was a district person roaming around but I think that she only came to the school once.
Judy: What we need in professional development is for someone to explain what the outcomes actually do mean. How to put them together.
Tony: I had heard that there was an educational consultant who had approached the school about conducting some professional development in outcomes education but one of the deputies said that we were all experienced staff and it wasn’t necessary.
Judy: Really. Experienced staff.
Tony: But we also need more modules and more samples.
Sonia: Like I said before we don’t need more science modules. There is nothing radically different inside these modules.
Judy: When the AIMS came out. That was Activities In maths and science. That was to do with the key teacher training that they offered. It was one full day and about six weeks of a Tuesday after school. That’s where you learned how to teach.
Sonia: What’s a key teacher?
152
Judy: A key teacher is a person designated by the primary school to provide professional support to teaching staff in the lower primary. It was the best thing that I ever did because we learnt how to teach all of the subjects. It was fantastic.
Tony: Professional development is pretty ad-hoc. A bit here and a bit there nothing organised nothing planned.
Judy: There is no systematic professional development program. One pupil free day it’s one area and the next time we are doing something else.
Sonia: Nothing is going to change. The system wants us to change but it’s not supporting change!
Judy: As I said before professional development would be fantastic really, really good. But we don’t get it. Not for outcomes. We don’t get anything.
5.9 EPILOGUE
This epilogue will discuss the outcome of the referential adequacy process at
which the dialogue was formulated and presented to four reference groups. It
was explained in Chapters Three and Four that referential adequacy required
the reading of the dialogue by those considered to be experienced in the field of
science education and curriculum development. Referential adequacy was
achieved by submitting the dialogue to four independent groups; the primary
teachers who participated in the study, the secondary teachers who participated
in the study, a group of teachers and a principal from another school not
connected to the study and finally a group of academics who were specialists in
science education. Each group was asked to read the dialogue and comment on
the contents of it in separate focus group sessions. The responses of each of
these groups will now be discussed.
5.9.1 Referential adequacy with the participating teachers
The participating teachers unanimously agreed that the dialogue presented a
realistic picture of what was going on in the curriculum development and its
implementation. Neither the primary or secondary teachers had problems with
the dialogue of the composite characters. They found it to be a true and
accurate portrayal of what is currently taking place in science education. There
153
were some minor parts that the teachers believed needed correction. This dealt
mostly with technical or grammatical errors and there was some concern over
the protection of anonymity:
Primary teacher: Yeah, pretty true the observations. There were no surprises.
Secondary teacher: The secondary picture is accurate in terms of what you presented.
A limitation was found during the two seasons of referential adequacy with the
participating teachers. This was their limited ability to step outside of the
circumstances and critically evaluate their own situation to the extent that the
researcher desired. Much of the conversation focused upon a reiteration of their
experiences confirming the dialogue and their need for professional support.
The teachers were keen to receive feedback from me and wanted to know if
they were heading in the right direction. They lacked confidence in their work.
Secondary teacher: “We want to know if we are on the right track. Are we on the right track?”
Other comments focused attention on the need for effective on-going
professional development in particular professional development that also
explained the need for change.
Secondary: They skip that part [referring to change] in the professional development session.
Primary: We are forced to rush into something without examining it. Change by tomorrow. Just do it. Right I will.
The perception of the teachers is that there is very little consultation with the
teachers as to why the change may be important. As Sonia said, “They skip that
part.”
5.9.2 Referential adequacy with a group of teachers and administrators
The second focus group session was to take the edited dialogue and to present
it to an independent group of teachers who had not participated in the study.
During this session the teachers reaffirmed that the dialogue was a true
accurate portrayal of teachers enacting the new science syllabus.
154
This referential adequacy process provided an opportunity for this group of
teachers to see themselves and their fellow teachers dealing with the new
science syllabus. It provided them with a time of reflection. When this group of
teachers read the dialogue there was no disagreement between them about the
portrayal of three composite characters. In fact there was a strong affirmation
that these teachers were seeing themselves, as one would look into the mirror
and see one’s self. There was no denial by the teachers and the principal that
what was being portrayed was a true reflection of what was taking place in
schools, for example:
[The dialogue is] very realistic, [you] could say that it is indicative of science teaching across the state.
This is a very controversial document you realise. It is. It does make you think.
It is probably things that you hear in any staff room in fact. But it just puts it all together.
The idea of having a seamless syllabus sounds great but our educational institutions are not seamless. Just the very way we teach. What interested me in this was the way that everyone was bending the syllabus to fit him or herself. It wasn’t necessarily this seamless document that was going straight through each group was sort of twisting and feeding it around so that it would fit in with what they were going to teach particularly the high school. The high school they were definitely bending it around to fit themselves.
This group again raised the issue of professional development. While the group
did say at one point, “Our professional development was quite good,” they
nevertheless expressed the concern that those providing the professional
development did not have an understanding of the issues in the classroom.
The people who are providing the professional development, how familiar are they with the classroom and the impact that these changes will have on the practical aspects of the classroom. If they knew then they will be able to answer all our questions off pat with a bit of authority behind them.
I would like to see it done. I would like them come to my classroom show me how to plan a lesson using outcomes and then go and do it with the kids using the facilities that I have at my disposal at my school. And then I might believe them.
155
5.9.3 Referential adequacy with a group of academics
This session was conducted in the same manner as the other three groups.
There were two participants in this session, a primary science education
specialist and a secondary science education specialist. Both had experience in
teaching primary and secondary science and were currently involved in pre-
service teacher education programs in primary and secondary science
education. The secondary science specialist had been previously a member of
the curriculum development team that put together the current curriculum
document for science.
The feedback from this group again confirmed and validated the dialogue.
Some of the interesting comments that came from the session focused on how
poorly the participants had been implementing the science syllabus, the rut that
the teachers were in, the focus on content, issues of integration of the
assessment problems that the teachers were experiencing and again the need
for professional support.
I think it was brilliant how you got the primary interacting with the secondary
What stood out in my mind was that these three composite teachers haven’t got the faintest idea what the syllabus about.
I saw them in a rut.
Primary and secondary share similar views on integration.
When it comes to the assessment that is where it really comes tumbling down.
The textbook is what you taught and everything was determined by the textbook.
They haven’t understood what an outcomes approach is all about.
I think that she (Sonia) is depressingly typical of a secondary teacher.
If this is to raise awareness of the situation and the issues that are there, it does a good job. It got me angry as well; I suppose not angry, frustrated because I know I am committed to the approach that is in these documents and you just see that it is messed up through lack of support.
156
5.10 CONCLUDING STATEMENT
The testimonies and feedback from the referential adequacy process
unanimously supported the dialogue presented in Chapter Five. The statement
made by one of the academics summed up the collective view of each group:
If this is to raise awareness of the situation and the issues that are there it does a good job.
This chapter has portrayed the views of primary and secondary teachers in their
enactment of the science syllabus. The next three chapters will provide the
interpretative and evaluative stages of educational criticism.
157
CHAPTER 6 TEACHER STRATEGIES
6.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to accomplish the first part of the interpretative
stage of educational criticism (Eisner, 1985; Noad, 1980). The interpretative
stage will provide an analysis of what has been presented in Chapter Five by
addressing the first two research questions:
What teacher knowledge has the primary and secondary teachers found useful
to make the curriculum more meaningful to them?
In what way does the teacher knowledge of the primary and secondary teachers
differ in relation to the enactment of the science curriculum?
This chapter will present nineteen strategies that the teachers either found
useful or not useful in implementing the science syllabus. Table 6.1 contains a
summary of the nineteen strategies and indicates where the primary and
secondary teachers differed in relation to their planning implementation and
assessment. Teachers’ craft knowledge (Cooper & McIntyre, 1996; van Driel
et al., 1997, 2001) or epistemological beliefs (Brickhouse, 1990; Klein, 1997)
will be demonstrated by these nineteen strategies. Teachers’ craft knowledge
involves practical knowledge and problem solving approaches to teaching
(Cooper & McIntyre, 1996). Teachers’ strategies for implementing a new
science curriculum are a demonstration of this practical knowledge (Cooper &
McIntyre, 1996). Furthermore teachers’ strategies are an outworking of their
beliefs or appropriate affirmative actions demonstrating those beliefs that
motivate the actions of the teacher (Lehrer, 1990). This chapter seeks to answer
only what teacher knowledge is and in what ways the teacher knowledge of the
primary and secondary teachers differ, it does not seek to explain why. The
question as to why and how will be explored in further detail in Chapters Seven
and Eight.
In this chapter there is no comparative analysis of teachers’ craft knowledge
with other theories for two reasons: Firstly, the chapter seeks only to present
159
the researcher’s interpretation of the data as an educational critic (Eisner,
1991), thereby laying the groundwork for a comparative analysis of the
theories of education to be explored in the next chapter (Eisner, 1985). Though
the researcher has chosen this approach as a format for the presentation of his
research, Eisner (1985) made it plain that there is no strict demarcation
between where the descriptive stage finishes and the interpretative stage
begins. It is therefore the choice of the researcher to communicate the findings
in the most effective manner. Secondly, the nineteen strategies presented in this
chapter are representative of the teachers’ craft knowledge (Cooper &
McIntyre, 1996). Therefore these strategies may not necessarily be
representative of any existing body of teacher knowledge and may be unique to
this particular context (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002; Munby, Russell, &
Martin, 2001).
Data supporting the discussion in this chapter will be drawn primarily from the
dialogue, which encapsulates evidence provided through the data analysis
process (structural corroboration, consensual validation and referential
adequacy). Therefore any reference to, or discussion made by, one of the three
composite characters (Sonia, Tony and Judy) is representative of the lower,
middle/upper primary and secondary teachers who participated in the study.
For example, where appropriate, instead of using the term primary teacher/s,
Judy or Tony’s name will be used. There are also the occasions where it was
expedient to make specific reference to a grade level observation and this will
be mentioned as needed in the discussion. In addition, any reference to the term
primary or secondary teachers refers to the teachers in this study.
Furthermore, references will be made to additional statements made by
participants taken from the focus group sessions during referential adequacy
process. This is necessary because the process of referential adequacy
authenticated the three composite characters and provided naturalistic
generalisations (Flinders & Eisner, 1994; Stake, 2000). Naturalistic
generalisation meant that in the minds of the readers (non participants) the
three composite characters were indeed three classroom teachers. No longer
were they three composite characters but they were now three classroom
teachers: Sonia, Tony and Judy. The readers readily identified with the
160
characters and provided comments and additional experiences of their own to
support the dialogue. The referential adequacy process thereby enabled the
dialogue to become a major source of evidence.
6.2 STRATEGIES
A total of nineteen strategies for implementing the science syllabus were
identified and compared. These are listed under the three phases of curriculum
implementation: planning, implementation and assessment. While these
strategies have been grouped under the three phases of curriculum
implementation not all of them are restricted to one particular phase. A column
titled phases indicates whether the strategy was utilised in any of the other
phases of curriculum implementation. Furthermore, an analysis of the nineteen
strategies revealed that the primary and secondary teachers did not share all the
same strategies. Some strategies were shared while others were either partially
shared or not shared at all. The partially shared strategies are those that either a
primary or secondary teacher/s made some use of, which are indicated by a
yes/no response in the Table 6.1. There were seven shared strategies identified
and an asterisk in Table 6.1 indicates these: collaborative planning, matching
and modifying outcomes, use of teacher or student text, the use of resources,
reading and comprehension, maintaining a written record and using correct
terminology. The outcome of identifying this group of shared strategies
demonstrated that while these teachers shared similar beliefs they nevertheless
implemented science differently. There were also two of the nineteen strategies
discussed by the participants that neither the primary nor the secondary
teachers implemented. These were prior knowledge and remediation/extension.
The implications of which, together with the shared and partially shared
strategies, will be discussed in Chapter Seven. The discussion of the nineteen
strategies will be in the order presented in Table 6.1 and supported by extracts
taken from the dialogue in Chapter Five and where necessary evidence from
specific data sources will be included.
161
Table 6.1. Summary of Teachers' Strategies.
Teacher strategies Primary Secondary Phase Summary
PLANNING
Negotiation and distribution of outcomes
Yes No P The secondary allocated the three outcome levels to the three year levels.
Amalgamation of outcomes
Yes No P The secondary did not see this possibility.
*Collaborative planning Yes Yes P This approach was new to the primary teachers.
*Teacher or student text Yes Yes P Both valued the use of a text at planning and implementation.
Integration Yes No P Integration was only evident at the planning level for the primary.
*Matching and modifying units of work to outcomes
Yes Yes P Both groups engage in this practice demonstrating focus on core knowledge.
*Resources Yes Yes P.I Both groups valued resources/equipment.
IMPLEMENTATION
Presentation of student's work
Yes No I The primary valued more highly the need to present students’ work.
Classroom discussion Yes Yes/No I The secondary directed the class discussions.
Group work & cooperative learning
Yes Yes/No I The primary taught the students how to work in groups and valued it as part of the learning process.
*Maintaining a written record
Yes Yes I Both groups required the students to maintain a written record.
*Reading and comprehension
Yes Yes I Both groups used reading and comprehension.
Prior knowledge strategy No No P.I.A Neither groups used this
162
Teacher strategies Primary Secondary Phase Summary
strategy.
Hands on strategy Yes Yes/No I. Equally valued hands on approach but secondary placed a greater emphasis on theoretical knowledge.
*Correct terminology Yes Yes I Both focused on the importance of correct terminology.
ASSESSMENT
Book work for assessment Yes No A Only the primary used bookwork as part of their assessment.
Written tests Yes/No Yes A The primary did not rely entirely on tests.
Observation for assessment
Yes No A The secondary only used observations to ensure students were on task.
Remediation/extension No No P.A. I No remediation and extension provided by either primary or secondary in science.
Note
Those marked with an asterisk indicates shared strategies
P, I, A, represent planning, implementation and assessment respectively
6.2.1 Planning
There are seven strategies that are listed under planning and not all of these are
restricted to this phase of curriculum implementation.
6.2.1.1 Negotiation and distribution of outcomes
The negotiation and distribution of outcomes was used by the primary teachers
at the planning stage and was based on the content presently being taught for
that particular year level. This can be seen in Chapter Five in the dialogue on
page 127. The primary teachers used negotiation at the planning stage in an
163
effort to overcome the distribution of the first four levels of the outcome
statements over a seven-year primary school program. Tony, in the dialogue
explains that the only reason given by the primary teachers is that different
year levels were prepared to take on certain outcomes because the outcome
statements matched their existing program:
Tony: In our planning we had to decide whether level three was from grade four to five and level four was from grade six to grade seven. Within those levels there was an overlap and we had to decide whether grade four was doing 3.1 or grade five was doing 3.1 outcome statement. (p. 128)
Sonia: So you negotiated this all on one day? (p. 128)
Tony: It was more like two pupil free days spread out over a semester not one. (p. 128)
Sonia reveals that the secondary teachers did not negotiate on the level
statements of the outcomes because the Head of the Department had already
decided and the staff merely agreed:
Sonia: Negotiate? No. We didn’t negotiate. That was already decided. Year eight was level four, year nine level five and year ten level six for each of the outcome statements. We overlaid the core learning outcomes on top of the new text that we chose. (p. 127)
The above statement shows that it had been decided that the units of work for
each grade level were designed to assess only one level of the outcome
statements. Grade eight would be taught level four outcomes, year nine level
five outcomes and year ten level six outcomes. The secondary teachers as
illustrated by Sonia’s response, distributed the three levels of outcomes
according to each year level and matched the core learning outcomes with the
science textbook. For the secondary teachers this was a convenient and
simplistic solution to distributing the outcomes.
While the secondary teachers did not engage in a negotiation of outcomes they,
like the primary teachers, sought to distribute the outcomes according to the
content that was covered by that particular year level. The primary teachers,
after having heard what that the secondary teachers did indicated that they too
would prefer to have an outcome level for each grade, and this would make
much more sense for assessment. The confusion over the planning and
164
assessment for teaching the outcome level statements is demonstrated below in
the discussion between Tony and Sonia:
Tony: Just a moment, we also teach level four in grade seven. (p. 127)
Sonia; You do? (p. 127)
Tony: Yes, we do. How is that you are teaching level four. I understood that grades one to seven were to complete levels one to four and levels five and six in grades eight to ten. (p. 127)
Sonia: I don’t know. All I was told was that we taught level four and not to expect the primary school to cover this level. (p. 127)
The strategy for dealing with the outcomes in this manner is not the
recommended approach (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 1999). It is
the approach that these teachers chose. During one of the referential adequacy
focus groups sessions an academic who had been responsible in the drafting of
the syllabus document said: “These teachers don’t have a clue as to what
outcomes education is all about.”
6.2.1.2 Amalgamation of outcomes
The amalgamation of outcomes was an approach devised by Judy and Tony,
for dealing with so many outcomes for a range of different subjects to be
taught:
Judy: I honestly believe that we don’t teach every single outcome. (p. 132)
Sonia: What do you mean? (p. 132)
Judy: We can’t. We just don’t. Maybe not cull them we kind of, join them. (p. 132)
Tony: Amalgamate them-amalgamated outcomes. (p. 132)
This approach demonstrated that not all of the outcomes were individually
assessed or even given a specific focus. Thus, amalgamation of outcomes was
used as a strategy in conjunction with integration, which will be discussed later
in this chapter. The secondary teachers had not looked at amalgamating
outcomes and only came across this possible approach as a way of planning
with the different science content strands toward the end of the semester.
165
6.2.1.3 Collaborative planning
Both the primary and secondary teachers engaged in collaborative planning.
The dialogue in Chapter Five demonstrates that this was the first time the
primary teachers had engaged in collaborative planning at the school-based
level. Up to this time the primary teachers had individually planned their units
combined with some year level planning but never as a whole school. Both
primary and secondary teachers found this approach beneficial for their
teaching. The only constraint was time. The primary teachers had less time
allocated and less flexible teaching arrangements to engage in collaborative
planning. It was further found that even though Tony and Judy engaged in
collaborative planning at the school level their unit planning was not entirely
uniform as disclosed in the dialogue:
Tony: Each year level met and collaborated in their planning. This was easier to try and get everyone in your year level to do the same activity. (p. 129)
Sonia: Don’t you always do your planning together? (p. 129)
Judy: No, not always. We have worked together sometimes as year levels but not quite, like this. We’re going through so much change at the present time that it is easier to do it that way. You know it is more of a hassle if you are doing your own thing. And, someone else is doing something different over there. It should be easier to try to get every one on the same activity. (p. 129)
6.2.1.4 Teacher or student text
The teachers relied on either a teacher text or a student text. This came through
clearly in the teacher interviews, the classroom observations and the student
notes. The student notes were matched with the teacher or student textbook.
The use of a textbook was unmistakable at all three phases: the planning, the
implementation and the assessment. The secondary teachers planned, taught
and assessed their units of work around the students’ science text. The primary
teachers relied either upon the former government primary science source
book, a commercial teacher reference and/or the unit modules of the new
science syllabus (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 1999). The lower
primary teachers showed more diversification using a variety of reference
material from commercial and government sources. The middle and upper
166
primary teachers tended to rely upon the former Department of Education
Queensland government primary school science source book (Department of
Education, Queensland, 1982, 1983) and occasionally science modules
prepared for the new science syllabus (Queensland School Curriculum Council,
1999). The science modules issued in the new science syllabus were the least
favoured by the two groups of teachers. The primary teachers found it difficult
to manage because, for every teacher to have a copy of the modules they had to
be photocopied, and the new additional modules, that were later released on the
internet had also to be downloaded and once again photocopied for the each
teacher. Tony commented on this frustrating dilemma:
Tony: … I probably think that the only thing that is a bit of a worry is teachers’ access to the modules, because not all teachers are going to go searching the internet to try and find the modules that they are suppose to include in their curriculum. (p. 136)
It appears that there were mixed feelings regarding the quality of the new
science syllabus modules among the primary teachers. Tony the middle/upper
primary teacher was of the opinion that the modules provided the opportunity
to bring in other skills learnt in other subject areas:
Tony: I like them. I think that there is a lot more opportunity to bring in other skills from other key learning areas and things like that. So in that respect I think it is a little bit better… (p. 136)
Yet, Judy was of the opinion that the quality of science material in the modules
was lacking and reflected more of a social studies (SOSE) approach to science:
Judy: I thought they were pretty crummy. Some of them are like SOSE activities. Some of them I don’t like. (p. 136)
Upon closer examination there is another underlying reason behind the above
comments that deals with the belief about integration and the value of teaching
core knowledge. This will be discussed in more detail in the next section,
Section 6.2.5 the strategy of integration. As for Sonia, the secondary composite
teacher she did not see the new science modules of any value stating that the
materials in the new science syllabus were of no benefit to her teaching:
Sonia: We don’t use the new science modules. There is nothing radically different inside the modules. A lot of us are experienced staff here. There is nothing specifically new in those modules. (p. 135)
167
It is evident that both groups of teachers required some form of text whether it
be a teacher text or a student text to teach a unit. Only the lower primary
teachers demonstrated more flexibility in the use of teacher resources. The
reason given by Sonia for the use of a text was for commonality of teaching
between staff. This commonality for Sonia meant the same content knowledge
was to be covered:
Sonia: It gives the kids security. It provides commonality of teaching between staff when you have a large number of classes… (p. 134)
Judy argued that a teacher reference was necessary because it was easy to
follow and provided understandable activities:
Judy: It (the primary source book)… loads more of activities. They’re all practical and hands on and easy to follow. They make sense. (p. 136)
The teacher or student textbook exhibits a link to the belief that students should
learn certain core knowledge. As to what that core knowledge may be is
uncertain as neither, Sonia nor Tony could find any commonality:
Sonia: We match up the outcome statements with the chapters in the textbook. This is the basis of our work programme. (p. 134)
Tony: Yes I have used them in my lesson preparation. I still use activities from the old primary science sourcebook. (p. 136)
6.2.1.5 Integration
Integration was only evident at the planning level with the primary teachers
and not evident at all with the secondary. While the primary teachers
demonstrated an integrated approach at the school based planning stage it was
not evident in the teacher’s implementation or assessment stage. The students’
notes, classroom observation, tests and the teachers’ own admission
demonstrated this strongly. This is exemplified by Judy’s comment:
Judy: The children in my class have an integrated studies book and in the front is SOSE and in the back is science. We were told that we had to integrate. I’d be quite happy to teach science as science and social studies as social studies but that’s the way it is. When I planned my science from this unit I pulled out the science and planned my science lessons separately. (p. 140)
168
Sonia viewed integration with contempt as she saw it as the removal of quality
science education:
Sonia: …I am opposed to this sort of integrating approach at the secondary level because it leads to bad science teaching. (p. 131)
Sonia: It might lead to very good English teaching. It might lead to very good PE teaching but there are fewer of us and it is something that is not well understood. (p. 131)
The secondary teachers were even having difficulty with the idea of integrating
across the science strands of the syllabus or the traditional domains of science.
They possessed intolerance towards the notion of integration. There was also
an underlying fear that if integration was implemented in the secondary then
their jobs may be in jeopardy or redefined. This fear about job security or
redefined teaching positions was expressed during the interviews and is
implied by Sonia’s comment, “but there are fewer of us”.
This motive for not integrating was not entirely shared by the primary teachers,
even though the primary and secondary teachers shared the same belief that a
body of science knowledge is important. Sonia, Judy and Tony the composite
characters nevertheless had a different motive for integrating, or not
integrating:
Sonia: They still need to have a base knowledge. They need to know certain very fundamental things in science… (p. 139)
Judy: I think knowledge is important... (p. 139)
Tony: I think they should have a base or foundational knowledge… (p. 139)
The motive of the primary teachers was to utilise integration in their planning
because they viewed it as a strategy for dealing with their lack of confidence to
teach science and or a means of coping with so many outcomes for each
subject. It was not because of good pedagogical practice as demonstrated by
Tony and Judy:
Tony: Yes it did and not only that, but we chose integration because it was the easiest way to cover the all these learning outcomes. (p. 132)
169
Judy: My teaching partner and I were discussing this the other day and she said to me, “I would like to be able to teach science just as science, but I don’t know enough about science to be able to do that. I don’t believe that I have a lot of knowledge about science and I don’t feel confident with it. And she also added that it was really important that she integrate because it feeds off other subjects. Meaning that other subjects provide the content for the unit. (p.134)
The teacher mentioned by Judy held the same belief as the secondary teacher
that content knowledge was important and believed that science should be
taught separately. Yet, she chose to integrate to compensate for her lack of
knowledge and ability to teach science, not because it was a better teaching
approach, hence her expression of “feeding off other subjects.”
There were two statements made by Judy and Tony that raised the dilemma
that primary teachers have of reconciling their belief in teaching a core of
subject knowledge and a belief in an integrated approach to teaching and
learning:
Judy: I thought they were pretty crummy. Some of them are like SOSE activities. Some of them I don’t like. (p. 136)
Tony: I like them. I think that there is a lot more opportunity to bring in other skills from other key learning areas and things like that. So in that respect I think it is a little bit better… (p. 136)
Tony, the middle/upper primary teacher, was implying his use of integration of
other subject areas in the instruction of science and this was demonstrated in
the classroom observations. Judy’s comment reflected the teachers’ perceptions
of what science is, or should be, and the struggle that teachers have with
reconciling their belief as to what science is with the value of integration. This
was supported by Judy’s teaching partner’s comment:
Judy: My teaching partner said to me, “I would like to be able to teach science just as science, but I don’t know enough about science to be able to do that. (p. 134)
6.2.1.6 Matching or modifying the syllabus (M&M strategy)
The Matching and Modifying strategy (M&M strategy) is a term used by the
researcher that refers to the teachers’ strategy of matching up or modifying past
science units, with the new syllabus during their planning. Both the secondary
and primary teachers used this strategy.
170
Much of the focus in the planning for the secondary teachers was to ensure that
certain pre-decided content as prescribed in the text was to be covered. So for
Sonia, the secondary teacher, there was a need to match the outcomes to the
existing content to be taught for each year level as prescribed in the text:
Sonia: We didn’t refer much to the new science syllabus. The main concern that everyone had was whether or not we should be teaching this content or that content in the curriculum. Later we did start going through the syllabus matching up the content with the core learning outcomes. (p. 128)
This M&M strategy was observed during the end of year planning sessions of
the secondary program. The secondary teachers further demonstrated the
M&M strategy by placing the five new science strands; earth and beyond,
natural and processed materials, science and society, life and living, energy and
change, into the four traditional domains of science; geology, biology,
chemistry, physics. The rationale for this is that a secondary teacher such as
Sonia with a background in one of these subject areas would advise the other
teaching staff as to what should be taught in terms of content for that particular
year level: This action is seen in Sonia’s response:
Sonia: Our focus was on the four traditional domains of science: geology, physics, chemistry and biology and the syllabus strands just fitted into it. We kept our planning within those four traditional domains and certain teachers by their expertise dictated to the rest of the group what should be taught in that domain. (p. 129)
Judy and Tony also used the M&M strategy by matching the outcome
statements with existing science units that they had already been teaching:
Judy: We got together and sorted out which outcomes the year fours thought that they taught and which outcomes the year threes thought that they taught. (p. 130)
Tony: …we tried to look at what we already taught and negotiated between year levels as to who should teach which outcomes (p. 130)
Judy: We were running from room to room saying, “We don’t think we do this outcome do you guys do it. (p. 130)
The primary teachers justified a unit that they had taught year after year
without any changes being made to its design, by finding a core learning
171
outcome to match it. Judy shared her experience of such a teacher, ‘Bill’ who
continued to repeat his lessons year in and year out regardless of the change:
Judy: …there are those teachers like Bill with his fish tank theme and Fred has his tadpoles who don’t change. (p. 134)
Sonia: Who’s Bill and Fred? (p. 134)
Judy: You know the sort of teachers. They have been teaching year four for years and you know they have their set things that they do. They will do their science their way. (p. 134)
6.2.1.7 Resources (science equipment)
Adequate resources were always an issue in effectively teaching science. Sonia
saw that it was important to have a science laboratory to effectively teach
science or even to use a constructivist approach to teach science:
Sonia: I look at it this way; if you don’t have a lab so much for constructivism. You know, I didn’t have a lab for the first three weeks of the term for my grade eight. How was I possibly going to teach science let alone constructivism? (p. 122)
Sonia: The fact is, that when the kids are in a lab it makes the difference. It makes them think that we’re doing science. To develop a concept you’ve got to have hands on stuff. (p. 122)
The primary teachers Judy and Tony on the other hand did not hold the view
that a science laboratory was essential to teach science but did agree that a
dedicated room would be beneficial:
Tony: Good for you; you’ve got a lab to fight over. Though I wouldn’t think that my science is ineffective because I don’t have a lab. (p. 122)
Judy: It would be ideal. Just a room, sometimes would be good. (p. 122)
Both groups of teachers believed that science equipment was necessary for a
constructivist approach to teaching. The primary teachers said that
constructivism was a hands-on approach thereby implying the need for science
equipment to be available, so that a constructivist approach to teaching could
be employed. Judy exemplified this point:
Judy: I think it’s, hands on, learning in your own way, at your own time. (p. 122)
172
The primary and secondary teachers often used the lack of resources and time
as a reason for not being able to implement fully or successfully their science
lesson. This is seen in the conversation between Tony, Sonia and Judy:
Tony: Yeah, the one after this break, the year nine in the lab. (p. 143)
Sonia: No, not now I’m not set up for it. (p. 143)
Judy: I don’t think I’ll be doing science tomorrow. It takes a lot of preparation. I find it difficult to teach science. You’ve always got to buy stuff out of your own pocket. It’s never at your fingertips and to have the stuff there that you need, you always got to run around and get the stuff. (p. 143)
Sonia: We need to give the lab assistants two days notice. You have to get it past the lab assistants. (p. 143)
This lack of resources as a possible problem in primary school was
investigated by the researcher acquiring the borrowing records of those
teachers who had borrowed science equipment from the science and
mathematics storeroom for that semester. It is the view of the researcher that
the school had more than adequate science equipment. The borrowing records
showed that only three teachers from the entire school accessed the science
equipment and one of those two teachers was a participant in the study. This
evidence illustrates that, teachers’ reasons for not teaching science effectively
because of a lack of resources is arguably an inappropriate excuse.
6.2.2 Implementation
6.2.2.1 Presentation of students’ work
The primary teachers’ classrooms constantly displayed the students’ work
whilst there was no evidence that the secondary teachers did the same with
their students. Sonia’s observation of Judy’s classroom indirectly revealed this:
Sonia: You certainly do have a lot of things hanging off the walls and the ceiling. I can hardly walk through the room without hitting my head on some project or artwork. (p. 137)
This display of student work by the primary teachers indicated an emphasis and
recognition of the students’ accomplishments. Yet, not all that was on display
was science. In the secondary school there was little evidence of students’
work. This can be seen in the description of the school laboratories provided in
173
the dialogue of Chapter Five that was based upon the field observation notes
presented as follows:
The benches in the labs are painted black covering up the numerous carvings and fossil evidence by students who had since moved on. Along the front wall is the whiteboard and displayed along the same wall is an orange fire blanket, a clock, a poster and which reads, “What’s your Big 3 ideas,” a small laminated poster of a resuscitation chart and various other notices. At the front is the entrance to the preparation room and storeroom for the science equipment. At the rear wall of the lab there is a chemical valency chart displayed and a couple of A3 size student posters on the topic Elements. It was an activity, which connected all of the chemical elements. Along the left wall, there are two large fish tanks sitting on top of the science benches. One was half full and the other empty. Inside the half full tank was a small footstool with a large rock placed on top. The tank had a pump operating inside but it was covered in green algae. There didn’t appear to be any life inside. The other empty tank was set up like a terrarium but appeared to be neglected. Along the same wall were the Bunsen burners hanging on hooks off the wall. This is the room, in which Sonia teaches her grade eight and nine science classes. (p. 118)
The secondary teachers had the opportunity to display the students’ work in the
laboratory but the activities were structured in such a way that all of the work
was written in the students’ notebooks as Tony had observed:
Tony: It’s a bit different from the high school. You didn’t seem to have much on display except the good old chemistry valency table. (p. 137)
Sonia’s justification for this action was that all student work needed to be
written for assessment purposes, hence the convenience of using notebooks
and, secondly, the teachers moved from room to room:
Sonia: In the secondary we’re in the writing game so the kids have to record it and have this data for future reference. In high school, everything is written. Each year level has the same reporting format for their experiments. It’s standard throughout the year levels. (p. 143)
Sonia: Well we can’t decorate our rooms because we move from room to room. I counted around twenty-six students in your room Tony. (p. 137)
This difference in presenting the students’ work between the primary and
secondary teachers generally communicated to the first time observer that the
primary teacher is more student centred in their teaching than their secondary
counterpart and this may well be the case. However, a closer examination of
174
the primary teachers classroom revealed that the displays were mostly art or
social studies and very little if any were on science as observed by Sonia:
Sonia: I can hardly walk through the room without hitting my head on some artwork or project [social studies]. (p. 137)
Therefore a classroom full of displays does not necessarily mean that the
primary teacher is employing a student centred approach to teaching science.
This was certainly the case in this research as indicated by Tony’s comment
and Sonia’s observation concerning the need to be content focused rather than
student focused:
Tony: Yeah. I think I am still a believer that children should come away with a certain number of facts from what they learn. (p. 138)
Sonia: But in your class Judy the student handouts or activity sheets there was information and facts for the students to know. (p. 138)
Therefore the presentation of students’ work may indicate all three or a
combination of the following: that the primary teacher wishes to show to the
visitor that the children are engaged in learning, and/or displays the amount of
knowledge learned by the students, and/or the teacher uses it as a means to
motivate the students.
6.2.2.2 Class discussion and student talk
Classroom discussion varied between the primary and the secondary teachers’
classrooms. While the secondary teachers stated that class discussion was
important, as argued by Sonia:
Sonia: Science is more discussion, experimentation and hands on than maths. (p. 131)
The only classroom discussion that took place for the secondary students was
during the conducting of experiments based on a textbook or by answering
closed questions presented by the teacher. This is exemplified by Judy’s
observation:
Judy: …Once where you were discussing diffusion and mass you had asked a student how they had come up with that answer and they replied, “That’s what’s in the book.”… (p. 140)
175
On the other hand the freedom of classroom discussion in primary classes
varied, depending upon the topic and grade. In the upper primary Tony directed
discussion based upon reading a science reference book in the class while in
the lower primary Judy encouraged the discussions to be very open:
Tony: Children need a chance to discuss things and hear what other people think about certain topics. (p. 139)
Sonia: When I visited your class the other day it didn’t appear to me that they were doing much discussion more like a reading comprehension exercise to me. (p. 139)
Judy: I have the children come together on the floor and we have a discussion about what we have done in the past. I put up some questions for them to investigate. Before the children move off into their groups, I tell them what they need to do in each activity and how they are to work together as a group. (p. 142)
The need to cover certain content appeared to be the prime motivating reason
behind an apparent decreasing emphasis on classroom discussion in grades
two/three through to year ten. Judy, despite her open approach expressed the
belief that certain core scientific knowledge becomes more important to have
as the student progresses in his/her schooling:
Judy: … What’s the point of doing it if you want them to know the knowledge and have the understanding more than the actual writing it down. Maybe when they get older. (p. 143)
Therefore the reason for less focus on content at the lower primary may not be
indicative of a belief in student-centred learning but rather a possible lack of
confidence to teach science. The primary teachers talked repeatedly of the
value of learning scientific knowledge, yet, at the same time, expressed their
own lack of knowledge in science as a drawback to teaching science
effectively.
6.2.2.3 Group work and cooperative learning
Some form of group work in classrooms was demonstrated at all year levels.
Yet, it was clearly evident that Judy the lower primary teacher valued group
work more highly than Tony the middle/upper primary teacher and Sonia the
secondary teacher:
176
Judy: I think that it is a skill that they need later on in life to be able to take turns to share and cooperate and communicate their findings to investigate things and talk to each other about what’s happening and often they don’t agree. Like it was out there today. (p. 142)
The perception of the need to provide guidance on to how to work as a group
became less evident particularly from grade seven onwards. The grade
two/three teacher and the grade four and five teachers ensured that students
understood how to work as a group. This knowledge of group work strategies
is evident in Judy’s comments:
Judy: …Before the children move off into their groups, I tell them what they need to do in each activity and how they are to work together as a group. (p. 142)
The grade seven teacher, permitted group work only at one stage of the unit
and then later had the students either work individually or in pairs. The teacher
did not provide any guidance to the students on how they should work as a
group. The dialogue below between Judy, Tony and Sonia illustrates the
change of emphasis placed on the importance of group work. From lower
primary where there is a concern about cooperating to middle upper primary
and to secondary to where group work is presumably understood and tolerated
by the teacher:
Judy: I think that it is a skill that they need later on in life to be able to take turns to share and cooperate and communicate their findings to investigate things and talk to each other about what’s happening and often they don’t agree. (p. 142)
Tony: No. When I was teaching grade seven I didn’t feel that I had the time to be teaching it at that stage. I’m not a great fan of group work across a lot of subject areas… (p. 142)
Sonia: My students already work together. I really don’t need division of groups and skills they already organise themselves. They have already got it. We have already reached that. (p. 141)
The secondary teachers engaged in what would be better referred to as a
superficial form of group work. The group work was more of a convenience in
the equal distribution of limited resources and not as a strategy to engage
students in debating scientific ideas or findings. The secondary students were
never at any time organised into groups, neither were they told how they could
best work as a group. Students at each bench automatically formed themselves
177
into a group and collected the necessary materials for their group. The only
intervention provided by the secondary teacher was for students who had
special needs. These students were organised as a group and a teacher aide was
assigned to directly supervise the students’ work as evidenced by the dialogue
between Judy and Sonia:
Judy: So you don’t have any dysfunctional groups? (p. 141)
Sonia: The front group where the teacher aide is working with, we have three or four dysfunctional kids there. I don’t think that we need to worry about that. The two girls in the back they are very self-sufficient. So there’s really no need. (p. 141)
Neither the primary nor the secondary teachers indicated that group work could
be used as an effective tool to scaffold students’ learning. The primary teachers
reasoned that group work was provided to equip students with cooperative
skills for later use in secondary school. The primary teachers did state that
group work was an important aspect of teaching science but referred to group
work as a means to teach cooperative learning and not as a process to scaffold
learning. The statement by Tony demonstrated this:
Tony: Group work is an important aspect of teaching science. It teaches them important skills for later on in schools such as working cooperatively. (p. 141)
As for Sonia, the secondary composite teacher, the only value for group work
was the equal distribution of resources:
Sonia: I don’t really like group work because the reality is that only one or two kids do most of the work. (p. 141)
6.2.2.4 Maintaining a written record
The maintaining of a written record involved the students recording the notes
in verbatim from blackboard as scribed by the teacher. It also involved the
students using a standard format or photocopied form from which they would
write up their experiment. These experiments were based upon either the
student text in the secondary school or the teacher text in the primary school.
The middle/upper primary and secondary teachers believed strongly in writing
up notes on the board for the students to copy down. Consistent evidence of
this practice was found in the student notebooks and from the classroom
observations. This practice is demonstrated in the dialogue between Sonia and
178
Tony and the notes presented on the board in Tony’s room which remained on
the board for the duration of the unit:
Sonia: I couldn’t help but notice the writing on the board about the respiratory system. Do you always do a write up on the board for the students to copy down? (p. 137)
Tony: Yeah. I think I am still a believer that children should come away with a certain number of facts from what they learn. (p. 137)
Tony’s notes on the board:
Most living things (organisms) require oxygen for their survival. Breathing in one function, which occurs constantly and without conscious effort…. The blood filled with oxygen travels to the heart where it will be pumped out to all different parts of the body. (p. 137)
The importance of recording certain information from the blackboard was less
evident in the lower primary. Also the lower primary teachers did not use a
standard science experiment format for the students to record their results.
Nevertheless, the lower primary teachers distributed activity sheets where there
were paragraphs of information on a certain topic provided at the top of the
page for the student to read and to respond to certain questions. The discussion
between the composite characters, Sonia and Judy demonstrated this:
Sonia: But in your class Judy the student handouts or activity sheets there was information and facts for the students to know. (p. 138)
Judy: What do you mean?
Sonia: Well on the activity sheet that you gave the students for energy there was information on the importance of energy. It said; Every body needs energy to make it work. Energy is used to keep our body temperature correct, to keep our insides working and to let us do physical activity. We get our energy from the food we eat etc etc… Isn’t that the same as writing it on the board? (p. 138)
The reason for providing written information in this manner is affirmed by
Judy:
Judy: In the lower school they take so long to write it all down. It takes the whole science lesson… Maybe when they get older. (p. 143)
179
The dilemma that the lower primary teachers faced was that they believed that
students needed certain scientific knowledge and at the same time realised that
the students would have difficulty recording the information in a given time.
So in order to overcome this problem in the lower primary, the students were
provided with activity sheets that include the necessary information.
The importance placed on information and properly recording a science
experiment came out strongly during one of the referential adequacy focus
group sessions with another group of primary teachers. These teachers strongly
supported the notion of having a science report format and core knowledge.
Below is part of the transcript of that particular session:
Teacher one: The kids get a buzz out of it [science] but they have to have that certain amount of content.
Teacher two: I did like in here [the dialogue] that they were talking about a format for their experiment for writing up a report.
Teacher three: You can build right from year one. That is one of the genres that we teach; writing up their experiment.
Taking down notes from the board or from the text, or being provided
information in an activity sheet demonstrated a teacher’s belief that there is
core knowledge in science to be taught and that each student needs to have a
record of this core knowledge for future reference. However, what this core
knowledge is may be difficult to define.
6.2.2.5 Reading and comprehension
Reading and comprehension was a strategy used by all the teachers. The
secondary students’ ability to answer questions and to conduct the science
experiments depended upon their ability to comprehend the science textbook.
The secondary students were asked to read and answer the questions from the
text. The secondary teachers later admitted, during follow-up interviews, of
relying too much on reading and comprehension for their classroom
instruction. The dialogue between Judy and Sonia illustrates this:
180
Judy: There seemed to be a lot of reading and answering questions out of the textbook in every lesson that I observed. Once where you were discussing diffusion and mass you had asked a student how they had come up with that answer and they replied, “That’s what’s in the book.” And another time you said, “Have a read of part C for me and I’m go to be asking you what you have to do.” And you said, “So you are going to make some observations what are you going to have to do?” The student replied by reading the answers from the book. (p. 140)
Sonia: I must admit a lot of science has been purely, read the textbook and answer the questions. Most of kids would say, “No I do not want to do this subject because science is boring”. That’s why we lose a lot. Depends on the equipment you have and what you can to make it interesting. If you can make it interesting it works if it doesn’t then it becomes reading comprehension exercise. (p. 140)
The primary teachers also focused on reading and comprehension. All classes
were observed to engage in some form of reading comprehension even if the
science lessons were organised into group activities. The grade seven
participating teacher was found to use reading and comprehension for all her
science lessons. Students would read a passage and answer the activity sheet.
The grade five participating teacher was observed going around the room
asking different students to read from a book about the human body. Students
would read a paragraph and a discussion followed. Supporting evidence of this
event is provided in the discussion between Sonia and Tony:
Sonia: I noticed it in a couple of lessons where you and the students were reading a book about your body? (p. 139)
Tony: You mean the book, “A day in the life of our body”? (p. 139)
Sonia: Yeah, that’s the one. Where the kids were taking turns in reading a page. The other one was where you were reading about inventions. (p. 139)
Tony: That was the book, “Inventions that have changed our lives.” (p. 139)
When the grade four teacher was observed undertaking rotating group work
activities, where students moved from one activity to the next, it was found that
each activity to be predominantly a repeat of reading and comprehension
exercises. The teacher organised her students to work in six groups. Five of
those six group activities involved some form of reading and comprehension.
181
Only one group activity involved observation of earthworms. This occurrence
is demonstrated in the dialogue between Sonia and Judy:
Sonia: I had also seen it in Judy’s group rotational activities where they were looking at earthworms. (p. 140)
Judy: Our earthworm unit? (p. 140)
Sonia: There were five groups one was in the library completing an Internet activity and another was reading through a big book. Of the five group activities, I saw only one that didn’t require any sort of reading comprehension. That was the group observing the earthworms through a flexi camera. That was a pretty good set up that you had there. (p. 140)
Many of the follow up activity sheets in grade 2/3 as documented in the
students’ notes were commercial black-line masters that required reading and
comprehension. Sonia’s response to Judy below typifies this:
Sonia: But in your class Judy the student handouts or activity sheets there was information and facts for the students to know. (p. 138)
Reading and comprehension was an essential tool in the instruction of science
for primary and secondary teachers. To further demonstrate this behaviour an
interesting situation arose with the grade seven teacher who had openly
expressed her inadequacies to teach science, in particular, earth science. The
statement below by Tony represents this situation:
Tony: One of the teachers at our school, who is presently teaching grade seven is finding it a bit of a challenge to teach rocks in preparation for the year seven camp... (p. 123)
The teacher that Tony was referring to, used reading comprehension
consistently in all the five lessons observed. Either the teacher or the students
would read a passage and the students would then respond to the passage by
completing an activity sheet. The teacher justified her inadequacy to teach
geology and environmental science because of her lack of knowledge and
interest in the subject. Nevertheless, she stated that this would all change
during the next school term when she would teach the subject inventions, a
subject, which she knew something about and enjoyed. There was no
discussion at this point concerning the teacher’s use of reading comprehension.
However, upon returning the following school term to observe the beginning of
the unit on inventions the researcher noted that the teacher commenced the unit
182
by reading the history of inventions and having the students respond to an
activity sheet. The dialogue between Sonia and Tony reveals what took place:
Sonia: Yeah, that’s the one. Where the kids were taking turns in reading a page. The other one was where you were reading about inventions. (p. 140)
Tony: That was the book, “Inventions that have changed our lives.” (p. 140)
The teacher had not changed her teaching approach. She still used reading and
comprehension as a major strategy for science teaching despite the fact that she
enjoyed or had a particular knowledge and interest in the subject. She
commenced a unit by providing information and knowledge and not seeking to
determine what the students already knew, thereby demonstrating that reading
comprehension was a common strategy in teaching science.
Reading and comprehension was used because the teachers either saw it as a
means of imparting knowledge in the fastest means possible or because the
teacher lacked confidence in teaching science. There was a belief that a certain
body of knowledge must be taught in a certain given time and one way of
assisting this process was through reading and comprehension.
6.2.2.6 Prior knowledge strategy
With the exception of one lesson conducted by the grade five teacher none of
the primary or secondary teachers was observed to adopt strategies that
established the prior knowledge of their students. The grade five teacher who
did establish prior knowledge of the students did not utilise this information for
successive lessons and therefore it was considered to be a one off event.
Classroom observations, student notes, and interviews provided no evidence to
support the use of establishing prior knowledge as a learning strategy. The
dialogue below between Sonia Tony and Judy demonstrates this:
Sonia: Sometimes when I start a topic I get the kids to give the key words. I’ve had a situation where I have given a quiz before the lesson. However, I’m fairly teacher directed. I’ve never kept a record of what the students know. (p. 138)
Tony: Neither have I. Sometimes I have used concept maps to find out what the students know. (p. 138)
183
Sonia: I’ve used concept or mind maps too. They are very useful. I have used them in senior biology. But I never used them in junior science or as piece of assessment. (p. 138)
Tony: I haven’t used concept maps at the end of the unit as an assessment tool either. (p. 139)
Concept maps were not observed or found in any of the students’ notes used.
Even though Judy and Sonia did say that they had used them in previous
lessons, they admitted that this tool was not used to assess students’ prior
knowledge.
6.2.2.7 Hands on strategy
Both groups of teachers believed in the hands on strategy to aid learning and
readily associated the approach with constructivism. Tony’s statement
illustrates this point:
Tony: We are similar in that we all start off with a whole class discussion and then move into some sort of group activity. (p. 142)
Neither the primary nor the secondary teachers had a clear understanding of the
meaning of constructivism. Their view of constructivism was more of hands on
strategy and the idea of capitalising on prior knowledge and scaffolding
learning was never raised as illustrated by conversation of Sonia, Tony and
Judy:
Sonia: No, not really. I understand the term but I really don’t have a working knowledge of it yet. (p. 122)
Tony: Neither do I. Something to do with building upon prior knowledge is the limit of my understanding. (p. 122)
Judy: I think it’s hands on, learning in your own way, in your own time. (p. 122)
Sonia: I look at it this way; if you don’t have a lab so much for constructivism. (p. 122)
Hence the teachers’ use of hands on strategy did not always reflect a
constructivist approach. The only difference between the primary and
secondary teachers was that the secondary teachers restricted hands on
learning to the science laboratory. The secondary teachers used the classroom
184
to teach the theory, either before or after conducting the experiment as Sonia
explains:
Sonia: Only in the lab not in the classroom would we do some form of group activity. I could hardly get into Judy’s classroom. I had to step over all these little people near the doorway. (p. 142)
The primary teachers, because they did not have a separate room for science,
relied on the routine procedure of discussing the theory as a whole class, either
on the floor, or at their desks and then moving into group activities to engage in
hands on activities. After the activities were completed the students would
come together to discuss their findings. This demonstrated belief in hands on
strategy is evident in Judy’s statement:
Judy: I have the children come together on the floor and we have a discussion about what we have done in the past. I put up some questions for them to investigate. Before the children move off into their groups, I tell them what they need to do in each activity and how they are to work together as a group. (p. 142)
6.2.2.8 Correct terminology
The use of correct terminology was of particular importance to all the teachers.
This emphasis on correct terminology once again demonstrated the teachers’
regard for the importance of having core knowledge in science.
Sonia’s statements reveal that secondary teachers placed an ardent emphasis on
the use of correct terminology and the recording of certain core knowledge:
Sonia: They still need to have a base knowledge. They need to know certain very fundamental things in science… A basic knowledge in terms …There is a certain amount of core knowledge that the students need to know. (p. 139)
Sonia: The students need to have an understanding of the terminology used in science. It’s essential. (p. 139)
Tony also valued the need for students to understand facts and terms. He went
to the extent of expecting students to write down summaries of the science
lesson which, focused on the use of correct terminology and content:
Tony: I think they should have a base or foundational knowledge. I like to write a passage or something at the end of the lesson… (p. 139)
185
While Judy believed that knowledge was important she chose not to place a
strong emphasis on the use of correct terminology because of children’s
limited language skills:
Judy: I think knowledge is important. But that’s very much to do with their interest as well as what we do in class and what they have been exposed to in my class they are only little kids and they have only been at school for two years. (p. 139)
Judy: Understanding yes, most definitely but not as spelling words. Not for the lower primary. They may put the words into their personal journal. (p. 139)
Nevertheless the lower primary teachers did see that correct terminology was
valuable and would use the terms with the students during the lesson. This
belief was also evident in one of the lower primary teacher’s planning and in
the activity sheets that the students used. For example, for the lower primary
students to understand digestion, terms such as salivary glands, oesophagus,
large and small intestine were used in discussions and provided on student
activity sheets.
6.2.3 Assessment
6.2.3.1 Book work
Only the primary teachers used students’ notebooks as evidence for
assessment. The primary teachers often referred to the students’ notes to make
an assessment of their progress. The secondary teachers only referred to the
students’ notes to ensure that they had copied everything down or were up to
date with their work. The different usage is evident in the following discussion
between Judy, Sonia and Tony:
Judy: Do you use student’s bookwork in the secondary for assessment?
Sonia: No, though I do look through their books occasionally but not for assessment.
Tony: I would never assess the students without looking at their bookwork. I would use bookwork, observations and tests.
Judy: For our assessment in our unit planning we based it on our observations, discussions with the student, annotated work samples, which are their bookwork and some peer assessment.
186
6.2.3.2 Written tests
The primary and secondary teachers believed in, and recognised the value of
written tests. The secondary teachers designed pre-written tests at the planning
stage without considering the prior knowledge of the students. Sonia expressed
that the reason for this is that there was a need to cover a certain amount of
content:
Sonia: Each grade was designated an outcome level and from there we wrote our units and unit tests. (p. 128)
Tony: You wrote the tests at the same time as you did the planning? (p. 128)
Sonia: Yes that’s right, at the same time. (p. 128)
Judy: Why? (p. 128)
Sonia: Because we cover a certain amount of content… (p. 128)
For the secondary teachers tests were the only form of assessment.
On the other hand the primary teachers either conducted their own individual
assessment or wrote a common year level test. The grade five teachers wrote a
common end of term test. Yet once again the primary teachers gave no
consideration to students’ prior knowledge of the particular subject. The
primary teacher tests were used to confirm their observations and evaluations
of the student book as explained by Tony:
Tony: Though I suppose my worry is that when I see children going on beautifully I give them a test and they flunk hopelessly. So obviously, my observations weren’t really helping me out. I find that some kids really stand out but then I have to give them a bit of a test to be sure. I think the critical thing in using observation is that you have to have a pretty good understanding of that year level. (p. 146)
6.2.3.3 Observations
Both primary and secondary teachers believed in and made use of observation
during the implementation of the unit. Observations were used at the formative
stage by the secondary teachers to determine if the students were on task or
able to undertake the experiment but not used as a summative tool of
assessment in the final grading of the students. Sonia makes the validity of
examinations over that of observations clear:
187
Sonia: … We cannot use classroom observations for assessment. Exams are still important and you can’t get rid of them. (p. 146)
For the primary teachers observations were used at the formative and the
summative stages of assessment. At the formative stage the primary teachers
monitored the students through questioning and interacting with each group in
the science activities to ensure that they understood their work. At the
summative level the teachers compared their observations with the written tests
and students’ notes. Judy and Tony explain this assessment process:
Judy: From my classroom observations we just tick off whether we think that the children have achieved the outcome. (p. 146)
Tony: … It is an important part of my assessment. Though I suppose my worry is that when I see children going on beautifully I give them a test and they flunk hopelessly. So obviously, my observations weren’t really helping me out. I find that some kids really stand out but then I have to give them a bit of a test to be sure. I think the critical thing in using observation is that you have to have a pretty good understanding of that year level. (p. 146)
Neither primary nor secondary teachers kept a written record of their
observations because they believed that it was very difficult to write comments
during the lesson and it was best committed to memory as elucidated in the
following discussion between Sonia Tony and Judy:
Sonia: So you write down your student observations? (p. 147)
Tony: No. (p. 147)
Judy: Observation is really hard. It’s really hard to write down your student observations during a lesson. Watching them work in their groups listening to them in their discussions, making predictions and that sort of thing. That is really really hard to write down. (p. 147)
Sonia: Do you use a checklist? (p. 147)
Judy: No. I don’t use a checklist. (p. 147)
Tony: I rely on my memory. (p. 147)
Judy: My observation of kids is probably the most really important thing. (p. 147)
188
6.2.3.4 Remediation and extension
Judy, Sonia and Tony stated that there was no remediation taking place within
their classrooms. The primary and secondary students who did not cope with
understanding the science lesson were not provided with any additional
assistance and there was no provision for extension work for the gifted student
despite inclusivity being part of the syllabus (Queensland School Curriculum
Council, 1999).
Judy: So do you provide remediation? (p.148)
Sonia: No, they can repeat next year. It would be lovely if we had the time. It doesn’t come easily for some children a light bulb doesn’t suddenly come on. It does for the bright ones. (p.148)
Sonia: So you don’t provide remediation in science? (p.148)
Tony: No. In maths and language we do but not in science.(p.148)
Judy: We don’t provide special remediation if the child is not up to scratch. For me the whole aspect of science is exposing the children to certain things and getting them involved and using hands activities and getting them to enjoy it. (p.148)
During observations of the secondary teachers’ lessons there was minimal
assistance provided to students who did not understand a scientific procedure
or concept. The assistance was provided by way of the secondary teacher
moving from group to group ensuring that the task and the objective of the
experiment was understood and the students were able to perform the
experiment. There was evidence in one of the secondary teacher’s classes of
special support provided to a group of students who had general learning
difficulties. These students worked in a group with the assistance of a teacher
aide. However it was later learned that this type of assistance was provided to
these students in all of their subjects because of their specific learning
disabilities. Sonia reveals her indifference towards the group:
Sonia: The front group where the teacher aide is working we have three or four dysfunctional kids there. I don’t think that we need to worry about that… (p. 141)
It was further observed that during the lessons of this particular class that the
secondary teacher did not change or modify the activity or experiment to cater
189
for the needs of this particular group of students. The responsibility of
explaining the task was left entirely to the teacher aide.
Provision of extension work for the more able students was not evident in
either the primary or secondary classes. There were no extension questions or
activities that challenged the more able students. A comment by the secondary
teacher Sonia, sums up the views of these teachers in catering for the need to
provide enrichment for the gifted students:
Tony: What about your gifted kids? (p. 148)
Sonia: The bright ones will learn in spite of us. (p. 148)
In the primary school each of the teachers moved around to each group of
students ensuring that the students understood what was expected of them.
Teachers, through their questioning skills guided the students in their
investigation. Parents also provided assistance during the group work. Even
with parental assistance no remediation or extension was provided to those
students who required it because as Tony and Judy explained primary teachers
did not see the value of such in science.
Tony: I think parents want to know what their child is doing in science, what they’re learning...But then again, I would be happy not to assess outcomes because we don’t really provide remediation in science. (p. 147)
Judy: I still think that at the year two/three I would be happy not to assess. I would be happy not to assess because we don’t really remediate. (p. 148)
Judy: Our concern is that level two of the outcomes goes for two years! So who cares. They’re all level two. (p. 148)
6.3 CONCLUSION
The objectives of this chapter were to provide the interpretative stage of the
research and thereby answer the first two questions of the research:
What teacher knowledge has the primary and secondary teachers found useful
to make the science curriculum more meaningful to them?
In what way does the teacher knowledge of the primary and secondary teachers
differ in relation to the enactment of the science curriculum?
190
These objectives have been achieved by demonstrating that there are nineteen
strategies, which the primary and secondary teachers found useful or not useful
in making the curriculum more meaningful. In some of these strategies the
primary and secondary teachers differed in relation to the enactment of the
curriculum. It was found that of these nineteen strategies only seven were
clearly identified as shared strategies. These were: collaborative planning,
teacher or student text, matching and modifying outcomes, the use of
resources, maintaining a written record, reading and comprehension, and
using correct terminology. This chapter also explored some of the reasons
behind these strategies in order to uncover teacher’s beliefs. Further
explanation as to the reasons behind the teachers’ beliefs and their implications
will be discussed in the next chapter. This concludes the first part of the
interpretative stage of this research. In the next chapter the second part of the
interpretative stage of this research will be conducted through the use of the
knowledge filter model. It will be here that, teachers’ strategies and beliefs will
be compared to the literature.
191
CHAPTER 7 TEACHERS’ BELIEFS
7.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
The second part of the interpretative stage to be presented in this chapter is to
assess the educational significance of the dialogue presented in Chapter Five.
Within this chapter the impact of teachers’ beliefs in the planning, instruction
and assessment phases of the enacted science curriculum will be demonstrated
by answering the third research question:
How has the science curriculum taken form or shape through the primary and
secondary teachers’ knowledge?
How the curriculum has taken shape was portrayed in the dialogue of Chapter
Five. The results presented in Chapter Six demonstrated that the primary and
secondary teachers’ craft knowledge (Cooper & McIntyre, 1996; Morine-
Dershirmer & Kent, 1999; van Driel, Verloop, van Werven, & Dekkers, 1997;
van Driel, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2001) is for the majority of teachers, different
in the enactment of the new science syllabus. What has not been explained is
how teachers shape the science curriculum and why this occurred. These
questions will be illuminated through the unpacking of the knowledge filter
model that was first presented at the end of Chapter Two, Figure 2.3.
The knowledge filter model will demonstrate that the filter identified as
teachers’ craft knowledge in Figure 2.3 is broken into three dimensions:
teachers’ expressed beliefs, teachers entrenched beliefs and teachers’
manifested beliefs. The discussion centres on the three sets of beliefs found
within the craft knowledge filter. Overall the knowledge filter model will
provide an answer to the theoretical proposition proposed in Chapter Two.
7.2 KNOWLEDGE FILTER MODEL
The bisected knowledge filter model shown below in Figure 7.1, illustrates
what is taking place within the filter of teachers’ craft knowledge as they enact
the curriculum. The filter demonstrates that teachers’ craft knowledge is not to
193
194
be viewed as one body of knowledge or as separate distinct bodies of
knowledge but rather as three interconnected dimensions of teachers’ beliefs
shaping the science curriculum (Brickhouse, 1990; Cooper & McIntyre, 1996;
Feldman, 2000; Grossman, 1990; Klein, 1997; Shulman, 1987; van Driel et al.,
1997, 2001). As the intended Year 1-10 science curriculum passes through the
knowledge filter it is reshaped to become the enacted science curriculum that
has a primary and secondary teachers’ approach to planning implementation
and assessment. The arrows within the model do not represent linearity but
rather point to the end result of intended curriculum. The three interconnected
dimensions within this filter are teachers’ expressed beliefs, teachers’
entrenched beliefs and teachers’ manifested beliefs which are responsible for
shaping the curriculum. Teachers’ expressed beliefs are those sets of beliefs
that were often expressed by the teacher during an interview or focus session
but were rarely acted upon. If they were acted upon it was for a specific
purpose hence the term “expressed beliefs”. These expressed beliefs later
provided valuable insight and explanation for teachers’ behaviour.
Entrenched beliefs are foundational to a person’s actions and may also be
verbally expressed. They are entrenched beliefs because over time these are
reinforced by the teacher’s experience. Hence the teacher would often refer to
his/her experience as a validation of his/her belief. This was illustrated in the
dialogue of Chapter Five and in the interpretative stage of Chapter Six.
Manifested beliefs are those sets of beliefs that are acted upon consciously or
unconsciously as demonstrated by the strategies of the teachers in Chapter Six.
The teacher will demonstrate manifested beliefs as part of their daily routine.
They are in fact entrenched beliefs being acted upon in a certain manner.
Hence manifested beliefs are an outworking of entrenched beliefs. Manifested
beliefs have been exemplified by the strategies discussed in Chapter Six. The
order in which the following three dimensions of the teachers’ beliefs are
discussed do not imply or suggest a hierarchy of beliefs.
Secondary teachers’manifested beliefs
Primary teachers’manifested beliefs
Teachers’entrenchedbeliefs
Teachers’expressedbeliefs
Secondary teachersplanning
implementationassessment
Primary teachersplanning
implementationassessment
Intendedscience
curriculum
Knowledge filter model
Enacted sciencecurriculum
Three interconnected dimensions of teachers’ beliefs
Arrows do not represent a linearity.
Figure 7.1 Knowledge filter model.
7.2.1 Teachers’ expressed beliefs
The first dimension of the knowledge filter is teachers’ expressed beliefs of the
teachers. The expressed beliefs of teachers are beliefs that are expressed
verbally and are at times consciously acted on. Four types of expressed beliefs
were identified in this research: first, platonic beliefs, ideal beliefs expressed
by the individual; second, organisational beliefs, beliefs imposed upon the
individual by the organisation; third, associated beliefs, beliefs not fully
understood by the individual but are associated with an existing entrenched
belief; and fourth, transitional beliefs, beliefs that are both expressed verbally
and by using them the person has experienced a limited degree of success.
Furthermore the non-implementation of teachers’ expressed beliefs may also
provide some understanding of teacher’s entrenched beliefs.
7.2.1.1 Platonic beliefs
The expressed platonic beliefs are idealist views not fully embraced by the
individual. An example of an individual’s expressed belief is Sonia’s view of
what is a science teacher. Though Sonia expressed the following view it was
not fully demonstrated within the classroom by any of the three secondary
science teachers. Hence it was an expressed platonic belief.
Sonia: A good science class is where the teacher is someone who allows the students to investigate, lots of hands on and who is flexible when things go wrong as they often do in science. (p. 123)
The three secondary science teachers during the classroom observations were
found to be very direct in their teaching approach allowing little if any
opportunity for the students to explore their ideas. The focus of the teachers’
attention was upon completing the set experiment and questions within the text.
Another example of a platonic belief was observed during one of several
classroom observation periods when I had organised with one of the secondary
participating teachers to videotape his lesson. On that occasion his teaching
approach appeared to be somewhat inconsistent with what I had previously
observed. This was confirmed by one of his students who said to me, “He
doesn’t always teach like this, only when you’re in the room.” At the end of
196
this videotaped lesson, during a follow up audio taped interview, I asked the
teacher whether he would allow me to observe his next science lesson, his
reply was, “No. Not now, I’m not set up for it.” I made it clear to him that I
was only interested in what was taking place within the classroom and my
observations were not an evaluation exercise. He still refused and his response
appeared to support the student’s claim. The lesson that I had taped is what I
would refer to as an expressed platonic lesson, a lesson based on ideal beliefs.
Such lessons only take place where and when necessary. They are beliefs that
the teacher would ideally desire to adopt but is unwilling to make certain
sacrifices of personal time or the extra effort to change an existing lesson. The
reason provided by the primary and secondary teachers as to why such lessons
were not a normal occurrence was either a lack of time or resources. The
secondary teacher’s justification for not permitting the researcher to videotape
his next lesson is cited in the conversation between Sonia and Judy concerning
the implementation of science:
Sonia: No, not now I’m not set up for it. (p. 144)
Judy: I don’t think I’ll be doing science tomorrow. It takes a lot of preparation. (p. 144)
7.2.1.2 Organisational beliefs
Organisational beliefs are imposed upon the individual by the organisation and
in order to maintain harmony the teacher gives verbal support but, in practice,
these beliefs are often modified or given tentative treatment to suit the
participant’s entrenched beliefs. In this case the strategies prior knowledge and
remediation/extension were found to be expressed organisational beliefs. Prior
knowledge and remediation/extension were the two strategies discussed by the
primary and secondary teachers but not employed by either group. The non-
engagement of these two strategies also reflected the teachers’ entrenched
beliefs because they specifically deal with the teacher’s beliefs concerning the
importance of learning scientific knowledge and assessment.
Understanding students’ prior knowledge, was not employed as a strategy by
either the primary and secondary teachers. As an aspect of constructivist
learning, prior knowledge seeks to assist the learner to unpack what they
understand regarding a particular scientific concept or phenomenon (Colburn,
197
2000; Yager, 1991, 1995). The non-engagement in this strategy indicated that
the teachers were more focused on imparting scientific knowledge to their
students rather than building on or developing further existing knowledge
(Colburn, 2000; Yager, 1991, 1995). This was demonstrated during interview
sessions that employed a modified approach of Yager’s (1991) constructivist
approach to learning. Each teacher at the end of an observation session was
asked to evaluate his or her lesson according to the indicators of constructivist
learning as presented by Yager (1991). The discussion and results showed the
teacher that his or her respective approaches did not represent a constructivist
approach to learning.
The strategy remediation and extension was not found to be utilised by either
group of teachers. Tony, the primary teacher, highlights the anxiety that the
teachers had over assessment:
Tony: It’s a nightmare. Everyone is asking, “How are we going to assess and report these outcomes?” (p. 145)
This anxiety over assessment was also found among teachers in the United
Kingdom (Donnelly, 2000; Jenkins, 2000a, 2000b). However, the concern of
the United Kingdom teachers was over the quantity of assessment whereas the
concern for the teachers in this study has been how to assess and report the
outcomes. Also, the teachers’ inaction in providing remediation appears to
demonstrate how unimportant it was to the teacher that the student understood
the scientific concepts imparted to him or her. Sonia, Tony and Judy found no
real justification for remediation:
Sonia: So you don’t provide remediation in science? (p. 148)
Tony: No. In maths and language we do but not in science. (p. 148)
Judy: I still think that at the year two/three I would be happy not to assess. I would be happy not to assess because we don’t really remediate. (p. 148)
Sonia: No, they can repeat next year. It would be lovely if we had the time. It doesn’t come easily for some children a light bulb doesn’t suddenly come on. It does for the bright ones. (p. 148)
The absence of remediation for both primary and secondary students
demonstrated once more that teachers valued the imparting of certain
knowledge over that of the student’s understanding.
198
7.2.1.3 Associated beliefs
Associated beliefs are beliefs imposed upon the teacher by the organisation and
which are not fully understood by the teacher and because of this these beliefs
have been associated with other entrenched beliefs. An example of a belief by
association is seen with constructivism and the hands on strategy or
experiential learning. The teachers did not understand the philosophy of
constructivism and so readily associated it with a belief about experiential
learning. This can be seen by the responses of Judy and Sonia.
Judy: I think it’s, hands on, learning in your own way, at your own time. (p. 122)
Sonia: I look at it this way; if you don’t have a lab so much for constructivism. (p. 122)
Other common responses include “We’ve done this before.” Such comments
demonstrate to the professional developer that the teacher is associating the
newly introduced concept with something else. A possible reason for this
association is because the professional developer has failed to demonstrate the
value and difference of the new concept.
7.2.1.4 Transitional beliefs
Transitional beliefs are expressed beliefs that have been attempted with a
limited degree of success. They are beliefs yet to be tested by time and
experience. They are also beliefs that have come about due to necessity to
accommodate a particular change. Examples of transitional beliefs are the
negotiation of outcomes, the amalgamation of outcomes and collaborative
planning. The following dialogue provides examples of these transitional
beliefs:
Tony explains the use of negotiation of outcomes:
Tony: In our planning we had to decide whether level three was from grade four to five and level four was from grade six to grade seven. Within those levels there was an overlap and we had to decide whether grade four was doing 3.1 or grade five was doing 3.1 outcome statement. (p. 128)
Judy points out the need to amalgamate the outcomes as an effective means of
covering numerous outcome statements:
199
Judy: We can’t. We just don’t. Maybe not cull them we kind of, join them. (p. 132)
Tony: Amalgamate them-amalgamated outcomes. (p. 132)
Sonia: Amalgamated outcomes, combining the outcomes because we’re not allowed to remove or cull any of them. (p. 132)
The strategy collaborative planning was a new strategy for the primary
teachers and proved to be beneficial.
Sonia: Don’t you always do your planning together? (p. 129)
Judy: No, not always. We have worked together sometimes as year levels but not quite like this. We’re going through so much change at the present time that it is easier to do it that way. You know it is more of a hassle if you are doing your own thing. And someone else is doing something different over there. It should be easier to try to get every one on the same activity. (p. 129)
The above strategies were a result of the teachers engaging with the new
science syllabus. These three strategies came about as a result of the teachers’
attempts to resolve the issue of addressing numerous outcomes. The primary
teachers had not engaged in this level of collaborative planning prior to the
introduction of outcomes. The secondary teachers had not come across the
concept of amalgamating the outcomes and were still trying to deal with each
outcome as an independent entity.
7.2.2 Teachers’ entrenched beliefs
In order to understand better teachers’ manifested beliefs there is a need to first
focus on the second dimension of the knowledge filter model; teachers’
entrenched beliefs. Teachers’ entrenched beliefs are those sets of beliefs that
are both verbally and non-verbally expressed. The teachers’ entrenched beliefs
underpin the manifested beliefs and in turn shape the science curriculum. These
entrenched beliefs are demonstrated by teachers’ strategies as shown in
Chapter Six. They are those, which the teacher has formed over a period of
time, and in some cases, since their own experience in high school. Entrenched
beliefs deal with the nature of science (Lederman & Neiss, 1997a; Singleton,
1997), science teaching and pedagogical content knowledge (Grossman, 1990;
Shulman, 1987). These entrenched beliefs deal with the nature of the subject
200
matter and have a direct impact on the way a subject is taught (Archer, 1999;
Ediger, 2000; Klein, 1997).
Entrenched beliefs are foundational to a person’s actions and they are verbally
and non-verbally demonstrated. They are a set of beliefs that are unconsciously
acted upon. Positive, negative and a non-response will demonstrate an
entrenched belief (Cooper & McIntyre, 1996; Grossman, 1990; Morine-
Dershirmer & Kent, 1999). An example of an entrenched belief is seen in the
teachers’ dialogue between Sonia and Tony regarding the importance of
recording knowledge or information.
Sonia: I couldn’t help but notice the writing on the board about the respiratory system. Do you always do a write up on the board for the students to copy down? (p. 137)
Tony: Yeah. I think I am still a believer that children should come away with a certain number of facts from what they learn. (p. 137)
This statement is indicative of an entrenched belief. Tony had just written on
the board a set of notes because he believes that certain knowledge is important
and must be learnt by transcribing. The term entrenched beliefs is used to
define this aspect of teacher craft knowledge because over time these beliefs
are reinforced by the teachers’ experience. Teachers often refer to their
experience as a validation of their beliefs (Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001).
For example, Judy and Sonia validated their beliefs by their personal
experience:
Judy: Even if I didn’t enjoy science I still would teach science because the children really enjoy it. (p. 123)
Sonia: The fact is, that when the kids are in a lab it makes the difference. It makes them think that we’re doing science. To develop a concept you’ve got to have hands on stuff. (p. 122)
In order to examine the entrenched beliefs of the teachers, the researcher
investigated the teachers’ understanding of the nature of science (Lederman &
Neiss, 1997a; Singleton, 1997) and the teacher’s understanding of the teaching
and learning of science (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987). During the
interviews the teachers were asked five questions and their individual
responses were compared with the classroom observations: What is science?
Compare science and mathematics? Why teach science? What is core
201
knowledge? And, what is a science teacher? It was found that the primary and
secondary teachers shared similar entrenched beliefs. The responses of Judy,
Tony and Sonia in Section 5.4 issues of science education in the dialogue
demonstrate the teachers’ views.
7.2.2.1 What is science?
There are two ways that the question can be answered. Firstly, science provides
the necessary skills for understanding the world (Singleton, 1997). Secondly,
science is seen as a body of knowledge with fixed laws, facts and universal
principles to be learned (Lederman & Niess, 1997a). The primary and the
secondary teachers provided me with both these answers. Both groups during
interviews defined science, as an integral part of a person’s life and society
while in the classroom science was a body of knowledge.
There was no question in the minds of Tony and Sonia as to the important role
that science played in their lives and in the lives of their students:
Tony: I don’t think you can leave science out of education because whatever you do whether you’re doing geography and earthquakes you’re dealing with science. It is an important part of understanding the world. (p. 124)
Sonia: That’s right. You name it, it’s science. Science is a real life situation. Even in religion, you argue with science... (p. 124)
7.2.2.2 Compare science with mathematics?
The purpose of this question was to delve deeper into the teachers’
understanding of the nature of science by determining if they viewed science as
distinct separate body of knowledge to be learned (Lederman & Niess, 1997a).
In response to this question Tony and Sonia differentiated between science and
mathematics as follows:
Tony: You need maths for science but you don’t need science for maths. (p. 131)
Sonia: Science is very separate. Science requires more problem solving than maths. (p. 131)
By comparing science with mathematics it was found that Sonia, the secondary
teacher, made a clear distinction between the two subjects at the junior science
level:
202
Sonia: A scientist does need to have a good mathematical understanding especially when it comes to senior physics and chemistry, maths becomes crucial. But, in the junior science, it is separate. (p. 131)
Judy and Tony, the primary teachers on the other hand believed that you
needed mathematics for science but were divided as to whether you needed
science for mathematics or whether science played a role in mathematical
understanding:
Judy: There is a lot of maths in science for recording, reading tables, drawing graphs and data collection. You, need maths for measuring. In maths, we still do a lot of hands on discussion. You still discuss a lot of things with maths. (p. 131)
The comparison of mathematics and science indicated that the teachers’ view
of science is also a distinct body of knowledge to be learned (Lederman &
Niess, 1997a) with some exception for the lower primary teachers who
indicated that science was there to develop skills for understanding the world.
This outcome concurs with the findings of Archer (1999) who had found, that
primary teachers viewed mathematics as part of the students’ everyday lives
and linked to other curriculum areas whilst the secondary teachers viewed
mathematics as separate and self-contained.
7.2.2.3 Why do teachers teach science?
This question sought to unpack the teachers’ thoughts on the nature of science.
The teachers in this study said that they taught science for two reasons first, in
preparation for the next year level and second for life skills. Initially it
appeared that the primary and secondary teachers differed in their view as to
why they taught science but closer observation and further questioning
revealed that there was really little difference. Both the primary and secondary
teachers said that science was preparing students for life but it was the
secondary teachers who said it was also preparing the student for the next year
level. This is shown in the following dialogue between Judy, Sonia and Tony:
Judy: It’s preparing them for life. (p. 124)
Sonia: But in years eight to ten, the student needs to be prepared to make appropriate choices in year eleven. (p. 124)
Sonia …Science education is preparing the student for the next year level. (p. 124)
203
Tony: It’s more than that. It’s not only preparing the student for the next year level. We teach science for other reasons other than the fact that next year they need to know this set of facts or this set of theories. (p. 124)
Yet in the implementation of science, the primary teachers appeared to be
teaching science in a manner that was a preparation for high school science.
For example, Tony and Judy demonstrated the need to learn such things as
using the correct genre for science in preparation for the next year level:
Tony: …I think it is a genre that they need to know for high school. They need that skill. When they get to high school someone will say, “Hey write up this science experiment”…(p. 143)
Judy: It’s not always done in the lower primary either because kids don’t do a lot of writing. I used to get the kids to write up their experiments like that. I really don’t think that it is the important thing these days. Maybe, in the upper primary it’s a genre that they need to know for high school. (p. 143)
Hence the primary teachers taught science not only for its application to life
but also in preparation for the next year level. The need to prepare students for
the next year level was only expressed more vocally by Sonia and used in
support of reasons for implementing certain instructional strategies such as
writing a science report.
7.2.2.4 What is a science teacher?
The primary and secondary teachers agreed that a science teacher was someone
who allowed the students to investigate, who encouraged a hands on
experience and who was flexible when things went wrong. From repeated
observations this encouragement was more evident in the lower primary classes
and less evident in the secondary classes. The secondary teachers and the
upper primary teachers limited the amount of investigation by placing it as an
additional part of the lesson, whereas the lower primary made the hands on
investigation a focal point of the lesson. This hands on strategy for the lower
primary teacher can be attributed to his/her way of compensating for a lack of
knowledge rather than a strategy for instruction, as illustrated by Judy’s
responses to Sonia:
204
Sonia: A good science class is where the teacher is someone who allows the students to investigate, lots of hands on and who is flexible when things go wrong, as they often do in science. (p. 123)
Judy: I just try to make it a bit more fun and practical and hands on and less theory. (p. 123)
Judy: Sometimes I don’t feel confident in the content. (p. 123)
7.2.2.5 Is core knowledge important?
The secondary teachers readily expressed verbal agreement that students
should have a core knowledge while the primary teachers talked about the need
for students to enjoy science and to experience science but demonstrated in
their planning and teaching the importance of a core of knowledge. This belief
in core knowledge was also evident in the admission by the primary teachers as
illustrated by Judy, Tony and Sonia’s responses that they needed to have a
personal understanding of scientific knowledge to teach science:
Judy: I don’t believe that I have a lot of knowledge about science and I don’t feel confident with it. (p. 134)
Sonia: They still need to have a base knowledge. (p. 139)
Tony: Yeah. I think I am still a believer that children should come away with a certain number of facts from what they learn. (p. 138)
However, during repeated classroom observations of the primary and
secondary teachers, the importance of science as a body of knowledge became
very evident. All of the teachers consistently provided a body of information
for the students to learn and it was either written on the board or given as a
handout. The strategies that reinforced this belief were the importance of a
written record, the reading and comprehension strategy, the use of teacher and
student text, written tests, the lack of determining prior knowledge, the
emphasis on the use of correct terminology, matching and modifying the
syllabus and integrating with other subject areas. The preponderance of
evidence weighed in favour of the fact that the teachers viewed science as a
body of knowledge to be learned (Lederman & Niess, 1997a). The teachers’
entrenched beliefs about the nature of science were manifested in their
strategies.
205
7.2.3 Teachers’ manifested beliefs
The third dimension of the knowledge filter model is teachers’ manifested
beliefs. Manifested beliefs are those sets of beliefs, which are acted upon or not
acted upon unconsciously. They may be considered as the overt manifestation
of teachers’ practical theories (Feldman, 2000). The teacher will demonstrate
these beliefs repeatedly as part of his/her daily routine. The manifested beliefs
are an outworking of entrenched beliefs. Examples of teachers’ manifested
beliefs are the strategies listed in Chapter Six. There are two questions that
need to be answered here in the final analysis of teachers’ manifested beliefs.
Are there any strategies that the primary teachers do not utilise that the
secondary teachers do and why? Are there any strategies that the secondary do
not utilise that the primary do and why?
7.2.3.1 Strategies not utilised by primary but utilised by secondary teachers
The primary teachers used all the strategies implemented by the secondary
teachers. The only possible strategy that the secondary teachers relied more
heavily upon was the use of tests, whereas, the primary teachers used tests,
student’s notes and classroom observations to make an assessment of student’s
progress. Sonia expresses this in the following dialogue:
Sonia: …The student needs to have written tests in science to prepare them… (p. 124)
Sonia: …Each grade was designated an outcome level and from there we wrote our units and unit tests. (p. 128)
Sonia provided two reasons for the use of tests; the need for a standard
assessment and the importance of certain knowledge to be covered in a given
time:
Sonia: There needs to be standards for our assessment. We need to have common assessment/tests, assessment criteria to indicate that the outcomes have been satisfactorily achieved… (p. 145)
Sonia: Because we cover a certain amount of content… (p. 128)
206
7.2.3.2 Strategies not utilised by secondary teachers but utilised by primary
teachers
The strategies that were found not to be used by the secondary teachers but
used by the primary teachers were: amalgamation of outcomes, negotiation of
outcomes, integration, presentation of students’ work, bookwork and
observation. The amalgamation and negotiation of outcomes were a
management strategy used by the primary teachers in dealing with the
outcomes approach to teaching and learning. The secondary teachers did not
use these two strategies because they allocated the three outcome level
statements of the science syllabus to the three grades eight to ten. However,
Tony in the dialogue indicates that they agreed with the secondary teachers’
approach and would prefer to have ten outcome level statements, one for each
year level:
Tony: That is the whole thing about these levels. There are six of them. There should be ten of them, one for each year. Then we bring it down to an a b c d e level. (p. 148)
Integration was the next strategy not used by the secondary but used by the
primary teachers. Integration is generally viewed as a valuable tool to assist the
student to value and contextualise his/her learning and research has supported
this argument (Hargreaves & Moore, 2000). It was also found to be a vehicle to
effectively achieve the desired outcome statements and was a common strategy
used in other countries in the implementation of outcomes education (Czerniak,
Weber, Sandmann, & Ahern, 1999; Hargreaves & Moore, 2000). However in
this study, this was not the case. Integration was utilised by the primary
teachers during the planning but it was not evident in the implementation. Tony
confirms this:
Tony: Yes [integration] at the school planning level but not at the teaching level. (p. 131)
The primary and secondary teachers in this study did not view integration as a
valuable tool for learning. The secondary teachers, as Sonia clearly expressed,
saw integration as a threat to the body of science knowledge:
Sonia: I am opposed to this sort of integrating approach at the secondary level because it leads to bad science teaching. (p. 131)
207
Judy and Tony saw integration as a means of dealing with their lack of
scientific knowledge and or as a management strategy for dealing with
numerous outcomes:
Tony: To be honest, anyone who tells you that in the primary that they are teaching core and integrated studies; well that’s not happening. In my classroom you can still see distinct subjects going on. (p. 131)
Judy: The children in my class have an integrated studies book and in the front is SOSE and in the back is science. We were told that we had to integrate. (p. 132)
During one of the focus group sessions to establish referential adequacy the
primary teachers expressed the view that they strongly believed there was a
hidden agenda forcing teachers to integrate regardless of their preferred
teaching style. In Peers’ (2000) study, she found a similar reluctance or
hesitation. Her primary teacher was initially reluctant to integrate subjects and
it was not until after an extensive period of time that the participating teacher
saw the pedagogical value of integrating science with the other subjects.
The presentation of student’s work focused mostly on non-science subjects. A
novice observer could easily be misled into believing that the teacher was
student focused or used a learner-centred approach in all of his or her subjects,
which may or may not necessarily be the case. This is exemplified in the
description of Judy’s classroom and Sonia’s response:
Judy’s classroom: Hanging across the rows of desks at about eye height are displayed the students’ artwork and other activities. (p. 117)
Sonia: You certainly do have a lot of things hanging off the walls and the ceiling. I can hardly walk through the room without hitting my head on some artwork or project. (p. 137)
Just because there was a student focus in certain subject areas, as exemplified
by Judy’s display of student work, it does not necessarily mean that the same
approach is provided in science. Furthermore, the lack of science projects
presented in the classroom may also suggest that the teacher does not focus on
science as much as the other subjects.
The last two strategies were bookwork and observation, both of which were
used by the primary teachers as assessment tools. The secondary teachers did
make some use of these two strategies but, unlike the primary teachers, did not
208
rely on these two strategies for final assessment. The reason behind this shift in
assessment practice is because primary teachers believed that in order to obtain
an understanding of the student’s progress, assessment must be undertaken at
different points of the student’s learning. Tony explained:
Tony: I would never assess the students without looking at their bookwork. I would use bookwork, observations and tests. (p. 147)
7.2.4 Three factors that explain teachers’ beliefs and actions
There are three possible factors that may explain why the primary teachers
manifested beliefs are dissimilar to that of the secondary science teachers, and
why the primary and secondary teachers’ expressed beliefs are not acted on.
These three factors are what Ford (1992) referred to as capability beliefs,
contextual beliefs and goals.
7.2.4.1 Capability beliefs
The capability beliefs as defined by Ford, provide a plausible explanation as to
why the primary teachers in this study taught science in a manner different
from their secondary teacher counterpart yet, at the same time possessed
similar entrenched beliefs. Capability beliefs, described by Ford (1992), are
similar to what Bandura (1997) described as perceived self-efficacy beliefs. It
is the perceived ability and judgement of the individual to undertake a certain
task (Bandura, 1997; Ford, 1992). The person’s perceived ability is based
upon positive and negative past experience and knowledge of science (Watters
& Ginns, 2000). Bandura explained that people’s belief in their self-efficacy or
capability beliefs will have varying effects on their behaviour and actions.
Therefore, while the primary and secondary teachers shared similar entrenched
beliefs concerning science, this set of entrenched beliefs, were influenced by
the teachers’ capability beliefs, resulting in different strategies (manifested
beliefs) being utilised. For example, the teacher asks the question: “Based on
my understanding of what science is, am I capable of teaching science?” The
affirmative response to this question will motivate the teacher to teach science
in a different manner to the teacher who had responded in the negative. The
primary and secondary teachers’ entrenched beliefs concerning the nature of
209
science and science teaching are similar but their capability belief (Ford, 1992)
or perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) may vary and result in the use of
different strategies. The primary teachers in this research found such strategies
as integration an appropriate method to deal with their lack of confidence to
teach science. Judy exemplifies this in the dialogue by relating the situation of
her teaching partner who feels inadequate in her ability to teach science:
Judy: My teaching partner and I were discussing this the other day and she said to me, “I would like to be able to teach science just as science, but I don’t know enough about science to be able to do that. I don’t believe that I have a lot of knowledge about science and I don’t feel confident with it. And she also added that it was really important that she integrate because it feeds off other subjects. (p. 134)
The teacher makes the point that she integrates because integration feeds off
other subjects. Integration, therefore allowed the teacher to rely on other
subjects in her unit, to compensate for her lack of confidence in teaching
science. This action resulted in the integrated unit having a more social science
and language focus than a science focus. Integration was used as a strategy that
assisted the primary teacher to deal with his/her perceived low self-efficacy to
teach science.
Sonia the secondary teacher, although sharing similar beliefs with the primary
teachers concerning science and science teaching viewed, integration with
contempt and considered that it led to bad science:
Sonia: … I am opposed, to this sort of integrating approach at the secondary level because it leads to bad science teaching. (p. 131)
Furthermore not only will a lack of scientific knowledge contribute toward a
teachers’ capability belief but also, the teacher’s personal negative learning
experiences will directly impact upon his or her belief that he/she can teach
science effectively (Watters & Ginns, 1995, 2000). The impact of these
antecedent factors is exemplified in the dialogue relating Sonia, Tony and
Judy’s personal experiences as students themselves in science:
Tony: Well, when I remember my science experience at school I didn’t enjoy the way science was taught in primary. It didn’t have impact on me. I didn’t really enjoy science much in secondary school either for that matter. (p. 124)
210
Sonia: I enjoyed science particularly high school. I remember all my science teachers in high school. We had a fellow named Jones, John Wright - Deputy at Bilma for 400 years. Bob Davies, yes most of those. (p. 124)
Judy: I enjoyed science. I didn’t do biology because I knew that there was too much work and I did physics for one week and I knew that the teacher wasn’t going to help me so I quit that. (p. 124)
All of the secondary teachers in this study, represented by Sonia, were trained
science teachers and each had a personal positive experience in learning
science. In contrast, the participating primary teachers in the study did not have
any tertiary background in science and each communicated a negative
experience in learning science. Without the teachers’ self-efficacy being
examined the primary teachers communicated by word and action their lack of
confidence to teach science. Only in cases where the primary teacher has had a
science background or has had a positive experience in science would a likely
difference occur, but this was not the case in the study. Hence it was
considered unnecessary to compare the self-efficacy of the primary and
secondary teachers. A reasonable conclusion may be that teachers in the
primary school in this study generally had a lower self-efficacy than the
secondary teachers. This is because science was not the primary teachers
specialised field and because their personal experience in science was less
positive than that of the secondary teachers.
Therefore it may be reasonable to conclude that the very belief that contributed
to the secondary teachers to teach science in the manner that they did is the
same belief that serves as an inhibitor for primary teachers to teach science in
the manner that they did. The primary and secondary teachers were found to
both hold the same entrenched beliefs concerning the nature of science and
science teaching but responded to their entrenched beliefs in dissimilar ways.
This may have the illusion that the primary and secondary teachers are
different in their beliefs by way of their planning, implementation and
assessment. The secondary teacher used a student text to ensure that certain
core science knowledge was covered and the primary teacher used a teacher
text or activity sheets to achieve the same. The primary teachers utilised a form
of integration to compensate for their lack of knowledge to teach science and
the secondary teachers did not consider integration because it may affect the
211
coverage of certain scientific knowledge. Both groups of teachers believed that
a student should have certain core knowledge but went about imparting this
knowledge in different ways using different strategies.
7.2.4.2 Context Beliefs
A factor that could explain why teachers’ expressed beliefs are not acted upon
is “context beliefs” (Ford, 1992). Ford defined contextual beliefs as those sets
of beliefs, which have environmental constraints that inhibit a teacher from
teaching or implementing the curriculum in a certain expected manner. The
teacher reasons, that given appropriate conditions, he/she will be able to
implement a certain approach. This reasoning represents what the teacher
believes. The influence of these contextual beliefs have been exemplified in
studies by Feldman (2000), Johnson, Monk, and Swain (2000), Lumpe et al.
(2000), and van Driel, Beijaard, and Verloop (2001).
Contextual beliefs deal with such issues as the need for increased provision of
resources, increased time and greater support from administration. It is the
stated belief of the teacher that if, for example, more resources were provided
he or she would be able to teach in the manner expected. Lumpe et al. (2000)
referred to these beliefs as contextual factors and identified twenty-eight
factors that would be likely to impact upon teachers’ performance in teaching
science. These twenty-eight factors were what Lumpe et al. referred to as the
enabling belief of the individual teacher to assist him or her to implement a
more effective science program. The factors that were presented by Lumpe et
al. were not tested. They were only identified as likely factors that, according
to the teachers, would improve their teaching. Five of the twenty-eight
contextual factors (beliefs) of Lumpe et al.’s study stood out in this research.
These were beliefs about: time, science equipment, professional development,
teacher support and administrative support.
The lack of time and the need for more science resources have been a common
argument for the lack of implementation of science in the classroom. The
provision of resources and time were two recommendations of the Goodrum,
Hackling, and Rennie (2001) report. A study reported by Lumpe et al. (2000)
212
found that the teachers believed that given more time and resources they would
teach a more effective lesson or make appropriate changes to their lessons.
Having previously had the experience of organising and monitoring resources
as a science coordinator in my previous employment, I decided to monitor the
use of the science equipment of the participating primary school in this
research. In the first and last weeks of my investigations, I checked the
common storeroom that held the science and mathematics equipment. The
storeroom had a full range of science equipment all stacked neatly on metal
shelves. In particular, it was stocked with the Working out of the World science
kits (WOW kits) for lower primary classes (Diezmann & Watters, 1997) and
the Chem Kits for middle and upper primary classes (Science Education for
Public Understanding Program, 1991). These kits were distributed to all
Queensland state schools in 1998 as a result of teachers expressing a concern
over the lack of science resources to effectively teach science. Upon returning
to the school at the end of the third school term for the last of my data
collection I checked the storeroom to find that very little had changed. By
checking the borrowing records for the past semester that had been maintained
by the teacher aide, it was found that of the forty-six classroom teachers only
three teachers had borrowed any science equipment. Of these, one was a
participant in this research. There was no record that the WOW kits (Diezmann
& Watters, 1997) were borrowed and only one Chem kit had been borrowed.
This outcome confirmed that the additional provision science resources as a
contributing factor does not necessarily have any bearing on the effectiveness
of teaching of science at this primary school.
In the secondary school, Sonia used the fact that the laboratory assistants had
the last say in the equipment, as her excuse for not being able to teach science
in a certain manner:
Sonia: We need to give the lab assistants two days notice. You have to get it past the lab assistants. (p. 144)
Sonia’s excuse does not appear to be an appropriate justification for not
implementing her science lessons in the manner of her expressed beliefs. The
reason was confirmed by one of the three secondary science teachers whom I
213
had video taped and who was accused by a student of not teaching science in a
certain way all the time. Judy’s statement to Sonia revisits this event:
Judy: When I was observing one of your lessons a student said to me, “She doesn’t always teach like this, only when you’re in the room.” (p. 108)
This particular science teacher ensured that all the science equipment was there
prior to the lesson. The action of this teacher demonstrated that if a teacher
chose to implement a certain approach he/she will not allow lack of or
inaccessibility to science equipment to be an excuse. Judy in the dialogue gives
an alternative reason why a teacher may not teach science in a certain manner:
Judy: I don’t think I’ll be doing science tomorrow. It takes a lot of preparation. (p. 144)
It was not that Judy did not have the equipment but because either she had
enough for the week and wanted an easy lesson for the next day or did not want
to take the time to prepare for the science lesson.
Time was the other contextual factor (belief) (Lumpe et al., 2000) that is often
used by teachers as a reason for not completing all the planning and
implementation of the outcomes. In this study the primary teachers had less
time than the secondary science teachers to plan and implement outcomes
education program. The primary teachers had one day to plan for six subjects
including science whereas the secondary teachers had two days to plan for one
subject. The primary teachers are normally given two hours a week for non-
contact time for their individual planning and assessment while the secondary
teachers are given three and a half hours. The time factor for Sonia and Tony
made no difference in the implementation of the science syllabus:
Sonia: Yes we had two full days at the end of the term. All of the science teachers were given time out from class teaching at the end last week of the school year to do planning. (p.127)
Tony: We only had a day on the pupil free day to do all our planning. (p. 127)
Yet, without closely monitoring teachers’ time management it is not possible to
say conclusively that time is or is not a factor in the implementation of the
science syllabus. Nevertheless, given the above findings, a reasonable
argument is that time and in particular resources may be unlikely factors to
214
have influenced the expressed beliefs of these teachers. While teachers, in
general, may state that certain contextual factors (Lumpe et al., 2000) will
improve their science instruction, there is no guarantee of this change occurring
within the classroom, as has been seen in this research.
There are three other contextual factors (beliefs) provided by Lumpe et al.
(2000) that closely relate to the issue of on-going teacher support. They are:
professional development, teacher support and administrative support. These
three contextual factors demonstrate the need for some form of on-going
support that makes a connection with what is taking place in the classroom and
the teacher’s knowledge (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001).
The need for on-going professional support was made clear in the last section
of the dialogue and Judy’s statement sums up the desire of teachers to engage
in such professional support:
Judy: You know I’ve enjoyed these sessions. It’s not often that you get to hear what others think about teaching science or any other subject. (p. 150)
The teachers in this research expressed the need for this type of support as
apposed to the one off professional development sessions that they had
participated in previously. The research findings suggest that existing
occasional professional development programs were limited in effectiveness
and did not address the issues and concerns of such teachers as Sonia:
Sonia: I honestly don’t believe that the professional development I did has adequately prepared me for the changes to the new science syllabus. (p. 151)
This finding concurs with the Peers (2000), Peers, Diezmann, and Watters
(2003), Garet et al. (2001), and the Goodrum et al. (2001) reports, all of which
found that teachers do need ongoing organised professional support. Therefore
the contextual belief of on-going professional support may have some
influence in changing teacher’s expressed beliefs into becoming manifested
beliefs. The implication for professional support will be further addressed in
the final chapter.
215
7.2.4.3 Goals
A third factor that may contribute to teachers not making expressed beliefs part
of their entrenched and manifested beliefs is the need to provide a goal or
purpose. Ford (1992), in his motivational strategy theory, argued that the link
between goals and personal agency beliefs (capability and contextual beliefs)
needed to be recognised within research. Ford (1992, p. 202) stated,
“Motivation interventions that do not respect the goals, emotions and personal
agency beliefs that a person brings to a situation may produce short term
effects, but in the long run they are likely to fail or backfire.” Teachers, like
every other individual, do not change unless they have a compelling reason to
do so (Ritchie & Rigano, 2002; Schwahn & Spady, 1998). One of the
participants in the focus group sessions establishing referential adequacy said:
One of the biggest problems with professional development is that the provider fails to explain why the session is important. Teachers need to know why.
Some teachers who engage early in an innovation may see the motivating
factor as promotion (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959; Maslow, 1970).
Others who engage in the innovation later may view it as helpful for job
security (Herzberg et al., 1959; Maslow, 1970). Still others may see the
curriculum change as having long-term benefits for the student (Ritchie &
Rigano, 2002; Yager, 1999). These are legitimate motivational reasons for a
teacher wanting to make a change. Conviction, dissatisfaction with the status
quo, security and a sense of belonging will all, in some way motivate the
individual teacher to make a change (Ford, 1992; Herzberg et al., 1959;
Maslow, 1970). Each of these reasons provide a legitimate purpose for
teachers’ expressed beliefs to become eventually teachers’ entrenched and
manifested beliefs.
Therefore, a reasonable conclusion is that teachers’ capability beliefs (Ford,
1992) may provide an explanation as to why the primary and secondary science
teachers’ manifested beliefs are in most cases dissimilar to each other. Further
a reasonable conclusion is that the contextual beliefs of time and the provision
of resources suggested in Lumpe et al. (2000) did not appear to justify why the
expressed beliefs of the participating teachers were not part of their manifested
beliefs. Hence, time or the lack thereof, or access to resources, did not justify
216
why certain expressed beliefs were not enacted in the classroom. However, the
contextual belief for on-going support has been supported by the teachers in
this study. Finally, the primary and secondary teachers appeared to have no
personal goal or purpose to change their expressed beliefs to become part of
their entrenched and manifested beliefs.
7.3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING ARGUMENT
7.3.1 Summary
In this chapter the knowledge filter model has been used to answer the third
research question:
How has the science curriculum taken form or shape through the primary and
secondary teachers’ knowledge?
The knowledge filter has demonstrated how the primary and secondary
teachers shaped the science curriculum through their beliefs: their expressed
beliefs, their entrenched beliefs and their manifested beliefs. The knowledge
filter model provided a framework for the analysis and discussion of the three
sets of teachers’ beliefs.
The knowledge filter model demonstrates that teachers possess a set of
expressed beliefs that are expressed verbally and are at times consciously acted
on. There were four subsets of beliefs that were identified within teachers’
expressed beliefs and these were: platonic beliefs, organisational beliefs,
associated beliefs and transitional beliefs. The expressed beliefs are recognised
as those set of beliefs that could possibly impede the successful
implementation of the curriculum because they provided a false impression that
the implementation of the new curriculum is going as planned. A plausible
explanation as to why teachers’ expressed beliefs were not being consistently
acted on was because of contextual beliefs and goals (Ford, 1992; Lumpe et al.,
2000). One important contextual belief or factor that emerged as a possible
reason why teachers expressed beliefs were not consistently acted on was the
lack of on-going professional support. Time and resources were also
considered as possible contributing factors but an analysis of the data suggests
that they may not be justifiable reasons. The lack of establishing a goal or
217
purpose was also found to be a possible contributing factor as to why teachers’
expressed beliefs did not form part of their entrenched and manifested beliefs.
The second set of beliefs identified were the teachers’ entrenched beliefs.
These entrenched beliefs dealt with teachers’ beliefs concerning the nature of
science and the nature of teaching science. Entrenched beliefs can be addressed
as five questions: What is science? What is the difference between science and
mathematics? What is a science teacher? Why do we teach science? What is
core knowledge or the importance of core knowledge? These questions
revealed that primary and secondary science teachers held similar beliefs
concerning the nature of science and science education. These entrenched
beliefs formed the basis of teachers’ manifested beliefs.
The third set of beliefs was teachers’ manifested beliefs. These beliefs were
found to be beliefs that the teacher acted on as part of his/her daily routine.
They were so much a part of the teacher’s routine of instruction that he/she was
unconscious of their actions until they were pointed out to him or her. This set
of manifested beliefs are demonstrated by the nineteen strategies identified in
the study and are considered as an overt manifestation of teachers’ entrenched
beliefs. A contributing factor that could explain why the primary teachers
manifested beliefs were dissimilar to those of the secondary teachers was
because of what Ford (1992) described as, the teachers’ capability beliefs or
what Bandura (1997) described as perceived self-efficacy beliefs.
7.3.2 Concluding argument
In order to conclude the findings of the research presented in this chapter there
is a need to return to the theoretical proposition proposed in Chapter Two,
which provided the direction for this study.
The theoretical proposition stated:
Primary and secondary teachers because they possess different sets of beliefs
and knowledge bases will enact the new science syllabus in fundamentally
different ways. Their planning, instruction and assessment of students together
with their discourse and dialogue with a third party, will be different,
exhibiting different assumptions about teaching and learning in science.
218
The results of this research require a refinement of the proposition because
primary and secondary teachers do hold similar entrenched beliefs regarding
the nature of science and science education but possess differing manifested
beliefs in the enactment of the curriculum. A possible explanation for this is
that teachers’ entrenched beliefs are impacted by their capability beliefs (Ford,
1992) or self efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and as a result teachers have varied
manifested beliefs or strategies. Hence, these sets of beliefs now serve as either
a motivator or inhibitor for the teacher to teach science in a certain manner. A
refined proposition would therefore be:
Because Primary and secondary teachers respond differently to similar sets of
beliefs and knowledge bases will enact the new science syllabus in
fundamentally different ways. Their planning, instruction and assessment of
students together with their discourse and dialogue with a third party, will be
dissimilar, exhibiting diverse responses to their belief about teaching and
learning in science.
A major implication for this refined proposition is the design of a uniform or
seamless grade one to ten science curriculum. While the intended science
curriculum is written as a seamless document from grades one to ten, the
enactment of that science curriculum demonstrates otherwise. A science
curriculum would be considered seamless when there is uniform adoption of
similar strategies for teaching science from grades one through to ten. Whether
it is the use or non-use of integration, the use of the same assessment strategies,
or the use of a student-centred learning approach as opposed to a content-
focused approach could determine a seamless science curriculum. The structure
of a seamless curriculum would be such that there would be no artificial breaks
between primary and secondary classes in terms of teaching methodology. The
manner in which the secondary teachers teach would be similar to that of the
primary teachers and vice versa. Yet, as this study has demonstrated there is a
gap between the primary and secondary classes created not by the teachers’
dissimilar beliefs, but by how the primary and secondary teachers respond to
the same set of shared beliefs concerning the nature of science and science
teaching. The primary and secondary teachers may agree in principle with the
guidelines and content set down in the curriculum document but their beliefs
219
concerning the nature of science reinforced by their own personal experiences,
will serve as a motivator to teach science in a certain manner. Until the
teachers’ beliefs and their responses to these beliefs are first addressed the
intended seamless curriculum will always remain stitched across.
220
CHAPTER 8 SUPPORTING TEACHERS AND CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT
8.1 PREAMBLE
The purpose of the research was to investigate the impact of teacher knowledge
in primary and secondary schools on new curriculum directions accompanying
a new science syllabus. In particular, the research sought to understand in what
way does the teacher knowledge of primary and secondary teachers differ in
relation to the enactment of the science curriculum and the impact that this
teacher knowledge had. As a result four research questions guided the study:
1. What teacher knowledge has the primary and secondary teachers found
useful to make the science curriculum more meaningful to them?
2. In what way does the teacher knowledge of the primary and secondary
teachers differ in relation to the enactment of the science curriculum?
3. How has the science curriculum taken form or shape through the
primary and secondary teachers’ knowledge?
4. What type of support is necessary to assist the primary and secondary
teachers to manage curriculum change?
Four suppositions emerged from the review of the literature that underpinned
the theoretical framework of this study. First, the intended, designed, science
curriculum changes as it is implemented within the classroom. Second,
teachers shape the intended science curriculum to become the enacted
curriculum within the classroom (Cho, 1998; Snyder et al., 1992). Third,
because science curriculum changes in its implementation, an effective means
of understanding the influences as to why curriculum changes is from an
enactment perspective (Snyder et al., 1992). Fourth, teacher knowledge
influences the shaping of the enacted science curriculum (Feldman, 2000; van
Driel et al., 1997, 2001; Yager, 1999). From these four suppositions the
following theoretical proposition (Yin, 1994) was developed to provide
direction:
221
Primary and secondary teachers, because they possess different sets of beliefs
and knowledge bases, will enact the new science syllabus in fundamentally
different ways. Their planning, instruction and assessment of students, together
with their discourse and dialogue with a third party, will be different exhibiting
different assumptions about teaching and learning in science.
The findings of the research revealed that primary and secondary teachers hold
similar entrenched beliefs but respond to their beliefs in a diverse manner
resulting in dissimilar manifested beliefs or strategies. A synthesis of these
findings will be presented in this chapter together with a discussion of the
implications, recommendations and a response to the last research question.
8.2 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
In this chapter the evaluative stage of educational criticism is presented. A
summary of the research and findings is presented in order to establish a
foundation for the final conclusions of this study to be presented in this
chapter. Second, this chapter will address the fourth research question by
discussing what type of support is necessary to assist the teachers manage
curriculum change. Third, this research will make four recommendations for
future research in the field of teacher beliefs. Finally, the chapter will conclude
with a summary of what this thesis has established and how it may have
produced new knowledge.
8.3 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH AND FINDINGS
In order to provide direction for this chapter it is first necessary to trace the
development of this research. Reviewing the key aspects of each chapter will
demonstrate the essential links to the conclusion and recommendations of the
research.
8.3.1 Summary
In Chapter One science education was identified as having a significant
educational problem, in particular, how will teachers in the state of
Queensland, Australia respond and manage curriculum reform with the
introduction of a new science syllabus?
222
In Chapter Two the literature review revealed that teachers’ knowledge played
an essential role in impacting the science curriculum. It was found that there
was limited research that compared primary and secondary teachers beliefs and
their enactment of the science curriculum. Professional development was found
to be a critical factor in bringing about successful curriculum change and
various models were discussed. A theoretical framework was presented
together with a theoretical proposition, which provided an indispensable
direction for this research.
In Chapter Three, the research methodology educational criticism was
compared and contrasted with other methodologies and found to be an
appropriate methodology to be used in demonstrating how teachers shaped the
science curriculum.
In Chapter Four a detailed documentation of the data collection process and
analysis was provided. It discussed the selection of the participants and the
schools, the process and verification of data collection, the limitations of data
collection and a justification for the data presentation. In particular, Chapter
Four provided an explanation of the process of data analysis: structural
corroboration, consensual validation and referential adequacy.
In Chapter Five the data were presented as a dialogue among three composite
teachers portraying how teachers shaped the science curriculum during the
three phases of implementation: the planning of a science unit, the
implementation of a science unit and the assessment of a science unit. The
dialogue addressed five domains: issues of science education, planning,
implementation, assessment, and professional development. This dialogue was
used to establish referential adequacy of the research and the outcomes of the
referential adequacy process were reported in the epilogue that confirmed the
findings of this research.
In Chapter Six the interpretative stage of educational criticism was presented
and nineteen strategies were identified that demonstrated teachers’ beliefs
which answered the first two research questions. It was found that of these
nineteen strategies only seven were clearly identified as strategies shared by
both primary and secondary teachers. The outcome of identifying this group of
shared strategies demonstrated that while these teachers shared similar beliefs
223
they nevertheless implemented science differently. This chapter also explored
the reasons behind these strategies in order to uncover teacher’s beliefs.
In Chapter Seven the interpretative stage of educational criticism continued the
development of the knowledge filter model and the third question of the
research was answered. Teachers’ expressed, entrenched and manifested
beliefs were demonstrated through the use of the knowledge filter model. Here
the theoretical proposition was addressed and it was found to be a variation
different to what had been expected. The primary and secondary teachers did
possess similar sets of beliefs and knowledge bases and these sets of beliefs
and knowledge bases served as either a motivator or as a inhibitor to teach
science in the manner that they did.
8.3.2 Findings
There were nineteen strategies that were identified in this research of which
only seven were shared between the primary and secondary teachers. These
shared strategies were: collaborative planning of units of work between
colleagues, the use of teacher or student text in the instruction of the lesson,
matching and modifying outcomes to suit a unit of work, the use or limited
amount of resources, maintaining a written record where students recorded in
detail notes provided by the class teacher, the reading and comprehension of a
science reference, and the importance of using the correct scientific
terminology by the student.
There were four strategies that were partially shared by either the primary or
secondary teachers. These were: classroom discussion, group and cooperative
learning, hands on activities and the use of written tests strategies. Partially
shared strategies were those strategies that the primary teachers made
occasional use of, while the secondary teachers incorporated the strategy as
part of their regular teaching practice and vice versa for the primary teachers.
For example, the use of written tests, was used by both primary and secondary
but more so by the secondary teachers, as tests were viewed as an authentic,
recognised means of assessment by industry and public. Partially shared
strategies were also those strategies that the primary and secondary teachers
agreed to in principle, but their implementation of the strategy varied. For
224
example, this was demonstrated in classroom discussion, group work, and the
hands on strategy. In classroom discussion the secondary teachers tended to
direct the student discussion through the use of the student textbooks while the
primary teachers provided a more open discussion but at times equally
directing the discussion through the use of a science reference book. The use of
group work by the secondary teachers was restricted to the laboratory activities
and students were not directed in the group work whereas, the primary teachers
on the other hand, taught the students how to work as a group and valued group
work as part of the learning process. The use of hands on strategy was equally
valued by both the primary and secondary teachers but the secondary teachers
placed a greater emphasis on learning the theory while the primary used the
hands on as a strategy to avoid focusing on the theoretical aspect of the
science.
There were two strategies that neither the primary or secondary science
teachers used. These were the use of establishing prior knowledge before
commencing a unit of work with the students and the provision of
remediation/extension for those students who required some assistance or
challenge. These two strategies were identified as a set of expressed beliefs
held by the primary and secondary science teachers. They were expressed
beliefs because they were not consistently implemented. In the case of the
strategy prior knowledge, the teachers did not appear to fully appreciate the
value of establishing prior knowledge and nor could they reconcile it with their
existing teaching practice. In the case of the strategy providing
remediation/extension, there was no just cause to provide remediation or
extension. It was the perception of the primary teachers that those in authority
and parents included, that remediation and extension provision in science was
not a high priority so why be concerned. The secondary science teachers’
perception was that remediation was the responsibility of someone else and the
gifted students will learn regardless. As a result, these two expressed beliefs
inversely demonstrated the teachers’ entrenched beliefs of remediation and
provision for extension work for students, was less valued which were affirmed
in the in-action of teachers’ manifested beliefs (strategies).
225
It was also found that the primary teachers used all the strategies employed by
the secondary teachers except the secondary teachers relied more heavily on
the use of tests for assessment. There were six strategies that were found not to
be used by the secondary teachers but used by the primary teachers and these
were: amalgamation of outcomes, negotiation of outcomes, integration,
presentation of students’ work, bookwork and observations. The amalgamation
and negotiation of outcomes were a management strategy used by the primary
teachers in dealing with the outcomes approach to learning. The secondary
teachers did not use amalgamation of outcomes or negotiation of outcomes
because they allocated the three outcome level statements of the science
syllabus to the three-year levels years eight, nine and ten. The use of the
strategy integration as a valuable tool for learning was not a view held by
either the primary or secondary teachers. Integration was used only by the
primary teachers for planning. The primary teachers viewed integration as a
mechanism to achieve numerous outcomes in one unit of work and hence only
used integration during their planning and not in the implementation of the
unit. For assessment the secondary teachers relied on written tests to monitor
student progress, but the primary teachers relied on a combination of
bookwork, observation and written tests for assessment. The primary teachers
were of the view that in order to obtain a better understanding of the students’
progress there needed to be assessment undertaken at different points of the
students’ learning. The secondary teachers were of the view that tests are
always part of assessment throughout formal education.
By identifying strategies that were shared or used by one group of teachers and
not the other group of teachers or not used at all by either group demonstrated
that whilst, these teachers shared the similar beliefs, they nevertheless
implemented science differently through their strategies. These nineteen
strategies then demonstrated the teachers’ beliefs concerning the nature of
science and science teaching. It was found that the use of written record, the
reading and comprehension strategy, the use of teacher and student text,
written tests, the lack of determining prior knowledge, the emphasis on the use
of correct terminology, matching and modifying the syllabus and whether or
not to integrate and for what purpose, all emphasised the value that the
teachers placed upon learning a certain body of scientific knowledge.
226
The findings also demonstrated that while the primary and secondary teachers
did hold similar entrenched beliefs, their manifested beliefs, as demonstrated
by their strategies, in some instances were different. This outcome resulted in a
modification to the theoretical proposition that primary and secondary teachers
do possess similar sets of beliefs but at the same time enact the syllabus in
different ways. These entrenched beliefs held by teachers had an impact on the
strategies of the teachers and in turn impacted on the shaping of the science
curriculum. The knowledge filter model in Figure 7.1 illustrated what was
taking place with teachers’ beliefs. The knowledge filter was divided into three
sections: teachers’ expressed beliefs, teachers’ entrenched beliefs and teachers’
manifested beliefs.
The first part of the knowledge filter was the teachers’ expressed beliefs. The
teachers expressed beliefs became evident during interviews or focus group
sessions when the teachers expressed certain beliefs but, these beliefs were not
followed through in the implementation of the science lesson and, if they were,
it was done for a stated purpose such as the videotaping of a lesson. These
beliefs were then referred to as expressed beliefs. Such beliefs are expressed
verbally and are at times consciously acted upon. Within teachers’ expressed
beliefs there was identified four subtypes: platonic expressed beliefs, ideal
beliefs expressed by the individual; organisational beliefs, beliefs imposed
upon the individual by the organisation; associated beliefs, beliefs not fully
understood by the individual but are associated with an existing entrenched
belief; and transitional beliefs, beliefs that are both expressed verbally and at
times acted upon with a limited degree of success.
This classification of expressed beliefs became useful in sorting through the
beliefs of the teachers and determining if such a belief was either an expressed
belief or an entrenched belief. Often when the teachers were challenged as to
why they had not implemented their expressed beliefs the response was either
the lack of time or resources. Further questioning with the individual teacher
and the other teachers provided some understanding of the reasoning behind a
teacher’s entrenched beliefs as to why he or she had not implemented his/her
stated expressed beliefs. The expressed beliefs were often found to be a set of
227
beliefs that the teacher would ideally desire to adopt but he or she was
unwilling to make certain sacrifices in order to do so.
The second part of the knowledge filter is teachers’ entrenched beliefs. The
domain of teachers’ entrenched beliefs dealt with beliefs concerning the nature
of science and science teaching with questions such as: What is science? Why
teach science? What makes a good science teacher and what is the importance
of core knowledge? It was found that the teachers shared similar set of beliefs
concerning the nature of science and science teaching. These identified
entrenched beliefs provided reasons for teachers’ strategies or a reason for not
implementing expressed beliefs. The teachers would refer back to their
entrenched beliefs as justification for their teaching strategies.
The third part of the knowledge filter was teachers’ manifested beliefs. The
manifested beliefs were an outworking of the teachers’ entrenched beliefs and
were exemplified by the identified nineteen strategies in Chapter Six that the
teachers used to implement the science curriculum. It was reasonable to assume
that if a group of teachers possessed a similar set of entrenched beliefs they
would possess similar manifested beliefs. Yet in this research, this proposition
was found not to be the case. The difference lay in the fact that these two
groups of teachers viewed their shared entrenched beliefs of science either as a
motivator or as a inhibitor to teach science in a certain manner. The secondary
science teachers saw their beliefs as a motivation to teach science in the
manner that they did, while the primary teachers saw their beliefs as an
inhibitor to teach science in the manner that they did. Consequently, some of
the teaching strategies were different. This outcome supports Bandura’s (1997)
statement that people’s beliefs have varied or diverse effects on their
behaviour. Therefore in order to reconcile the divergent responses to teachers’
entrenched beliefs it may be necessary to provide a professional support system
that also focuses on teachers’ beliefs.
8.4 IMPLICATIONS
One research question remains to be answered that relates to the implications
of the findings of this research:
228
What type of support is necessary to assist the primary and secondary teachers
to manage curriculum change?
Professional support was a major concern for the teachers in this research. The
teachers repeatedly expressed the need for ongoing, organised and consistent
professional development. Judy and Sonia both expressed the need for a
professional development program that allowed them to share and discuss
ideas. Yet at the same time, the teachers, as exemplified by the comments of
Judy and Sonia, wanted external professional support outside their school, a
support that was on-going:
Judy: What we need in professional development is for someone to explain what the outcomes actually do mean. (p. 152)
Sonia: No. What we need is to swap ideas. (p. 151)
Judy: There is no systematic professional development program. (p. 153)
Sonia: The system wants us to change but it’s not supporting change? (p. 153)
The lack of support provided to the participants for professional development
of this research was evident throughout the whole curriculum implementation
process. The final section of the dialogue demonstrated that the teachers were
disillusioned with the existing professional development programs. The data
that emerged from the study indicated that the teachers desired a form of
ongoing professional development that involves reflective dialogue among
colleagues and a supportive mechanism from outside. The process of
referential adequacy confirmed the views of the teachers. Other teachers who
had participated during the referential adequacy process supported this
disillusionment:
We are forced to rush into something without examining it. Change by tomorrow. Just do it. Right I will.
One of the academics who participated in a focus group during the referential
adequacy process and who was partly responsible for drafting the new science
syllabus concurred with the teachers’ perceptions:
It got me angry. Well not angry, frustrated because I know I am committed to the approach that is in these documents and you just see that it is messed up through a lack of support.
229
There is the perception of those in leadership that teachers will readily embrace
change without question. Schwahn and Spady (1998) stated that teachers must
be provided with a reason to change before any realistic change can take place.
Unfortunately this does not always happen. The change process is seen as
something linear, passed down from the government and administrators to be
implemented by the classroom teacher without question (Richardson & Placier,
2001).
Perhaps it is time that curriculum developers recognised the need to reform
current professional development practices to ensure curriculum change
(Briscoe & Wells, 2002; Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001; Johnson et al.,
2000; Peers, 2000; Peers, Diezmann, & Watters 2003). The research has
indirectly reaffirmed the need for re-examining professional development as an
essential ingredient for curriculum change (Briscoe & Wells, 2002; Fetters,
Czerniak, Fish, & Shawberry, 2002; Johnson et al., 2000; Goodrum et al.,
2001; Peers, 2000 Peers et al., 2003).
In order to bring about change, professional development needs not only to
focus on skills and information but also to focus on existing teacher beliefs.
Professional development needs to engage teachers in reflecting on their beliefs
and teaching practices and the relationship of their beliefs with that of the new
curriculum. This change could be achieved through ongoing coherent support
which involves professional dialogue, reflective teaching and coaching (Costa
& Garmston, 1994; Eggers & Clark, 2000; Fetters et al., 2002; Garet, Porter,
Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Ritchie & Rigano, 2002; Zeus &
Skiffington, 2002).
A plausible explanation as to why teachers in this study failed to embrace the
new the curriculum initiatives is because the teachers’ beliefs have not been
reconciled with that of the new curriculum. The teachers are told to change but
do not understand why as exemplified by a statement made by one of the
participating teachers: “Change by tomorrow. Just do it. Right, I will.” As a
result of this imposed change the teachers have used certain strategies as shown
in Chapter Six, saying either by association, “We have done this before or
we’ve seen this before” or they will use strategies such as matching and
modifying the syllabus to suit their own instructional purposes. The teachers
230
will simply modify aspects of their planning document to show compliance and
return to their classroom and continue as before. The perception by Sonia and
Tony was that professional development did not adequately address the
concerns of teachers and was ad-hoc or as an adjunct to the change process:
Sonia: I honestly don’t believe that the professional development I did has adequately prepared me for the changes to the new science syllabus. (p. 151)
Tony: Professional development is pretty ad-hoc. A bit here and a bit there nothing organised nothing planned. (p. 153)
In order to address these concerns for curriculum change, the knowledge filter
model could be used as a tool in designing effective on-going professional
development in meeting the needs of the teachers in addressing curriculum
change. The knowledge filter model may provide the coach or professional
developer a framework in which he/she can analyse the beliefs and practices of
teachers and thereby address the fundamental beliefs of the individual in the
change process. The knowledge filter would provide a framework for the
professional provider and the teacher to reflect on the change process that is
taking place. Utilising the knowledge filter model as a professional
development tool will be later discussed in Section 8.7.
8.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
There are four limitations to this study that set the domain and interpretation of
the results of this study:
First, this research was not concerned with a view to seeing a shift in paradigm
of teachers’ beliefs while enacting a new science syllabus. The research
focused on the represented forms of teacher knowledge and how those
represented forms: teacher expressed beliefs, entrenched beliefs and manifested
beliefs reshaped the science curriculum.
Second, when interpreting the results of this study it needs to be remembered
that the study confined itself to the introduction of the new science syllabus in
the state of Queensland, Australia and focused upon one primary and one
secondary school in south Brisbane and hence it is locally based and context
specific.
231
Third, because the study is local and focused on only two small groups of
teachers from two schools the teacher knowledge generated from this study is
contextually based (Hiebert et al., 2002). The teacher knowledge within its
represented forms of expressed beliefs, entrenched beliefs and manifested
beliefs may vary with other schools and other curricula. Nevertheless the
teacher knowledge generated from this study has been verified with other
teachers and educators through the process of referential adequacy. Hence the
methodology used in this research has enabled certain generalisations
concerning teachers’ knowledge thereby making a contribution to the body of
knowledge.
Fourth, for the teacher knowledge in this research to become professional
knowledge (Hiebert et al., 2002) referential adequacy will need to be ongoing,
read and verified by other educators.
8.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
Five recommendations have emerged from this study:
First, this study has demonstrated that government and educational authorities
need to address current policy regarding professional development.
Professional development is not to be seen as an adjunct in the reform process
but as a tool for continued professional growth. In order to achieve successful
curriculum change educational authorities need to value professional
development as a part of the ongoing professional growth of teachers. To
achieve this there needs to be more ongoing systematic structured support over
a sustained period of time in the form of professional dialogue facilitated by an
external coach or mentor.
Second, there is need for more research into the application of the knowledge
filter model as a tool for professional development. This model presents a
theoretical framework from which the professional developer, coaches and
teachers can explore teachers’ beliefs and practices in order to bring about
change. As a professional development tool its effectiveness needs to be
evaluated. Most professional development models have focused on the overall
change of the organisation whereas this model seeks first to bring about change
at the individual level.
232
Third, in order for the teacher knowledge in this research to become
professional knowledge it needs to be further verified. The teacher knowledge
in this research can continue to be verified through the process of referential
adequacy where the dialogue in Chapter Five is presented to various educators
from various curriculum areas and locations for analysis and feedback. This
analysis and feedback can then be used to confirm or reassess the teacher
knowledge presented in this research thereby establishing a sound body of
teacher professional knowledge in curriculum development.
Fourth, this research highlighted the need for continued investigation into the
impact of teachers’ beliefs on curriculum reform from an enactment
perspective. Specifically, there needs to be more research that will compare
teachers’ beliefs in and across other curriculum domains in order to identify
commonalities of beliefs that exist between teachers. This comparison of
teacher beliefs will be beneficial in the development of a uniform or seamless
grade one to grade ten curriculum.
Fifth, in order to understand the formation and development of entrenched and
manifested beliefs of teachers a longitudinal study of the development of
teachers’ beliefs needs to be undertaken. This can be achieved by using the
knowledge filter model that would be useful to track the professional growth of
pre-service or first year teachers through to their third and fifth years of
teaching.
8.7 MODEL FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
One of the outcomes of this study was to establish a theoretical model of
professional development to enable curriculum developers to better assist
teachers to deal with curriculum change. The knowledge filter model together
with the four guidelines presented below can be used to achieve this outcome.
The four guidelines were developed to demonstrate how the knowledge filter
model could be used as a tool for bringing about change in teachers’ beliefs.
The knowledge filter model will provide a means whereby teachers can reflect
on their beliefs and teaching practices over a period of time and initiate their
own change.
233
8.7.1 Four guidelines for professional development
This study has demonstrated that teachers possess three sets of beliefs:
expressed beliefs, entrenched beliefs and manifested beliefs. The expressed
beliefs are the ideals of the individual and organisation, some of which are
beliefs in transition. The entrenched beliefs are those sets of beliefs that have to
do with the nature of the subject and nature of teaching that subject. These
entrenched beliefs are the foundation of teachers’ manifested beliefs. The
manifested beliefs are those sets of beliefs that are acted upon or not acted
upon unconsciously within the planning, teaching and evaluation of a unit of
work. Therefore, in order to bring about effective curriculum change
professional development first needs to incorporate strategies to identify and
understand teachers’ expressed, entrenched and manifested beliefs. This can be
achieved through using the knowledge filter model to analyse teacher dialogue
and classroom observation. The knowledge filter model can then be used as a
discussant with the teachers to analyse their beliefs and how those beliefs relate
to the new curriculum to be implemented. The next challenge will be to change
the identified expressed beliefs into manifested entrenched beliefs. The four
guidelines will now be discussed.
8.7.1.1 Making a sacrifice
First, for an expressed belief to become a manifested belief and thereby
become an entrenched belief the teacher needs to make a sacrifice. This
sacrifice solidifies the expressed belief to become an entrenched belief. To
achieve this may require a sacrifice of time and self-image. For example, in the
case of the primary teacher to acknowledge a lack of understanding in science
is a sacrifice of self-image especially when using a constructivist approach.
Even the secondary teacher runs a risk of losing self-image by not knowing all
there is to know in science and by allowing students to ask questions outside
his/her science content knowledge domain. Another example is the use of a
constructivist approach to learning when the teacher seeks to understand
students’ prior knowledge. For a teacher to enact this requires the teacher to
sacrifice his/her pre-planned lesson, and acknowledge that there is something
more important to teach than the body of knowledge that he or she had
234
prepared. Constructivism poses this challenge. Is the knowledge that I as
teacher, wish to impart, relevant to the needs of my students in order for them
to become scientifically literate citizens or, is the relevance of that knowledge
dependent on what the student needs to know for next year’s science lessons?
For constructivism to become an entrenched belief the teachers must make this
sacrifice. Still another example is the use of integration in the classroom. Here
the teacher’s value placed on a certain body of science content knowledge is
being questioned. Sonia in Chapter Five clearly illustrates this point by saying;
Sonia: … I am opposed, to this sort of integrating approach at the secondary level because it leads to bad science teaching. (p. 131)
For science to be integrated Sonia will need first to make a sacrifice of her
belief. Sonia will need first to see the value of integration and its benefits.
8.7.1.2 Teachers understanding their own beliefs
Second, there is a need for the professional development provider and the
teachers to understand and differentiate between the teachers’ expressed,
entrenched and manifested beliefs. In particular, identify the set of transitional
beliefs, found within the expressed beliefs, and to compare these transitional
beliefs with changes being implemented. Such an approach will require time,
teacher dialogue and classroom observation. Time needs to be spent listening
and discussing with teachers their views and ideas about teaching and learning
of a particular subject (Briscoe & Wells, 2002). This lack of time for
evaluation and reflection was indicated during the interviews and, in particular,
with the focus group sessions of this research:
We are forced to rush into something without examining it. Change by tomorrow. Just do it. Right I will. (p. 154)
It is necessary for teachers to understand the new intervention and allow them
time to interpret it in terms of their existing entrenched and manifested beliefs.
This approach would form the basis of constructive reflective dialogue
(Fischer, 2001; Guskey, 1998; Moallem, 1997; Peers, 2000; Peers et al.,
2003).
235
8.7.1.3 Making a connection with the teachers’ beliefs
Third, there is a need to identify the manifested beliefs that can be associated
with the new curriculum or teaching approach. For example, the use of hands
on strategy or experiential learning to be associated with what Gil-Pérez et al.
(2002) defined in constructivism as, the student becoming “the novice
researcher.” By utilising this approach teachers will begin to use aspects of
constructivism in the classroom and constructivism will thereby become a
transitional belief. Over time with positive experiences and support from an
external coach (Zeus & Skiffington, 2002) the teacher will make the
transitional belief of constructivism an entrenched manifested belief. By
finding a common agreement between the instigator of change and the
recipient of change may limit the resistance to change. In essence, using the
constructivist approach as a tool for the coach and teacher to make a
connection with that of the teachers’ classroom experience (Abdal-Haqq,
1996).
8.7.1.4 Effective dialogue with an external coach or mentor
Fourth, effective teacher dialogue that is facilitated by an external coach or
mentor will support teachers’ change of transitional beliefs to entrenched
beliefs. External coaching or mentoring is necessary in this process because it
provides an outside view of the change process not readily seen by the
participants (Costa & Garmston, 1994; Eggers & Clark, 2000; Kirwan-Taylor,
2000; Whitmore, 1996; Zeus & Skiffington, 2002). Teachers, like Judy, need
reassurance and guidance from an outsider who identifies and understands their
situation:
Judy: What we need in professional development is for someone to explain what the outcomes actually do mean. How to put them together. (p. 152)
The need for reassurance was made evident during the interviews and focus
group sessions. On a number of occasions, as well as during the two focus
sessions the participants asked the researcher, “What do you think? Are we on
the right track?” These questions were raised because there was a mutual
confidence, respect and trust between the participants and the researcher. The
researcher, though an outsider, was seen as a fellow teacher who understood
236
the concerns of teachers but at the same time was seen as a person who could
provide professional guidance. During the interviews and focus sessions it
became evident to the teachers themselves that they were also critically
reflecting on their teaching in relation to the expectations of the new
curriculum. This reflective teaching approach is well documented
(Cardellichio, 1997; Hosking & Teberg, 1999; Moallem, 1997; Peers, 2000;
Peers et al., 2003; Ritchie & Rigano, 2002; Scottish Council for Research in
Education, 1995). However, contrary to the findings of Ritchie and Rigano,
(2002) the teachers in this research demonstrated through the dialogue that they
were at a loss to address their concerns without outside guidance. This was also
evident in Peers’ (2000) research where the participant clearly highlighted the
valued supportive role of the researcher as a mentor. The shortcoming of
professional dialogue between peers is that without guidance teachers might
merely continue to reinforce existing styles of teaching and or misinterpret the
strategy or concept that is being introduced. The dialogue in Chapter Five
demonstrated teachers doing just that. In order to avoid teachers reinforcing
their existing teaching styles an outside coach can be very helpful. Peer
coaching/mentoring provides the collegial support while external
coaching/mentoring provides the guidance and unbiased critical appraisal
(Awaya et al., 2003; Costa & Garmston, 1994; Eggers & Clark, 2000; Kirwan-
Taylor, 2000; Whitmore, 1996; Zeus & Skiffington, 2002).
8.8 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE
The main purpose of this thesis has been accomplished. The research
investigated the impact of teacher knowledge represented as teachers’ beliefs
systems in primary and secondary schools on new curriculum directions
accompanying a new science syllabus. In particular it sought to identify and
understand the existing core beliefs of teachers concerning pedagogy and how
these beliefs impacted on the reshaping of the science curriculum. Furthermore
this research established a model of professional development and growth to
enable curriculum developers to better assist teachers to deal with curriculum
change. From this the thesis has made four contributions to knowledge: the
field of research methodology, the field of teacher knowledge, organisational
change and professional development.
237
In the field of research methodology this thesis has been able to contribute to
the body of knowledge by taking educational criticism (Eisner, 1991) and
demonstrating a unique approach to the use of structural corroboration,
consensual validation and referential adequacy. It has taken the stages of
educational criticism: the descriptive, the interpretative and the evaluative and
used them as a reporting framework for the development of this thesis. To
enhance the descriptive stage of educational criticism the data were presented
through the use of dialogue in keeping with the literary approach to that of
educational criticism (Barone, 2000). The interpretative and evaluative stages
were enhanced through the use of a knowledge filter model.
In the field of teacher knowledge (Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001) this thesis
has sought to bring a better understanding of the beliefs of primary and
secondary teachers and how they are similar. The thesis has successfully
demonstrated that primary and secondary teacher participants in this study have
similar beliefs in science education, thus removing the myth that primary and
secondary teachers beliefs are different because their teaching strategies are
different. The thesis has created new knowledge in the field of teachers’ beliefs
by providing a knowledge filter model that can be utilised in any curriculum
area. The knowledge filter model is generic in concept and can be utilised as a
conceptual framework to explore a range of teachers’ beliefs within the domain
of teacher knowledge in other curricula areas. Furthermore, because of the
knowledge filter’s generic structure it has potential application in other
industries where there is a need to explore the beliefs and practices of
employees.
This thesis has contributed to the body of knowledge in the field of
organisational change (Ford, 1992; Fullan, 1993; Hargreaves et al., 1998;
Kotter, 1996, 1998; Lewin, 1952) by providing a change process model that
takes place within the individual and not just at the organisational level. Much
of the literature has focused on organisational change stemming back to
Lewin’s (1952) theory of change whereas this thesis has provided a model that
focuses on the change process within the individual. As a result, this thesis has
addressed the issue of better understanding teacher’s beliefs and how to bring
238
about changing those individual’s beliefs through the use of the knowledge
filter model.
Finally, this thesis has contributed to the body of knowledge in the field of
professional development (Guskey, 1998; van Driel, Beijaard, & Verloop,
2001) for teachers by demonstrating the need for on-going support in the form
of an external coach (Costa & Garmston, 1994; Kirwan-Taylor, 2000; Zeus &
Skiffington, 2002). Once again there is literature that advocates on-going
teacher support in the form of professional coaching/mentoring but there is
limited research that has demonstrated this need, or a theoretical framework
that provides such support. The knowledge filter model provides such a
framework for professional development where teachers are able to critically
reflect upon their own teaching practice.
8.9 CONCLUDING STATEMENT
While no one teacher’s experience is exactly alike, it has been demonstrated
throughout this research and confirmed through referential adequacy that the
dialogue and the analysis of these three composite teachers Sonia, Tony and
Judy characterised what is currently taking place in many schools today. The
dialogue presented in Chapter Five followed by its analysis in Chapters Six and
Seven meets the criteria that Hiebert et al. (2002) identifies as meeting the
requirements of professional knowledge. The dialogue is linked to teacher
practice. The dialogue is detailed, concrete and specific (Hiebert et al., 2002)
enough for other teachers and those specialised in the field of science education
to identify with. This was confirmed during the referential adequacy process. It
is therefore, reasonable to say that the only way for these teachers’ experiences
to make a contribution toward future curriculum development is to recognise
their collective experience as a body of professional knowledge that impacts on
a range of curriculum development initiatives.
There is a growing recognition of the need to recognise the impact of teacher
knowledge. For instance, near the completion of this research a similar study
by Haney and McArthur (2002) was published. The study by Haney and
McArthur served to demonstrate that the findings of this thesis are consistent
with current thought and research into teacher knowledge. Haney and
239
McArthur sought to establish whether or not teachers’ beliefs were consistent
with that of classroom teaching practice. The outcome of their investigation
revealed that teachers were operating out of two sets of beliefs: the peripheral,
those sets of beliefs that were expressed by the teacher and not acted upon and
the central beliefs, those that were acted upon. The theoretical framework of
Haney and Mc Arthur supports the knowledge filter model developed in this
research. It further illustrates that there is a growing recognition within the
field of research that teachers often express a set of beliefs but these beliefs are
seldom acted upon. This insight into the teachers’ knowledge can assist future
curriculum developers in the design and structure of curriculum. The
experiences of teachers as presented in this research will assist those concerned
with providing more effective professional development and thereby result in
more effective teaching and learning.
Finally there are four conclusions that can be drawn from this thesis:
Primary and secondary teachers demonstrated three sets of beliefs; expressed
beliefs, entrenched beliefs and manifested beliefs. The effect of each of these
sets of beliefs needs to be recognised in order to bring about effective
curriculum change.
It was further established that while primary and secondary teachers in this
research possessed similar sets of entrenched beliefs and knowledge bases,
these sets of beliefs and knowledge bases served as motivator or an inhibitor to
teach science in the manner that they did.
Therefore, in order to bring about successful curriculum change, there needs to
be a change in the individual teacher’s beliefs and one means of accomplishing
this is through on-going professional development that focuses on not only the
skills and knowledge of the teacher but also the beliefs of the teacher.
Otherwise, what a participant of the referential adequacy process, has
succinctly stated, will repeatedly take place:
“They are bending the syllabus to suit themselves.”
240
REFERENCES
Abbott, J., & Ryan, T. (1999). Constructing knowledge, reconstructing schooling. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 66-69.
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1996). Making time for teacher professional development (Report No. EDO-SP-95-4). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 400 259).
Adams, R., Doig, B., & Rosier, M. (1990). Science learning in Victorian schools: 1990. Melbourne, Vic, Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research.
Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(6), 444-449.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3-16.
Appleton, K., & Harrison, A. (2000, June). Science units that work: Primary school teachers working with outcomes [Web document]. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, 2000. Retrieved, August 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.fed.qut.edu.au/projects/asera
Archer, J. (1999, November) . Teachers' beliefs about successful teaching and learning [Web document]. Paper presented at the combined meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education and the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, 1999. Retrieved August 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/arc99491.htm
Argyris, C. (1998). Teaching smart people how to learn. In (Editor not cited), Harvard business review on knowledge management (pp. 81-108). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Methodology, ethnography and participant observation. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook to qualitative research (pp. 248-261) London: SAGE Publications.
Australian Academy of Science. (1994). Primary investigations. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Academy of Science.
ASTEC-Australian Science Technology and Engineering Council. (1997). Foundations for Australia's future: Science and technology in primary schools. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved, August 8, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.astec.gov.au/index.html
241
Australian Education Council. (1989, December 29). The Hobart declaration on schooling (1989) [Web document]. MCEETYA-Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, training and Youth Affairs. Retrieved August 8, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/mceetya/hobdec.htm
Awaya, A., McEwan, H., Heyler, D., Linsky, S., Lum, D., & Wakukawa, P. (2003). Mentoring as a journey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 45-56.
Ayer, A. J. (1956). The problem of knowledge. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Bambino, D. (2002). Critical friends. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 25-26.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Barone, T. (2000). Aesthetics, politics and educational inquiry: Essays and examples. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Beh, M. (2000, June 17). Teachers deny allegations of syllabus bias. Courier Mail, pp. 15.
Benham, B. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 24-32.
Berryman, J. W. (1996). Re-centering Christian communication for children: The parables (kindergarten, fifth-grade). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ.
Bloom, L. R. (1998). Under the sign of hope: State University of New York Press.
Bol, L., Nunnery, J., Stephenson, P., & Mogge, K. (2000). Changes in teachers' assessment practices in the new American schools restructuring models. Teaching and Change, 7(2), 127-146.
Boston, K. (1999). Modern times and Australian curriculum [Web document]. Paper presented at the Curriculum Corporation 6th National Conference 1999. Retrieved March 13, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/mceetya/nationalgoals
Brice, A. P. (1998). The relationship among school climate, teacher job satisfaction, and selected demographic variables in selected high schools in the South Mississippi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi.
Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teacher's beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 49-58.
Briscoe, C., & Wells, E. (2002). Reforming primary science assessment practices: A case study of one teacher's professional development through action research. Science Education, 86(3), 417 - 435.
Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
242
Cardellichio, T. (1997). The lab school. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(10), 785-788.
Cho, J. (1998, April). Rethinking curriculum implementation: Paradigms, models and teachers' work. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 421 767).
Clark, J. C. (1999, November 29). Current primary science practice: Observing what actually happens in the classroom [Web document]. Paper presented at the combined meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education and the New Zealand Association for Research in Education,1999. Retrieved August 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/cri99532.htm
Clough, M. P. (2000). The nature of science: Understanding how the game of science is played. The Clearing House, 74(1), 13-17.
Colburn, A. (2000). Constructivism: Science education's grand unifying theory. The Clearing House, 74(1), 9-12.
Cooper, P., & McIntyre, D. (1996). Effective teaching and learning. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Corno, L. (2000). Looking at homework. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 529-548.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (1994). Cognitive coaching; A foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Crocker, R. K. (1979). From the curriculum to the classroom: An interview study of teacher perspectives on curriculum change in primary science. Brisbane, Australia: Curriculum Branch Department of Education, Queensland.
Cuban, L. (1992). Curriculum stability and change. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 216-247). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Reforming reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453-477.
Curriculum Corporation (1994a). Science: A curriculum profile for Australian schools, Melbourne, Vic, Australia: Author.
Curriculum Corporation (1994b). Science: A statement on science for Australian schools, Melbourne, Vic, Australia: Author.
Czerniak, C. M., Lumpe, A. T., & Haney, J. (1997, March). Science teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the use of cooperative learning. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL.
Czerniak, C. M., Weber, W. B., Jr., Sandmann, A., & Ahern, J. (1999). A literature review of science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 421-430.
243
Davis, K.S., (2003). Change is hard: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3-30.
Delandshere, G., & Jones, J. H. (1999). Elementary teachers' beliefs about assessment in mathematics: A case of assessment paralysis. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(3), 216-240.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook to qualitative research (pp. 1- 17) London: SAGE Publications.
Department of Education, Queensland. (1966). The Syllabus or course of instruction in primary schools science. Brisbane, Australia: Author.
Department of Education, Queensland. (1981). Syllabus and guidelines for teachers of primary science. Brisbane, Australia: Author.
Department of Education, Queensland. (1982). Primary science sourcebook: Activities for teaching science in Year 3. Brisbane, Australia: Author.
Department of Education, Queensland. (1983). Primary science sourcebook: Activities for teaching science in Year 7. Brisbane, Australia: Author.
Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (1997). Science is working out of the world: A handbook of activities for children and teachers of early childhood science. Brisbane, Qld, Australia: Early Childhood Teachers Association.
Donnelly, J. F. (2000). Secondary science teaching under the national curriculum. School Science Review, 81(296), 27-35
Drucker, P. F. (1995). The changing world of the executive. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Drucker, P. F. (1998). The coming of the new organisation. Editor not cited, Harvard business review on knowledge management (pp. 1-19). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Drucker, P. F. (2002). Managing in the next society. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Eaton, D. G. (1998). Effects of organizational climate on faculty job satisfaction and job stress in a Texas community college district. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, Houston, TX.
Ediger, M. (2000). Philosophy perspectives in teaching Social Studies. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(2), 112-119.
Education Queensland. (1999). Years 1-10 Science professional development and training [CD ROM]. Brisbane, Australia: Author.
Education Queensland. (2000). New basics project technical paper [Web document]. Author. Retrieved August 20, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics
244
Education Queensland. (2001a). New basics: The why, what, how and when of rich tasks. Author. Retrieved October, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics
Education Queensland. (2001b). Quality teacher program strategy document. Author. Retrieved March 15, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://education.qld.gov.au/learning_ent/ldf/qtp/
Edwards, J. L., & Green, K. E. (1999, April). Growth in coaching skills over a three-year period: Progress toward mastery. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 439 114).
Edwards, J. L., Green, K. E., Lyons, C. A., Rogers, M. S., & Swords, M. E. (1998, April). The effects of cognitive coaching and nonverbal classroom management on teacher efficacy and perceptions of school culture. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 439 113).
Eggers, J. H., & Clark, D. (2000). Executive coaching that wins. Ivey Business Journal, 65(1), 66-70.
Eggleston, J. F., Galton, M., & Jones, M. E. (1975). A science teaching observation schedule. London: Macmillan Education.
Eggleston, J. F., Galton, M. J., & Jones, M. E. (1976). Processes and products of science teaching. London: Macmillan Education.
Eisner, E. (1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Eisner, E. W., & Flinders, D. J. (1994). Responses to our critics. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(4), 383-390.
Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
Evans, L. (2002). Delving deeper into morale, job satisfaction and motivation among education professionals. Educational Management & Administration, 29(3), 291-306.
Feldman, A. (2000). Decision making in the practical domain: A model of practical conceptual change. Science Education, 84(5), 606-623.
Fenstermacher, G. (1990). Philosophy of research on teaching. In Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 37-49). London: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Ferman, T., & Page, M. (2000). Beyond product: Materials development as a vehicle for professional growth. Distance Education, 21(2), 323-343.
245
Fetters, M., Czerniak, C. M., Fish, L., & Shawberry, J. (2002). Confronting, challenging, and changing teachers' beliefs: Implications from a local systemic change professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 101-130.
Fischer, J. C. (2001). Action research rationale and planning: Developing a framework for teacher inquiry. In G. Burnaford & J. Fischer & D. Hobson (Eds.), Teachers doing research; The power of action through inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 29-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Fleer, M., & Hardy, T. (1994). The development of a K-3 science program in the context of the national science statement and profile. Research in Science Education, 24, 83-92.
Flinders, D. J., & Eisner, E. W. (1994). Educational criticism as a form of qualitative inquiry. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(4), 341-361.
Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions and personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Foreman, J. B. (Ed.). (1966). Complete works of Oscar Wilde (New edtion 1966 ed.). London: Collins.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappen, 81(8), 581-584.
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Gil-Pérez, D., Guisasola, J., Moreno, A., Cachapuz, A., Pessoa De Carvalho, A. M., Torregrosa, J. M., Salinas, J., Valdés, P., González, E., Duch, A. G., Dumas-Carré, A., Tricárico, H., & Gallego, R. (2002). Defending constructivism in science education. Science and Education, 11, 557-571.
Ginns, I. S., Heirdsfield, A., Atweh, B., & Watters, J. J. (2001). Beginning teachers becoming professionals through action research. Educational Action Research, 9(1), 111-133.
Goldston, J. M., & Shroyer, G. M. (2000). Teachers as researchers: Promoting effective science and mathematics teaching. Teaching and Change, 7(4), 327-346.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools (DETYA No. 6623DRED00A). Canberra, ACT Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA).
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
246
Grundy, T. (1993). Implementing strategic change. London: Kogan Page.
Guskey, T., & Sparks, D. (1999). What to consider when evaluating staff development. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 73-75.
Guskey, T. R. (1998). Making time to train your staff. School Administrator, 55(7), 35-37.
Gustafson, B., Guilbert, S., & MacDonald, D. (2002). Beginning elementary science teachers: Developing professional knowledge during a limited mentoring experience. Research in Science Education, 32, 281-302.
Hacker, R. G., & Rowe, M. J. (1997). The impact of a national curriculum development on teaching and learning behaviours. International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 997-1004.
Haney, J. J., & McArthur, J. (2002). Four case studies of prospective science teachers' beliefs concerning constructivist teaching practices. Science Education, 86(6), 783-802.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M., G. (1992). Understanding teacher development. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D. (1998). International handbook of educational change. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hargreaves, A., & Moore, S. (2000). Curriculum integration and classroom relevance: A study of teachers' practice. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(2), 89-112.
Hatch, T. (1994). What's art got to do with it? Research in the Teaching of English, 28(4), 362- 365.
Henry, J. (1977). Victorian primary science: Five years on. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 23(1), 49-55.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one. Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
Hobson, D. (2001). Action and reflection: Narrative and journaling in teacher research. In G. Burnaford, J. Fischer, & D. Hobson (Eds.), Teachers doing research: The power of action through inquiry (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Hopkins, D. (1993). A teacher's guide to classroom research. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hosking, N. J., & Teberg, A. S. (1999, April). Structuring support for change in the middle years literacy program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429 266).
247
Hughes, P. (1991). Managing curriculum development in Queensland. Report submitted to the Ministry for Education. Brisbane, Qld, Australia: Publishing Service, Department of Education.
Ingvarson, L., & Loughran, J. (1997). Loose connections: The context of science teachers' work. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 1-24.
Jeans, B., & Farnsworth, I. (1992). Primary science education: Views from three Australian states. Research in Science Education, 22, 214-223.
Jenkins, E. W. (2000a). Changing science teachers' work: A question of professionalism. School Science Review, 81(297), 15-22.
Jenkins, E. W. (2000b). The impact of the national curriculum on secondary school science teaching in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 325-336.
Johnson, S., Monk, M., & Swain, J. (2000). Constraints on the development and change to science teachers' practice in Egyptian classrooms. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(1), 9-24.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. New York: Longman.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1989). The coaching of teaching. In R. S. Brant (Ed.), Coaching and staff development: Readings from Educational Leadership (Vol. 40, pp. 182-187). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Melbourne, Vic, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Kemp, D. (1999, May). Outcomes reporting and accountable schooling. Paper presented at the Curriculum Corporation 6th National Conference, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Keys, P. M. (2000, December). Developing a good science syllabus for an optimistic future: A classroom teacher's perspective. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kimmel, H., Deek, F. P., Farrell, M. L., & O'Shea, M. (1999). Meeting the needs of diverse student populations: Comprehensive professional development in science, math and technology for teachers of students with disabilities. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5), 241-249.
Kirwan-Taylor, H. (2000). Coaching champions. Management Today, (6), 86-93.
Klein, M. (1997). Looking again at the supportive environment of constructivist pedagogy: An example from pre-service teacher education in mathematics. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(3), 277-292.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. (1998). Why change? Executive Excellence, 15(1), 5.
248
Kotter, J. (1999). Change leadership. Executive Excellence, 16(4), 16-17
Labaree, D. F. (2000). On the nature of teaching and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 228-233.
Lappan, G. (2000). A vision of learning to teach for the 21st century. School Science and Mathematics, 100(6), 319-326.
Leat, D., & Nichols, A. (2000). Brains on the table: Diagnostic and formative assessment through observation. Assessment in Education, 7(1), 103-121.
Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. L. (1997a). The nature of science: Naturally? School Science and Mathematics, 97(1), 1-2.
Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. L. (1997b). Action research: Our actions may speak louder than our words. School Science and Mathematics, 97(8), 397-399.
Lehrer, K. (1990). Theory of knowledge. London: Routledge.
Levitt, K. E. (2002). An analysis of elementary teachers' beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86(1), 1-22.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(2), 34-46.
Lewin, K. (1952). Field theory in social science. London: Tavistock Publications.
Lewis, C. I. (1970). Knowledge as true justified belief. In C. Landesman (Ed.), The foundations of knowledge (pp. 17-19). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lidstone, J. (2000, June 16). Sapping education. Courier Mail, p.18.
Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (1998). Science teacher beliefs and intentions to implement science-technology-society (STS) in the classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(1), 1-24
Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 275-292.
Lunn, S., & Solomon, J. (2000). Primary teachers' thinking about the English national curriculum for science: Autobiographies, Warrants and Autonomy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1043-1056.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Matthews, M. R. (1998). Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science education. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), Constructivism in Science Education (pp. 1-10) London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Matthews, M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 121-134.
249
McComas, W. F. (1996). Ten myths of science: Re-examining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 2000(1), 10-16.
McRobbie, C., & Tobin, K. (1995). Restraints to reform: The congruence of teacher and student actions in a chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 373-385.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (1999, April 22). The Adelaide declaration on national goals for schooling in the twenty-first century [Web document]. Author. Retrieved March 13, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/mceetya/adeldec.htm
Moallem, M. (1997). The content and nature of reflective teaching: A case study of an expert middle school science teacher. The Clearing House, 70(3), 143-150.
Moore, C., & Ferguson, D. (1997). Seeing schools through new lenses: A qualitative approach to observing in schools (Report No.142). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410 286).
Morgan, D. L. (Ed.). (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research (Vol. 16). London: SAGE Publications.
Morine-Dershirmer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). The complex nature and sources of teachers' pedagogical knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 21-50). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers' knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 877-904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
National Curriculum Council. (1991). Science in the national curriculum. Skeldergate, York UK: Pindar Graphics.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washinton, DC: National Academy Press.
New American Standard. (1999). Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Noad, B. (1980). Connoisseurship and criticism. Forum of Education, 39(1), 21-25.
Palmer-Maloney, J. (1998). Context, control, and characteristics of place: An educational critique of the geography content standards in Colorado (seventh-grade, standards based education). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, Denver CO.
Peirce, C. S. (1998). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Pierce (Vol. 5). Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press.
250
Peers, C. E. (2000). Teacher professional growth during implementation of a science curriculum innovation. Unpublished Masters, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Peers, C. E., Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2003). Supports and concerns for teacher professional growth during the implementation of a science curriculum. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 89-110.
Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6-11.
Pitman, M. A., & Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Qualitative approaches to evaluation: Methods and models. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 729-769) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354-395.
QSR International Pty Ltd. (1999). Nvivo qualitative data analysis program (Version 1.2). Melbourne, Vic, Australia: Author.
Queensland School Curriculum Council. (1999). Science syllabus years 1 to 10. Brisbane, Australia: Publishing Services, Education Queensland.
Queensland School Curriculum Council. (2001). Science: Years 1 to 10 curriculum materials [CD ROM]. Brisbane, Australia: Author.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Femanist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change, Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 905-947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Richetti, C., & Sheerin, J. (1999). Helping students ask the right questions. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 58-62.
Rinehart, R. (1998). Fictional methods in ethnography: Believability, specks, of glass and Chekhov. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), 200-224.
Ritchie, S. M., & Rigano, D. L. (2002). Discourses about a teacher's self-initiated change in praxis: storylines of care and support. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1079-1094.
Rothstein, R. (2000, November 22). For teaching's real pros, coaches on the sidelines [Web document]. The New York Times. Retrieved December 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com
Sánchez, G., Valcárcel, V. (1999). Science teachers' views and practices in planning for teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 493-513.
Schweber, S. A. (1999). Teaching history, teaching morality; holocaust education in American public high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
251
Schwahn, C., & Spady, W. (1998). Why change doesn't happen and how to make sure it does. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 45-47.
Science Education for Public Understanding Program (SEPUP). (1991). (CHEM Kit) Chemicals, health, the environment and me [Resource kit Australian version]. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science of the University of California and the Australian Science Teachers Association (ASTA).
Scottish Council for Research in Education. (1995). Issues in teachers' continuing professional development (Report No. ISSN-0969-613X). Edingburgh, Scotland: Scottish Council for Research in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 386 429).
Senior, B. (1997). Organisational change. London: Prentice Hall.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-21.
Shulman, L. S. (1994). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 3-49) New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Sikes, P. J. (1992). Imposed change and the experienced teacher. In M. Fullan & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher development and educational change (pp. 36-55) London: Falmer Press.
Singleton, L. R. (1997). Out of the laboratory: Teaching about the history and nature of science and technology. The Social Studies, 88(3), 127-133.
Smyth, J., & Dow, A. (1998). What's wrong with outcomes? Spotter planes, action plans and steerage of the educational workplace. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19(3), 291-303.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402-433). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Spady, W. G., & Marshall, K. J. (1991). Beyond traditional outcome-based education. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 67-72.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435-454). London: SAGE Publications.
Stueck, L. E. (1991). The design of learning environments (Playgrounds, elementary classrooms). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
Tippins, D., Tobin, K., & Nichols, S. (1995). A constructivist approach to change in elementary science teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 25(2), 135-149.
Titus, H. H., Smith, M. S., & Nolan, R. T. (1995). Living issues in philosophy (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth publishing company.
252
Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum. Science Education, 80(2), 223-241.
Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1997). Beliefs about the nature of Science and the enacted science curriculum. Science and Education, 6(4), 355-371.
Townsend, S. S. (1995). Understanding the effects of cognitive coaching on student teachers and cooperating teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, Denver, CO.
Uzat, S. L. (1998, November). Cognitive coaching and self-reflection: Looking in the mirror while looking through the window. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 427 064).
van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158.
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., vanWerven, H. I., & Dekkers, H. (1997). Teachers' craft knowledge. Higher Education, 34(1), 105-122.
van Manen, M. (1984). "Doing" phenomenological research and writing: An introduction. Alberta, Canada: Department of Secondary Education Faculty of Education University of Alberta.
Varley, P. (1975). Science in the primary school. Brisbane, Australia: Research Branch Department of Education, Queensland.
Varrella, G. (2000). Science teachers at the top of their game: What is teacher expertise? The Clearing House, 74(1), 43-45.
Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (1998). A state-wide change initiative: The primary science teacher-leader project. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 199-217.
Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. A. (2002). Curriculum integration: Eroding the high ground of science as a school subject. Studies in Science Education, 37, 43-83.
Walls, R. T., Nardi, A. H., von Minden, A. M., & Hoffman, N. (2002). The characteristics of effective and ineffective teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(1), 39-48.
Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (1995, April). Origins of and changes in preservice teachers' science teaching self efficacy. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.
Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2000). Developing motivation to teach elementary science: Effect of collaborative and authentic learning practices in preservice education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 301-321.
Whitmore, J. (1996). Coaching for performance (2nd ed.). London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
253
Wise, V. L., Spiegel, A. N., & Bruning, R. H. (1999). Using teacher reflective practice to evaluate professional development in mathematics and science. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(1), 42-49.
Yager. (1991). The constructivist learning model. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57.
Yager, R. E. (1995). Constructivism and the learning of Science. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning Science in the Schools: Research reforming Practice (pp. 35-58) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yager, R. E. (1999). Scope, sequence and coordination: The Iowa project, a national reform effort in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 169-194.
Yager, R. E. (2000a). The history and future of science education reform. The Clearing House, 74(1), 51-54.
Yager, R. E. (2000b). A vision for what science education should be like for the first 25 years of a new millennium. School Science and Mathematics, 100(6), 327-341.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methodology (2nd ed.) (Vol.5). London: SAGE Publications.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zeus, P., & Skiffington, S. (2002). The coaching at work toolkit. Sydney, NSW, Australia: McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd.
254
255
APPENDICES
255
Appendix A
Demographic profile
This demographic profile will assist in determining your preparedness to manage the changes that will take place in science education over the next three to four years.
It will ask your current understanding and training in the new syllabus and it will contain statements about personal beliefs related to teaching science in school. You will be asked what you personally think about these statements. There are no right or wrong answers.
The responses to this questionnaire will be confidential .
Your name is requested for future follow up and your personal responses will not be identified or communicated to school staff or administration without your permission.
Your participation is greatly appreciated .
Name ___________________________ Date Completed _________
Grade or Subject that you are currently teaching __________________
School ______________________
1. Do you work full time ____part time ___
2. Female __ Male ___
3. Total years teaching ______
4. Number of years at present school: _____
5. Highest degree earned:
Three year diploma ___Bachelor ___ Masters ____ Doctorate ____
6. Year degree earned ______
Understanding of the new science syllabus
1. Have you been involved over the past two years with any of the following professional training programs related to the new science syllabus? Yes or No for the following.
WOW kit ____ Chem kit _____
After school professional devt. by Dist Science EA ___
Cluster meetings between schools with focus on the new science syllabus __
Full day workshop/ seminars conducted by District Science EA ____
Lesson demonstration/ planning with Dist. Science E.A _____
256
257
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If yes, please explain what it means?
Others: Please specify nature and type ______________________________
Collaborative planning of school based science syllabus with Science E.A _______
9. Do you believe that any changes should be made to the current science syllabus? Yes or No
8. In what way can support be provided to you for effective changes to be made in the science syllabus? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Do you have a copy or ready access to a copy of the new science syllabus? ______
6. .Do you feel that you have an understanding of the concept “outcomes based education” to the extent that you would be able to implement it in the classroom? ______
5. What do you understand by the concept of “working scientifically” in the classroom? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Do you feel confident to use a “constructivist approach” to teaching science? ____
3. Do you have an understanding of what it means to use a “constructivist approach” to teaching science ? _____
2. Do you feel that any of the above professional development has prepared you for the changes to be made in the new science syllabus. Yes or No
Appendix B Bench marking individual lessons
Benchmarking science lessons (Yager, 1991) Teacher and year level
Focus Yes/No Comments
Did the lesson seek out children's ideas and questions?
Did the lesson use children's ideas and questions?
Did the lesson accept and encourage student initiation of ideas?
Were strategies employed to promote student leadership, collaboration, location of information, and the taking of action?
Were there opportunities to encourage students to use alternative sources of information other than provided by the teacher?
Was there the use of open-ended questions?
Was there an opportunity for students to elaborate on their questions and responses
Did the learning experiences or activities encourage to suggest/identify causes for events and situations and predict consequences?
258
259
Benchmarking science lessons (Yager, 1991) Teacher and year level
Did the lesson encourage the students to test their own ideas?
Did the lesson seek out children’s ideas before the teacher presented their own or before studying ideas from other sources?
Was there an opportunity for the students to challenge each other’s ideas?
Were there classroom organisational strategies employed that emphasised collaboration, respect individuality and the use of division of labour tactics?
Was there adequate time left for reflection and analysis of the ideas generated by the students?
Did the lesson encourage self-analysis, collection of real evidence to support ideas, and the reworking of ideas in the light of new information and experiences?
Appendix C
List of teachers’ statements
Name ___________________ Secondary or primary
TICK if you agree with the statement and a CROSS, if you disagree with the statement.
Beliefs and Motivation 1. I don’t think that I have got a handle on what constructivism really
means.
2. Ah, no equipment so much for the constructivist approach.
3. What’s a good science teacher: I wouldn’t have a clue.
4. A science teacher is someone who allows the students to investigate, lots of hands on, and who is flexible when things go wrong as they often do in science.
5. Science requires more problem solving than maths.
6. Maths is very separate from science.
7. When it comes to doing science it’s more discussion, and experiments and hands on things than maths.
8. Science is more realistic, it’s more kinaesthetic, and it’s more global than maths.
9. I suppose it would be easy to say that I teach science because it is something that you have to teach but I think science is something I would teach anyway.
10. Teachers are not going to change because there is no monitoring in the science so they are just going to carry on as before.
11. I don’t think you can leave science out of education because whatever you do whether you’re doing geography and earthquakes you’re dealing with science. It is an important part of understanding the world.
12. You name it, it’s science. Science is a real life situation. Even in religion you argue with science.
13. Science is not just a body of knowledge, or exact theories or a set of facts. It is a process of investigation.
14. Science education is preparing the student for the next year level whether it is grade eight or grade eleven.
15. I did enjoy science but didn’t do much of it in primary school. So, I wasn’t influenced when I was in primary school.
Planning 1. You basically look at how many weeks or sessions and how much you
have got to cover in a particular time.
2. We sort of negotiated the outcomes “We don’t think we teach this outcome do you guys teach that?”
260
3. We need a lab to effectively teach science.
4. Very difficult to actually get the resources that you need.
5. It is unfair to expect the kids to be able to supply their own materials.
6. To develop a concept you’ve got to actually use the materials, and equipment to get the results
7. A textbook or a resource book is essential in teaching science.
8. You are still constrained to the schoolwork program when you plan your lesson.
9. I generally refer to other science references rather than the syllabus modules for my science lessons.
10. Sometimes the planned unit doesn’t turn out the way that you intended it to.
11. The HOD in secondary or the deputy principal in primary has the last word on planning.
12. We collaborated in our planning.
13. I generally don’t look at the outcome statements. I went straight to activities I didn’t look at any 4.2, or 4.3 I knew what I wanted to do.
14. I generally start of with a theme and work back that way in planning my unit.
15. I match up the content with the core learning outcomes whether it was 4.1, 4.2, or 4.3.
16. I overlay the core learning outcomes on top of the text or the source book or existing activities, or lessons that I already have.
17. The modules that the syllabus provides I generally modify to suit the unit that I am teaching.
18. Our present implementation of the unit does not reflect an integrated approach because we are still teaching the subjects separately.
19. I would rarely use science as my integrating device.
20. Integration is the only way to go, to overcome the daunting challenges of so many core-learning outcomes.
21. We just tick off the outcomes as we complete the unit or lesson.
22. We really have created just more work for ourselves, this KLA’s stuff.
23. How can I put it; I didn’t even look at the outcomes when I planned this unit.
24. The outcomes has made me more content focused.
25. We cannot possibly cover all the outcomes so we will just cul them.
26. To use outcomes only you have to be highly specific. It’s like in an assignment; why does the kid get 4 out of 5.
27. The new syllabus is better because it takes into account the fact that we integrate the curriculum a bit more.
261
28. I still use activities from the old primary science source book.
29. I must admit that I am a fan of the old syllabus. The old syllabus was doing a good job in help preparing students.
30. I never used the CD support material of the new science syllabus.
31. With this new science syllabus you have four books in front of you and you are trying to cross reference things. It is too difficult, you give up after a half an hour
32. The writers of these syllabus documents make up new words.
Implementation 1. I write something on the board to start a lesson.
2. I started the lesson by reading or having the students read a passage.
3. I generally start off with a whole class discussion and then the students move off to work in groups.
4. When I commence a new unit in science I generally have a discussion with some probing questions around the topic being introduced. I never record their prior understanding of the topic being discussed.
5. Very few students have a negative attitude toward science.
6. Students need a little bit of guidance to get the idea.
7. To teach science like that every day, I need time before the lesson to set up the equipment.
8. I won’t be doing any science tomorrow because it takes quite a lot of preparation.
9. A lot of science is read the passage or the textbook and answer the questions.
10. Concept maps or mind maps are particularly useful if they are just a one of sort of lesson or an activity and then we tend to put it away and forget about it. I don’t use it as an assessment tool.
11. I use mostly open-ended questions at the beginning of a lesson.
12. Children need a chance to discuss things and hear what other people think about certain topics
13. The children need to cover the same amount of knowledge. They should come away with certain amount of base knowledge. I don’t want to leave a hole in knowledge.
14. The students need to have an understanding or of the terms used in science.
15. I don’t think you can do well in process without understanding the content that comes with it.
16. Students need some of the essential skills to undertake science.
17. Group work is an important aspect of science teaching.
18. Group work teaches them important skills for later on in schools such as working cooperatively.
262
19. I frequently used group work in my science lessons.
20. I actively guide and teach the students how to work in groups.
21. I do like to see science taught as a separate subject because I am a bit of purist; I suppose I like to see it as recognised for itself as important.
22. Yes, it is an integrated unit but I found it difficult to integrate the science. I actually planned and taught my science lessons separately.
23. I’m fairly teacher directed anyway. I think probably a more at the beginning of a lesson or a unit.
24. I prefer the deductive approach to that of the inductive approach.
25. I like to give the students an activity sheet to complete for the science lesson.
26. This is what you need to write up an aim, hypothesis, materials method, procedure and results. The kids have to record it.
27. I am a traditional stickler for the course.
28. I just try to make it a bit more fun and practical and hands on and less theory.
29. Classroom management is completely different in science.
30. Only occasionally will the experiment be a demonstration.
31. I refer and use the recommended textbook in the science lessons.
32. I still refer and use the old science source book.
Assessment 1. I based part of my assessment on how the students have completed the
activities, which may also include a culminating activity.
2. I have used assignments and projects as part of my assessment for the first term.
3. I always include students’ bookwork as a critical part of my final assessment for the unit.
4. From classroom observations, we just tick off whether we think that the children have achieved the outcomes.
5. I don’t have time for multiple pieces assessment I generally rely on tests.
6. My observation of the students is probably the most important part of assessment.
7. It is really hard to write down your student observations during a lesson. I don’t use checklist for my observations I rely on my memory.
8. Exams/tests are still important; you can’t get rid of them.
9. Understanding the definition of terms and using the correct terminology needs to be assessed.
10. Students need to have a foundational knowledge to be able to engage in experiments or science activities.
263
11. Other than questioning, I tend not to use any formal means of determining students’ prior knowledge of a subject that I am about to teach.
12. Parents don’t want to know every little detail about what we do in science. They just want to know is my kid good at science.
13. The skills of observation, predicting and being able generalise need to be assessed in science.
14. Students need to be able to write up a science experiment, which includes observing, predicting, and being able to generalise are important steps of investigation.
15. There needs to be standards for our assessment. We need to have common assessment/tests, assessment criteria to indicate that the outcomes have been satisfactorily achieved. If our assessment is different from each other then the whole thing is pointless.
16. I don’t think that the outcomes are enough to differentiate between the students performance.
17. I would be happy not to assess outcomes because we don’t really provide remediation in science.
33. Outcomes approach has increased the amount of assessment. It has created more work.
18. How are we going to report the outcome that depends on our reporting system will be dropped upon us from up on high.
19. An A they have got to be a 5.2 or whatever else. If it is a C then it is a 4.2.
20. Common tests that we use can indicate that the outcomes have been satisfactorily achieved.
Professional Development
1. I haven’t really done any professional development in the new science syllabus.
2. The professional development that I did have in science has not adequately prepared me for the changes to the new science syllabus.
3. Most of my stuff I learned from other teachers. Watching the other teachers teach science - observation and discussion.
4. Someone should come out with the package (syllabus documents etc) and say, “This is how it works.”
5. No one ever told us how to teach science. They just taught us science.
6. Well we haven’t had much support in the school. There was a district person roaming around but I think that she only came to the school once.
264
Appendix D
Coding
NVivo revision 1.2.142 Licensee: Philip Keys
Project: Shaping the curriculum User: Philip Keys Date: 28/12/2002 - 2:10:11 PM
NODE LISTING
Nodes in Set: All Nodes
Created: 20/12/2001 - 4:56:32 PM
Modified: 20/12/2001 - 4:56:32 PM
Number of Nodes: 187
1 1st part of a lesson
2 children
3 comprehension
4 concept mapping
5 discussion
6 facts
7 group work
8 integration
9 knowledge
10 prior knowledge
11 questioning
12 skills
13 teaching approach
14 (1) /Assessment
15 (1 1) /Assessment/Assessment
16 (1 2) /Assessment/observation
17 (1 3) /Assessment/tests
18 (2) /Implementation
19 (2 1) /Implementation/children~
20 (2 2) /Implementation/Comprehension
21 (2 3) /Implementation/concept mapping
22 (2 4) /Implementation/factual recall
23 (2 5) /Implementation/discussion
24 (2 6) /Implementation/Implementation
265
25 (2 7) /Implementation/integration
26 (2 8) /Implementation/group work
27 (2 9) /Implementation/knowledge of content
28 (2 10) /Implementation/Ist part of lesson
29 (2 11) /Implementation/prior knowledge
30 (2 12) /Implementation/questioning
31 (2 13) /Implementation/skills
32 (2 14) /Implementation/teaching approach
33 (2 15) /Implementation/textbooks
34 (2 16) /Implementation/working scientifically
35 (3) /Teacher's beliefs
36 (3 1) /Teacher's beliefs/Compare science and Maths
37 (3 2) /Teacher's beliefs/confidence
38 (3 3) /Teacher's beliefs/Constructivism
39 (3 4) /Teacher's beliefs/good science teacher
40 (3 5) /Teacher's beliefs/motivation
41 (3 6) /Teacher's beliefs/NOS
42 (3 7) /Teacher's beliefs/beliefs summary
43 (3 7 1) /Teacher's beliefs/beliefs summary/confidence
44 (3 7 2) /Teacher's beliefs/beliefs summary/constructivism
45 (3 7 3) /Teacher's beliefs/beliefs summary/good science teacher
46 (3 7 4) /Teacher's beliefs/beliefs summary/maths and science
47 (3 7 5) /Teacher's beliefs/beliefs summary/motivation
48 (3 7 6) /Teacher's beliefs/beliefs summary/nos
49 (3 7 7) /Teacher's beliefs/beliefs summary/professional devt.
50 (3 7 8) /Teacher's beliefs/beliefs summary/personal experience
51 (3 7 9) /Teacher's beliefs/beliefs summary/scientific language
52 (3 8) /Teacher's beliefs/scientific language
53 (3 10) /Teacher's beliefs/teacher's beliefs
54 (3 11) /Teacher's beliefs/Teacher's own experiences in science
55 (4) /Planning
56 (4 1) /Planning/modules
57 (4 2) /Planning/new syllabus
266
267
58 (4 3) /Planning/outcomes education
59 (4 4) /Planning/planning
60 (4 5) /Planning/problems in planning
61 (4 6) /Planning/resources
62 (4 7) /Planning/school planning
63 (4 8) /Planning/time
64 (5) /Assessment summary
65 (5 1) /Assessment summary/activity
66 (5 2) /Assessment summary/assess in the practicals
67 (5 3) /Assessment summary/assignments
68 (5 4) /Assessment summary/bookwork
69 (5 5) /Assessment summary/checklist
70 (5 6) /Assessment summary/exam
71 (5 7) /Assessment summary/journal
72 (5 8) /Assessment summary/knowledge
73 (5 9) /Assessment summary/mini test
74 (5 10) /Assessment summary/MSlink
75 (5 11) /Assessment summary/observation2
76 (5 12) /Assessment summary/prior assessment
77 (5 13) /Assessment summary/projects
78 (5 14) /Assessment summary/reporting
79 (5 15) /Assessment summary/skills
80 (5 16) /Assessment summary/standards
81 (5 17) /Assessment summary/tasks
82 (5 18) /Assessment summary/time
83 (5 19) /Assessment summary/why
84 (5 20) /Assessment summary/write ups
85 (6) /Search Results (85 – 186 continuation of search results)
86 187 - (12) /professional development
Appendix E
Beliefs and motivation
Beliefs and Motivation Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
1. I don’t think that I have got a handle on what constructivism really means. yes yes yes yes yes yes no
2. Ah, no equipment so much for the constructivist approach. no no no yes yes yes yes
3. What’s a good science teacher: I wouldn’t have a clue. no no no no no no no
4. A science teacher is someone who allows the students to investigate, lots of hands on, and who is flexible when things go wrong as they often do in science. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
5. Science requires more problem solving than maths. no no yes no yes yes yes
6. Maths is very separate from science. no no no no yes yes yes
268
Beliefs and Motivation Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
7. When it comes to doing science it’s more discussion, and experiments and hands on things than maths. yes no yes yes yes yes yes
8. Science is more realistic, it’s more kinaesthetic, and it’s more global than maths. no yes yes no yes yes yes
9. I suppose it would be easy to say that I teach science because it is something that you have to teach but I think science is something I would teach anyway. yes yes yes yes no no no
10. Teachers are not going to change because there is no monitoring in the science so they are just going to carry on as before. yes yes no no yes yes yes
11. I don’t think you can leave science out of education because whatever you do whether you’re doing geography and earthquakes you’re dealing with science. It is an important part of understanding the world.
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
12. You name it, it’s science. Science is a real life situation. Even in religion you argue with science. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
269
Beliefs and Motivation Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
13. Science is not just a body of knowledge, or exact theories or a set of facts. It is a process of investigation. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
14. Science education is preparing the student for the next year level whether it be grade eight or grade eleven. yes/no yes/no yes/no yes/no yes yes yes
15. I did enjoy science but didn’t do much of it in primary school. So, I wasn’t influenced when I was in primary school. yes yes no yes yes no yes
270
Appendix F
Planning
Planning Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
1. You basically look at how many weeks or sessions and how much you have got to cover in a particular time. yes no no yes yes yes yes
2. We sort of negotiated the outcomes “We don’t think we teach this outcome do you guys teach that?” yes yes yes yes no no no
3. We need a lab to effectively teach science. no no no no yes yes yes
4. Very difficult to actually get the resources that you need. yes yes yes yes yes yes no
5. It is unfair to expect the kids to be able to supply their own materials. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
6. To develop a concept you’ve got to actually use the materials, and equipment to get the results yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
271
Planning Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
7. A textbook or a resource book is essential in teaching science. no no no no yes yes yes
8. You are still constrained to the school work program when you plan your lesson. no yes no no yes yes yes
9. I generally refer to other science references rather than the syllabus modules for my science lessons. yes no no yes yes yes yes
10. Sometimes the planned unit doesn’t turn out the way that you intended it to. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
11. The HOD in secondary or the deputy principal in primary has the last word on planning. no no no no yes yes no
12. We collaborated in our planning. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
13. I generally don’t look at the outcome statements. I went straight to activities I didn’t look at any 4.2, or 4.3 I knew what I wanted to do. yes no no yes no no no
14. I generally start of with a theme and work back that way in planning my unit. yes no no yes no no no
272
Planning Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
15. I match up the content with the core learning outcomes whether it was 4.1, 4.2, or 4.3. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
16. I overlay the core learning outcomes on top of the text or the source book or existing activities, or lessons that I already have. yes yes yes no yes yes yes
17. The modules that the syllabus provides I generally modify to suit the unit that I am teaching. yes yes yes yes no no no
18. Our present implementation of the unit does not reflect an integrated approach because we are still teaching the subjects separately. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
19. I would rarely use science as my integrating device. no no no no no no no
20. Integration is the only way to go, to overcome the daunting challenges of so many core learning outcomes. yes yes yes yes no yes/no yes/no
21. We just tick off the outcomes as we complete the unit or lesson. no yes no no yes yes yes
273
Planning Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
22. We really have created just more work for ourselves, this KLA’s stuff. yes no yes no yes no no
23. How can I put it; I didn’t even look at the outcomes when I planned this unit. yes no no no no no no
24. The outcomes had made me more content focused. no no no no no no no
25. We cannot possibly cover all the outcomes so we will just cul them. yes no no no no no no
26. To use outcomes only you have to be highly specific. It’s like in an assignment; why does the kid get 4 out of 5. yes no no yes no no na
27. The new syllabus is not better because it takes into account the fact that we integrate the curriculum a bit more. yes yes yes yes no no undec
28. I still use activities from the old primary science source book. yes yes yes no no no no
274
Planning Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
29. I must admit that I am a fan of the old syllabus. The old syllabus was doing a good job in help preparing students. yes yes yes no no no no
30. I never used the CD support material of the new science syllabus. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
31. With this new science syllabus you have four books in front of you and you are trying to cross reference things. It is too difficult, you give up after a half an hour yes yes yes yes no no no
32. The writers of these syllabus documents make up new words. yes yes yes yes yes yes no
275
Appendix G
Implementation
Implementation Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
1. I write something on the board to start a lesson. no no yes yes yes yes yes
2. I started the lesson by reading or having the students read a passage. no no no yes yes yes no
3. I generally start off with a whole class discussion and then the students move off to work in groups. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
4. When I commence a new unit in science I generally have a discussion with some probing questions around the topic being introduced. I never record their prior understanding of the topic being discussed. yes no no yes yes yes yes
5. Very few students have a negative attitude toward science. yes yes no no no no no
6. Students need a little bit of guidance to get the idea. yes no no yes yes yes yes
276
Implementation Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
7. To teach science like that every day, I need time before the lesson to set up the equipment. yes yes no yes yes yes yes
8. I won’t be doing any science tomorrow because it takes quite a lot of preparation. no yes no yes no no no
9. A lot of science is read the passage or the textbook and answer the questions. no no no no yes yes no
10. Concept maps or mind maps are particularly useful if they are just a one of sort of lesson or an activity and then we tend to put it away and forget about it. I don’t use it as an assessment tool. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
11. I use not mostly open-ended questions at the beginning of a lesson. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
12. Children need a chance to discuss things and hear what other people think about certain topics yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
13. The children need to cover the same amount of knowledge. They should come away with certain amount of base knowledge. I don’t want to leave a hole in knowledge. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
277
Implementation Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
14. The students need to have an understanding or of the terms used in science. yes no yes yes yes yes yes
15. I don’t think you can do well in process without understanding the content that comes with it. no no no yes yes yes yes
16. Students need some of the essential skills to undertake science. yes na no yes yes yes yes
17. Group work is an important aspect of science teaching. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
18. Group work teaches them important skills for later on in schools such as working cooperatively. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
19. I frequently used group work in my science lessons. yes yes yes no yes yes yes
20. I actively guide and teach the students how to work in groups. yes yes yes no yes yes yes
21. I do like to see science taught as a separate subject because I am a bit of purist, I suppose I like to see it as recognised for itself as important. yes no yes yes yes yes yes
278
Implementation Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
22. Yes, it is an integrated unit but I found it difficult to integrate the science. I actually planned and taught my science lessons separately. yes yes no no no no no
23. I’m fairly teacher directed anyway. I think probably a more at the beginning of a lesson or a unit. no no yes yes yes yes yes
24. I prefer the deductive approach to that of the inductive approach. no no no no no no no
25. I like to give the students an activity sheet to complete for the science lesson. no no yes yes no no no
26. This is what you need to write up a aim, hypothesis, materials method, procedure and results. The kids have to record it. no no yes yes yes yes yes
27. I am a traditional stickler for the course. no no no no no no no
28. I just try to make it a bit more fun and practical and hands on and less theory. yes yes no yes yes yes yes
279
Implementation Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
29. Classroom management is completely different in science. no no no no yes yes no
30. Only occasionally will the experiment be a demonstration. yes yes yes no yes yes yes
31. I refer and use the recommended textbook in the science lessons. no no no no yes yes yes
32. I still refer and use the old science source book. yes yes yes no no no no
280
Appendix H
Assessment
Assessment Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
1. I based part of my assessment on how the students have completed the activities, which may also include a culminating activity. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
2. I have used assignments and projects as part of my assessment for the first term. no no yes yes yes yes yes
3. I always include students’ bookwork as a critical part of my final assessment for the unit. yes yes yes yes no no no
4. From classroom observations, we just tick off whether we think that the children have achieved the outcomes. no yes no no no no no
5. I don’t have time for multiple pieces assessment I generally rely on tests. no no no no no no no
281
Assessment Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
6. My observation of the students is probably the most important part of assessment. yes yes no no no no no
7. It is really hard to write down your student observations during a lesson. I don’t use check-list for my observations I rely on my memory. yes yes yes yes no no no
8. Exams/tests are still important; you cant get rid of them. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
9. Understanding the definition of terms and using the correct terminology needs to be assessed. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
10. Students need to have a foundational knowledge to be able to engage in experiments or science activities. no yes no yes yes yes no
11. Other than questioning, I tend not to use any formal means of determining students’ prior knowledge of a subject that I am about to teach. yes no no yes yes yes no
12. Parents don’t want to know every little detail about what we do in science. They just want to know is my kid good at science. yes yes no yes yes yes no
282
Assessment Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
13. The skills of observation, predicting and being able generalise need to be assessed in science. yes no yes yes yes yes yes
14. Students need to be able to write up a science experiment, which includes observing, predicting, and being able to generalise are important steps of investigation. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
15. There needs to be standards for our assessment. We need to have common assessment/tests, assessment criteria to indicate that the outcomes have been satisfactorily achieved. If our assessment is different from each other then the whole thing is pointless.
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
16. I don’t think that the outcomes are enough to differentiate between the students performance. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
17. I would be happy not to assess outcomes because we don’t really provide remediation in science. yes yes yes yes yes no no
18. Outcomes approach has increased the amount of assessment. It has created more work. yes yes yes yes yes no yes
19. How are we going to report the outcome that depends on our reporting system will be dropped upon us from up on high. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
283
Assessment Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
20. An A they have got to be a 5.2 or whatever else. If it is a C then it is a 4.2. no no no no no no no
21. Common tests that we use can indicate that the outcomes had been satisfactorily achieved. no no no no no no yes
284
285
Appendix I
Professional development
Professional Development Primary Secondary
Grade 2/3 4 5 7 8 10 9/10
1. I haven’t really done any professional development in the new science syllabus. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
2. The professional development that I did have in science has not adequately prepared me for the changes to the new science syllabus. yes yes no yes yes yes yes
3. Most of my stuff I learned from other teachers. Watching the other teachers teach science - observation and discussion. no no no yes no no no
4. Someone should come out with the package (syllabus documents etc) and say, “This is how it works.” yes yes yes yes no no no
5. No one ever told us how to teach science. They just taught us science. yes yes yes yes yes yes no
6. Well we haven’t had much support in the school. There was a district person roaming around but I think that she only came to the school once. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Appendix J
Letter requesting teachers’ participation
Dear Teachers;
I am presently conducting a research into how teachers shape the new science curriculum.
I would request your willing participation in a once off, one-hour audio taped focus group session to be held on ___________________ at _____ in room ____________________ to respond to the attached dialogue of three composite teachers.
This focus group session will seek to verify the experiences of a group of primary and secondary teachers who had recently implemented the new science syllabus.
Teachers who participate in this focus group session will need to represent either lower, middle and upper primary or secondary science teachers and have at least five years teaching experience and are currently working with the new Queensland Science syllabus. There are no other additional requirements.
All information provided during the focus session will be treated in the strictest confidence and anonymity of personal details is assured. This research has the approval of Education Queensland and is in accordance to the guidelines set down by the University human ethics committee of Queensland University of Technology. If you have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project please contact the Secretary of the University Human Research Ethics committee on 3864 2902.
I have provided for you to read an attached dialogue between three classroom teachers; a lower primary, a middle/upper primary and a secondary teacher. These are three composite characters based upon the research data that was recently collected from two schools in Brisbane. The composite characters, as the word denotes, are not ay specific teachers in the group of participants.
There are three sections of this paper: the first section provides an introduction to the reader as to the nature, purpose and style of genre that is used in the presentation of the data; the second section is the story context which provides an understanding of the characters in the story and the school setting; and the third section is the actual dialogue between the characters which is broken up into five parts dealing with issues of science education, planning, implementation, assessment and professional development.
You will note that within the dialogue that there are still some punctuation and grammatical errors. This is because there are transcripts of direct quotes taken verbatim from the participants.
286
This should not detract from the meaning or the essence of the dialogue between the three composite characters.
I ask that you read through the dialogue and reflect upon the experiences of these three teachers. Please note down any thoughts as you reflect on this story and be prepared to share these thoughts during the focus group session. Please return that attached dialogue on the day.
Thank you for your support. Please sign the attached consent form.
Philip Keys
PhD Candidate
Centre for Maths Science and Technology QUT
Email [email protected] Ph 3864 5552 ah 32731530
______________________________________________________________________
I ___________________________ this day ________________willingly give my consent for the teachers of ___________________ to participate in the research conducted by Philip Keys of QUT and I understand that no remuneration is provided for the schools participation. This permission includes only a focus group session, which will be audio taped. I understand that all school and personal information provided will be kept anonymous.
Signature Date _________
287