Data collection methods

foci:

1. The teacher participant; 2. The student participants;

3. Gradual release of responsibility model.

Teacher data sources

It was important to use the GRR framework to inform data sources in relation to the teacher’s Science pedagogy to answer the research questions:

1. What strategies does the teacher use to implement Science Inquiry through GRR practices in a year-4 Science class?

2. What affordances/constraints does the teacher identify in using these strategies?

In keeping with the essence of data collection aligned with qualitative case study, several methods of data collection were implemented. These included a range of teacher data sources:

1. Teacher planning documents: Stella modified the Primary Connections Unit, Plants in Action (Australian Academy of Science, 2012), and referred to the Australian Science Curriculum (Appendix 1) to plan the sequence of learning. She identified the learning outcomes students were expected to achieve and planned to explicitly teach the Science Inquiry Skills (questioning, investigating, observing, measuring, analysing data and communicating findings).

2. The student pre-test (Appendix 2) was implemented to determine the students’ prior understanding of the scientific concepts they were expected to learn as well their prior learning experiences using the Science Inquiry Skills.

3. PowerPoint presentations: Stella prepared a PowerPoint presentation of approximately 10 slides for each of the eight lessons. The GRR phases were explicitly identified on the slides.

were implemented by the teacher. Two cameras were positioned in the classroom. One was at the front and the other was at the back of the classroom. They were operated by the researcher. Both cameras were focused on the whole class, however, while students collaborated in science teams one camera was used to zoom in on Stella as she

circulated around the class. An audio recorder was placed in the middle of each science team.

5. Photographs of notes, illustrations created by the teacher on classroom whiteboards during lessons: These included students working in science teams and student artefacts, for example, plants growing in pots.

6. Informal interviews with the teacher: Throughout the eight week science unit the researcher conducted informal interviews with the teacher,

asking probing questions into the practices and pedagogical reasoning in relation to concrete examples embedded in the actual practice of the teacher participant. For example, in seeking to explore the teacher’s formative assessment the following questions were asked:

“How did you monitor students’ within the phases of the GRR?”

“How does formative assessment help you make decisions about what you’re going to teach?”

In summary the teacher data sources sought to discover what the teacher did, what hindered her, what assisted her, and what response there was from the students.

7. Teacher’s reflective journal. The teacher was provided with four

questions to guide her reflective journal entries. The teacher’s reflective journal provided a rich source of evidence for understanding conceptions of the phenomenon (the teacher’s GRR pedagogy teaching SIS). Stella made entries into a reflective journal after teaching each one hour science lesson which focused on a specific Science Inquiry Skill (observing, questioning, investigating, measuring, data analysis and interpretation or communicating).

Question 1.

What strategies do you use to implement GRR practices to teach for teaching Science Inquiry Skills? ________________ (name of skill)

(You can attach any supporting documents, for example, worksheets, formative assessments. Please make a note of any ideas that you think would be useful for other teachers using the GRR to teach Science Inquiry Skills. This can be in note form and is not meant to take up much of your time. Add additional dates to suit where required).

I do it: Date We do it: Date You do it together: Date You do it alone: Date Question 2a.

What constraints do you identify when teaching students ___________ Science Inquiry Skill using the GRR? Are there any limitations? (Consider what you think other teachers using this method would like to know. Make your own reflective notes).

I do it: Date We do it: Date You do it together: Date You do it alone:

Question 2b.

What is positive about using the GRR when teaching students ___________ Science Inquiry Skill using the GRR?

(Consider what you think other teachers using this method would like to know). I do it: Date We do it: Date You do it together: Date You do it alone: Date Question 3.

What outcomes related to SIS do the students (individuals/ whole class) make? (Note any observations that you consider are significant. Evidence of students’ learning outcomes will also be evident in video/audio recordings, science journals, formative/summative assessments and PAT Science. Note any progress that the students are making towards achieving the WILF goals).

Student data sources

Data sources providing evidence of students’ learning outcomes sought to reveal what responses there were from the students to answer the research question:

What outcomes related to Science Inquiry Skills do students achieve as a consequence of the GRR model? These included:

1. Video and audio recordings of the eight one hour lessons: Two cameras were positioned in the classroom. The two cameras were focused on the whole class, however, while students collaborated in science teams one camera was used to zoom in on the student focus group of the study

(Queensland). An audio recorder was placed in the middle of each science team. There were eight science teams with 3 to 4 students in each.

2. Individual student science journal: This was completed during each lesson. Students were required to complete an end-of-unit investigation in their science journal. Examples from Queensland students’ science journals are provided in Chapter 5.

3. Individual student science reflective journals: These were completed weekly. An example of a student’s reflective journal is provided in Appendix 3. At the end of each week students made an entry in a reflective journal to record metacognitive thinking of their learning. 4. Individual and group graphic organisers: These were teacher made and

also sourced from the Primary Connections Unit: Plants in Action (Australian Academy of Science, 2012). The graphic organisers were completed individually or by the whole group, depending on the learning intent.

5. Individual post-teaching survey (Appendix 4): Each student completed the Science Inquiry Skills survey at the end of the eight week science unit. These were analysed for evidence of students’ awareness of their own learning of Science Inquiry Skills and scientific conceptual

knowledge and understanding and; students’ affective experiences of learning science.

Additionally, the “What I’m Looking For” (WILF) framework (Table 3.3), highlights the focus for student data collection and analysis to determine students’ learning outcomes. The teacher and researcher paid particular attention to the extent to which students demonstrated, What I’m looking for … (WILF) goals. The teacher kept a reflective journal on students’ activities and learning outcomes in Science. The WILF framework together with student data sources provided valuable insight into what outcomes were achieved by

students.

There are many ways to monitor students’ understanding. The researcher (in the role as instructional coach) had modelled some of them during the trial of

these data sources. Teacher-student dialogue offered one way to monitor progress and facilitated formative assessment in each phase of the GRR. Teacher-student dialogue providing evidence of Stella monitoring student progress was transcribed from audio and video recordings and is reported in Chapters 4 and 5.

Gradual release of responsibility framework in relation to data collection

Evidence of how the teacher implemented the GRR for teaching Science Inquiry Skills was collected during research. There are four phases of learning in the GRR framework. These are: I do it; We do it; You do it together; You do it alone (Figure 2.1). This model of instruction gradually releases the responsibility of learning throughout these four phases from teacher to students. Table 3.5 provides an elaboration of teacher and student data sources in relation to the GRR model.

Table 3.5

Elaboration of teacher and student data sources using GRR model

Phase of GRR model Data sources

Before GRR Students’ PATScience assessments.

Students’ pre-test of knowledge (Appendix 2). I do it (teacher explanation

and demonstration)

Video and audio recordings of dialogue in the “I do it” phase of instruction in each lesson.

A range of teacher planning documents that provided evidence of how GRR instructional practices (lesson PowerPoints, unit planning documents).

Formative assessments designed by the teacher. Photographs of notes and illustrations created by the teacher on classroom whiteboards during lessons.

Photographs and audio recording of teacher- student discussions.

Informal interviews with the teacher to determine what worked well and what didn’t.

Teacher’s reflective journal. We do it (teacher-student

collaboratively)

Video and audio recordings of teacher-student and student-student dialogue.

Students’ science journals displaying evidence of scientific literacy.

Students’ graphic organisers completed throughout the Science Unit.

Teacher’s reflective journal.

Semi-structured interview with teacher to determine how students were monitored. You do it together

(collaboration in groups)

Video and audio recordings of teacher-student and student-student dialogue.

Teacher semi-structured interview to determine what worked well and what didn’t work.

Formative assessments designed by the teacher. Students’ end of unit investigation.

Teacher’s reflective journal.

Students’ science journals displaying evidence of scientific literacy.

Students’ reflective journals displaying evidence of scientific literacy (Appendix 3).

You do it alone (independent)

Video and audio recordings of teacher-student and student-student dialogue.

Teacher semi-structured interview to determine what worked well and what didn’t work.

Students’ end of unit investigation.

Students’ science journals displaying evidence of scientific literacy.

After GRR Students’ PATScience assessments.

Students’ post-teaching survey (Appendix 4).