In this section, two case studies of projects promoting inquiry in primary science will be examined. These case studies are presented as part of the literature review as they serve to inform the research about the methods and practices of similar projects. The two case studies that have been chosen are the Pollen Project (Pollen, 2009) and Primary Connections (Primary Connections, 2009). Within both of these projects elements will be shown where comparisons can be drawn with this research. As both projects attempt to promote inquiry, the method and data collected will also be discussed. This information forms a specific element of the concatenation process, see Chapter 3, for exploration into Inquiry Based Science and therefore should be included in any literature review. Elements and recommendations from these projects will also be used by this research as a frame of reference for the development of the intervention.
2.5.1: The Pollen Project
Years Active: 2006 – 2009 Region: Europe
Source of Information: Main project website: http://www.pollen-europa.net/ (Pollen, 2009)
The Pollen project was launched in Germany with 12 cities taking part across Europe. Pollen provided resources and training in methodologies which were adapted to suit the local curriculum in that city. According to pollen:
The major goal of pollen was to provide an empirical illustration of how science teaching can be reformed on a local level whilst involving the whole community
(Pollen, 2009)
The pollen project utilised many approaches in order to achieve this aim. In-service courses, lesson tools and resources were all used to develop the teacher’s knowledge of IBSE and aid in its practice in the schools. The pollen project evaluated teacher attitudes and confidence in science teaching. It discovered, upon completion of the project, that while the attitude towards science education remained consistent that teacher confidence levels had improved significantly (Pollen, 2009a).
The methods used by Pollen have proven to raise primary teachers’ interest, self-confidence and skills in science teaching and therefore the quality and quantity of science teaching sessions
(Rocard et al., 2007)
While this goal is in line with the recommendations within the Rocard et al. report (Rocard et al., 2007), the project is not without its shortcomings. The project isolated each city locally to investigate a different issue. For example Leicester (UK) was assigned “Science as a cross-disciplinary approach”, whereas Brussels (Belgium) was assigned “Science and low-income areas”. This means that while these issues were being addressed, they were being addressed in a single seed city context. The results of these issues were then applied to the development of the project as a whole. This means that an assumption was made that if an issue is addressed in a particular context this method can be applied across all contexts within Europe. Pollen did however accurately describe the concept of context within each city. A seed city was described as
An educative territory that supports primary science education through the commitment of the whole community (families, the science community and the scientific schools and research centres, local/regional authorities, local/regional representatives of the central ministries etc.)
(Pollen, 2009)
This quote shows how Pollen attempted to reform science education through a form of educational change (Fullan, 2007). Pollen produced three primary reports on its results.
Report 1 was titled: “Changes in pupils attitudes towards science”. This report evaluated students attitudes towards science in Germany, France, Hungary, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK. This report asked students to rate, using Likert scales, the answer to approximately thirty-five questions. These questions were presented under the headings of: What do you think of being at school? What do you think of science at school? What about you and science? and What do you think of science in society? Report 2, titled “Teachers changing practice” analysed teachers’ confidence and attitudes across ten of the seed cities. Report 3: “Community Participation” reported on school and community collaboration during the project.
Interestingly, Pollen describes the outcomes of these reports as showing that the Pollen objectives have been positively achieved. It is unclear from these reports what that statement means without specific context. Report 1 displays the data that was collected from the Likert scales for each of the cities described. And while this data is provided, connecting the objectives to positive increases in the students’ attitudes is quite difficult. The highlighted data in the report does not display clearly that there is a significant increase in attitude for students between the two questionnaire attempts in the majority of cities. This therefore may indicate that only minor improvements in students’ attitudes towards science were gained through participation in the project. Report 2 however provides greater detail into the outcomes of the project. The report does show that the methods used in the project garnered significant improvement in teacher confidence levels in France with improvement in Germany, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. Supporting the statements made above, the Pollen project determined that teachers’ confidence levels can be increased in science with high
quality, long term, in-service. This report goes into further detail describing how novice teachers should concentrate on the development in science knowledge and IBSE skills. Once these have been developed a more experienced teacher may move into further development of IBSE strategies such as using the environment to improve their teaching. The final report on community collaboration resulted in a high collaboration across all countries with educational authorities, local authorities, the scientific community and parents. Cultural institutions, Non-Government associations and the private sector emerged as co-operating the least with the project.
The overall outcome of the Pollen project therefore can be described as a mixed result. While positive results were obtained in all three of the deciding reports the gains do not emerge as being significant. Several conclusions can be determined from this project. Firstly student’s attitudes can be affected by the change in methodology implemented by the teacher, and that this can be positively influenced by IBSE methodologies. Secondly the conclusions about teacher confidence highlight the need for further in-service and professional development initiatives and thirdly, generally, across Europe support for community based science education lessons can be found for teachers, even with non-school related bodies.
2.5.2: Primary Connections
Years active: 2003 – 2011 Region: Australia
Source of information: Main project website:
http://science.org.au/primaryconnections/ (Primary Connections, 2009)
Primary Connections is a project launched in Australia with an aim to enhance primary teachers’ confidence and competence (Primary Connections, 2009). This project follows along similar lines to Pollen and this research by providing resources and training in teaching science through IBSE (ibid). Primary Connections adopts the 5Es teaching model in order to promote IBSE (Bybee 1997, 2006, NCCA, 2004, PrimaryConnections, 2009). Primary Connections uses facilitators across jurisdictions in Australia. These facilitators deliver workshops for the project. By using facilitators in their model, Primary Connections has reduced the need of individual teachers
travelling to them for the training. This is important when it comes to a model of PD. The teachers can contact the facilitators who can then train large groups of teachers in their jurisdiction. It is also important to note that several teachers from the one school should be involved in the Primary Connections training. The reason for this was to ensure that there are easily contactable and local support mechanisms in place for teachers using Primary Connections. The Primary Connections project not only promoted science education and IBSE but also provided a mechanism for the continuous PD of teachers through online resources and guides (Primary Connections, 2009).
As this project was developed and carried out in Australia, similarities may be drawn from the approaches of the project rather than the context. Data on the Primary Connections project was collected through teacher responses to specific questions. The answers provided by teachers were analysed using both deductive and inductive process. The deductive process included comparing a teacher’s answers to three checklists; the purposes of each phase as described by Primary Connections, The 5E components and the descriptors of teacher and student roles. The inductive coding was also applied where a teacher’s answer did not directly relate to the specific codes in the deductive checklists.
Due to the longitudinal term of the Primary Connections project it has developed several research outcomes and publications. As such only certain publications will be discussed as part of this case study. The described reports include: Report 1: Implementation of the 5E model; teacher feedback, Report 2: Implementation of the 5E phases; teacher feedback, Report 3: A constructivism lens on Primary Connections and Report 4: The inquiry focus in Primary Connections. The results of Report 1 provide insights into the implementation of the 5E model as a whole. The significant outcome of this report found that few teachers found any weaknesses with using the 5E model in their teaching. Any limitations described specified that there were issues with the content of the units that had been developed rather than the 5E method. Teachers generally recorded positive impacts with students learning and student’s attitudes toward science. This report did highlight that some of the issues that can be associated with the implementation of the 5Es into teaching are teachers eliminating
time allotted for science education. When looking at Report 2 the primary findings indicated that each of the 5E phases were appropriately implemented with teachers being adequately prepared and knowledgeable about the outcomes of each phase. One interesting outcome arose with relation to the Evaluation phase. This result found that, in several instances, teachers did not complete the evaluate phase as part of a lesson, a finding which was not found with the other phases. Teachers were however found to carry out their own evaluations of the students learning, outside of the prescribed methods. This could highlight that teachers were not comfortable or confident at implementing evaluation activities but this is not addressed in the publication. Report 3 and Report 4 had similar findings due to their connected nature. The outcomes of these studies found positive student responses to the application of both constructivist and specifically inquiry methodologies. These responses relate both to the application of the constructivist lesson and the students attitude upon the conclusion of the lesson. Interestingly, the concentration of the constructivist ideals is placed on the central idea of evidence in teaching in the Primary Connections report. This idea ensured that students were working with evidence at all times in their learning to enable specific and clear learning to occur.
As stated previously, the large nature of the Primary connections project has allowed data to be collected on many varied topics including the reports described above as well as several others. The four reports selected above were chosen due to the relative comparisons of the nature of their subject to this research. Overall the Primary Connections project has shown how the implementation of a Professional Development course using the 5E framework in Inquiry based lessons can have a positive influence on teaching and learning in science.
2.5.3: Overall Case Study Results
As it can be seen both the Pollen project and Primary connections present valuable information when it comes to research into the field on IBSE. By understanding the approaches, methodologies and recommendations that have been developed from these large projects, research can be developed into the subject that accounts for many
of the issues viewed in these projects. Also attempts can be made to draw comparisons and contrasts on the results of research to these projects.