Chapter 7. Conclusions and Implications
7.3 Implications
Four major implications from the findings of the STEPS project are:
The knowledge and experiences of educators organising the science school-based programs is transferable and can be shared with other partnership situations:
The case studies report on the knowledge and experiences of a variety of science school based programs that have been operating for up to 25 years. This knowledge capital is applicable and transferable to other community and contextual learning situations. This was evident at workshop conferences where other teacher educators were compelled to share their stories, but also very interested in hearing more about the team’s experiences. The language and framing used to describe the partnerships in the Interpretive Framework is relevant and applicable to other partnership situations:
Partnerships that incorporate the community, school, and university are becoming increasingly significant in teacher education programs (White, 2014). Teacher quality is recognised as critical for a quality education and there is a growing concern about the effectiveness of initial teacher training1. In Victoria, the School Centres for Teaching Excellence (DEECD, 2014) is operating from 2015 for two years. The program aims to actively build partnerships between universities and schools with the aim of improving teacher quality with a site-based training model for pre-service teacher training2. The
1http://www.studentsfirst.gov.au/teacher-quality
findings of the STEPS Project with regard to the language and framing of the nature of partnerships between universities and schools has implications for future teacher education programs. The current discussions that disrupt the traditional role of universities in teacher education and positions schools as being more active partners3 has implications for the emerging roles and responsibilities of teacher educators, PSTs, teacher supervisors, mentors and principals. The Interpretive Framework, as a partnership model, can help shape the way new partnership ventures are grown, the relationships that are developed, the practices that might arise as a result of the partnership, and how the partnership can enable growth and change. While the Interpretive Framework is currently explicitly written for partnerships in science education (especially the Guiding Pedagogical Principles), the four-part
framework is adaptable to other educative partnership contexts, as illustrated by its application to university-school-industry partnerships of the “Skilling the Bay” project in Geelong.
The authentic learning experiences of the school-based approach inspire and foster growth: The project reported that the authenticity of the school-based program provided contextual practical learning opportunities in which the PSTs had to plan, teach, assess and critically reflect on a complete unit of science. It is not inconsequential that reflection is core to all of the school-based programs. Reflection is an essential generic skill that is a mechanism for professional growth. The Growth Model, while not including reflection explicitly; posits growth in identity, confidence, praxis and relationships as being essential for more effective teaching and teacher education; critical reflection is required for this growth to occur. An authentic learning experience that disrupts previously held perceptions, and prompts new ways of perceiving the world and themselves, provides the fuel for this reflection.
School-based approaches in teacher education build confidence and knowledge in teaching science:
The data showed an increase in PST confidence to teach science as a result of their
experiences in the school-based programs. This has implications for the teaching of science in primary schools and will help to tackle the extensively reported issues around primary teachers’ lack of science knowledge and confidence to teach science. The teacher educator interviews identified a number of barriers to using partnership approaches in teacher education; many of these same barriers had been encountered by the project team in their own contexts. However, as the findings of this project show, despite the challenges, the effect of using these types of partnership approaches are immense and worth pursuing.
3 TEMAG, 2015; School centres for teaching excellence
References
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1996). Organisational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 36(1), 207-109.
Australian Academy of Science (AAS). (2014). Primary connections. Canberra: AAS. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Brandenburg, R. (2004). Round table reflections: (Re)defining the role of the teacher
educator and the preservice teacher as ‘co-learners’. Australian Journal of Education, 48(2), 166-181.
Bybee, R.W. (1989). Science and technology education for the elementary years:
Frameworks for curriculum and instruction. Washington, DC: The National Centre for Improving Instruction.
Campbell, C. (2006). Innovative science education assessment – linking theory with practice. Conference Proceedings for the International Conference on Science and
Mathematics Education (CoSMED), Penang, Malaysia.
Chief Scientist. (2013). STEM: Country comparison: Recommendations. Canberra: Australian Government.
Chubb, I. (2013). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics in the national interest: A strategic approach: A position paper. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education
51(3), 166-173.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314.
Dobson, I. (2003). Science at the crossroads? A study of trends in university science from Dawkins to now 1989-2002, Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University. A study commissioned by the Australian Council of Deans of Science. Department of Education & Early Childhood Development [DEECD]. (2014). School centres
for teaching excellence. Retrieved from
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/programs/partnerships/schoolc entresteachexcelfactsheet.pdf
Department of Education, Science and Training [DEST]. (2003). Australia's teachers:
Australia's future. Advancing innovation, science, technology and mathematics. Main report. Canberra, ACT, Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/1/
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, N.Y.: Berley.
Goddard, R.D. (2003). The impact of schools on teacher beliefs, influence, and student achievement: The role of collective efficacy. In J. Raths & A. McAninch (Eds.),
Advances in teacher education (Vol. 6) (pp. 183-204). Westport, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Helms, J. (1998). Science-and me: Subject matter and identity in secondary school science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 811-834.
Hinton, T., Gannaway, D., Berry, B., & Moore, K. (2011). The D-cubed guide: Planning for effective dissemination. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/dissemination
Hobbs, L. (2012). Examining the aesthetic dimensions of teaching: Relationships between teacher knowledge, identity and passion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 718- 727.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training. (2007). Top of the class. Report on the inquiry into teacher education. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training. Howitt, C. (2007). Pre-service elementary teachers’ perceptions of factors in an holistic
methods course influencing their confidence in teaching science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 41-58.
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764-791.
Jones, M. (2008). Collaborative partnerships: A model for science teacher education and professional development. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 61-76. Jones, M. (2010). Collaborative partnerships: A model of professional learning in primary science for practicing and preservice teacher (Doctoral thesis). Australian Catholic University, Melbourne. Retrieved from
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adt-acuvp299.29062011/ Jones, M.G. & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In Abell, S. &
Lederman, N. (Eds.). Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1067-1104). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Kenny, J. (2010). Preparing primary teachers to teach primary science: A partnership based approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(10), 1267-1288.
Kenny, J. (2012). University-school partnerships: Pre-service and in-service teachers working together to teach primary science, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 57-82.
Kenny, J., Hobbs, L., Jones, M., Chittleborough, G., Campbell, C., Gilbert, A., Redman, C., & Herbert, S. (2014). Science teacher partnerships with schools (STEPS): Project- partnerships in science teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(12), 43-65.
Keys, P. (2005). Are teachers walking the walk or just talking the talk in science education? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 11(5), 499-516.
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020-1041.
Kruger, T., Davies, A., Eckersley, B., Newell, F., & Cherednichenko, B. (2009). Effective and Sustainable University-School Partnerships: Beyond determined efforts by inspired individuals. Canberra: AITSL.
Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: in search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33-43.
Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.
Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons: International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Final report. Australian Council of Learned Academies,
Melbourne, Vic.
McNamara, S., Jones, M., & McLean, K. (2007). Stories in ICT professional development: Report from the Victoria project. In C. Reading (Ed.), Partnerships in ICT learning study: Case studies (pp. 139-158). Canberra: Department of Science, Education and Training.
Murphy, C., Beggs, J. Carlisle, K., & Greenwood, J. (2004). Students as ‘catalysts’ in the classroom: The impact of co-teaching between science student teachers and primary classroom teachers on children’s enjoyment and learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 1023-1035.
Parliament of Victoria, Education and Training Committee. (2005). Step up, step in, step out. Report on the suitability of pre-service teacher training in Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer.
Peterson, J. E. & Treagust, D.F. (2014) School and University partnerships: The role of
teacher education institutions and primary schools in the development of preservice teachers’ science teaching efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(9). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n9.2
Rossner, P. & Commins, D. (2012). Defining enduring partnerships: Can a wellworn path be an effective, sustainable and mutually beneficial relationship? Brisbane: Queensland College of Teachers.
Ryan, J. & Jones, M. (2012). Preservice teacher education partnerships: Creating an effective practicum model for rural and regional preservice teachers. Retrieved from
http://www.olt.gov.au/project-preservice-teacher-education-partnerships-acu-2009 Smith, C., Ferns, S., Russell, L., & Cretchley, P. (2014). The impact of work integrated learning
on student work-readiness. Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/project- assessing-impact-work-integrated-learning-wil-student-work-readiness-2011 Speldewinde, C.A. (2014). STEPS (Science teacher education partnerships with schools):
Annotated Bibliography. Geelong, VIC.: Deakin. Retrieved from http://www.stepsproject.org.au
Stake, R. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, N.Y.: The Guilford Press. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG). (2014). Teacher Education
Ministerial Advisory Group Issues Paper. Canberra: Australian Government. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG). (2015). Action now: Classroom
ready teacher. Canberra: Australian Government.
Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: engaging students in science for
Australia's future: Australian Education Review 51, Australian Council for Educational Research.
Tytler, R., Osbourne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., Cripps Clark, J. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagements in STEM across the primary-secondary school transition. Canberra: DEEWR.
Ure, C., Gough, A., & Newton, R. (2009). Practicum partnerships: Exploring models of practicum organisation in teacher education for a standards-based profession. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, U.K.: The Althouse Press.
White, S. (2014). New research into the work and role of teacher educators in school- university - community partnerships. School centres of teaching excellence (SCTA). Retrieved from
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/partnerships/Pages/partnernatio nalsteach.aspx
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Appendix A. Certification
Certification by Deputy Vice-Chancellor (or equivalent)
I certify that all parts of the final report for this OLT grant/fellowship (remove as
appropriate) provide an accurate representation of the implementation, impact and findings of the project, and that the report is of publishable quality.
Name: Professor Beverley Oliver Date: 20 March 2015
Appendix B. Initial conceptualisation of the STEPS
project
Initial discussions identified varied elements of the project. These helped to guide the literature search and annotated bibliography, and to conceptualise the data collection associated with evaluation of the project. These elements related to theory underpinning the approach, the potential impact of the school-based practice, and the specifics
associated with the different models of practice of the project team.
The theoretical elements refer to areas of the literature that are informing the study. The current state of “science teaching in primary schools”, as well as the tendency for pre- service teachers to have limited positive experiences with science and opportunities to see science taught or to teach science on placement. This element is related to the
conceptualisation of a “theory-practice divide” between authentic classroom practice and educational theory. There appear to be changes in the teacher education sector moving towards situated learning experiences that require “partnerships” with schools as a way of linking theory with practice. “Partnerships” are fundamental to the school-based practice. The research is conceptualising value for the schools, also the distinctiveness of the science context in terms of this approach. “Reflective practice” and “teacher efficacy and identity” are fundamental to the practices; teacher identity can be a mechanism for developing a teacher efficacy and professional identity and teacher reflection is a mechanism through which identity development can occur. Reflective practice, identity and efficacy focus strongly on the experience of the pre-service teacher. This focus on teachers thinking their way into a space is a move away from the previous model of primary science teachers, which was principally focused on competence and confidence (a deficit model). Timing of the school-based practice is important so that PSTs are “ready” to begin constructing an identity in relation to science.
The potential impact of the project is on “Teacher Education” through providing practical and theoretical models of effective science practice through real science teaching
experiences that pre-service teachers often do not have during placement or as an in- service teacher. The project also has a potential impact on “school practice” through preparing willing and able teachers, but also modelling for the school, teachers involved in contemporary and effective science teaching pedagogy.
The project examines the specifics of the models used by each university involved. They are all different in terms of “site difference and contexts”, that is the schools used; and the “nature of the school-based approach” and “specifics of each model” vary depending on the unit aims and goals and nature of the partnerships involved. In addition, the variety of models included has meant that the project has been able to generate “critical success factors and barriers” that may be inherent in different contexts.
Appendix C. STEPS Publications
Chittleborough, G., Hobbs, L., Campbell, C., Redman, C., Kenny, J., Herbert, S., Jones, M., & Gilbert, A. (submitted October 2014). School-university partnerships enabling primary pre-service teacher learning. Journal of Teacher Education
Hobbs, L, Herbert, S., Jones, M., Campbell, C., Chittleborough, G., Kenny, J., Redman, C., & Gilbert, A. (2014). Science Teacher Education Partnerships with Schools (STEPS): Informing and guiding practices in university-school partnerships. Paper presented to the Contemporary Approaches to Research in Mathematics, Science, Health and Environmental Education, Deakin University Melbourne, 28-29 November 2014. Hobbs, L. & Herbert, S. (2015, in press). School-based approaches to pre-service primary
science teacher education resulting in gains in confidence. In Proceedings of the Australian Teacher Education Association Conference, 6-9 July, 2014, Sydney, Australia.
Herbert, S., Hobbs, L., Chittleborough, G. & Campbell, C. (submitted October 2014).
Students’ views of school-based approaches to pre-service primary science teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education
Hobbs, L., Jones, M. and Gilbert, A. (2014). Growing University-School Partnerships in Science Teacher Education: An Interpretive Framework. Paper presented to the ASERA Conference, July, 2014.
Hobbs, L., Jones, M., King, J., Chittleborough, G., Redman, C., Campbell, C., Kenny, J., and Herbert, S. (2013). Science Teacher Education Partnerships with Schools (STEPS): Developing an Interpretive Framework for Primary Science Teacher Education. Paper presented to the Contemporary Approaches to Research in Mathematics, Science, Health and Environmental Education, Deakin University Melbourne, 28-29
November 2013. Online proceedings, yet to be available.
Kenny, J., Hobbs, L., Jones, M., Chittleborough, G., Campbell,C., Gilbert, A., Redman, C., and Herbert, S. (2014). Science Teacher Partnerships with Schools (STEPS): Partnerships in science teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(12), 43-65. Kenny, J., Redman, C., Hobbs, L., Jones, M., Campbell, C., Gilbert, A., Chittleborough, G. and
Herbert, S. (2014). Developing effective school and university partnerships for teacher education. In Proceedings of 6th Annual EduLearn Conference on Education and New Technologies, 7-9 July, 2014, Barcelona, Spain. ISBN: 978-84-617-0557-3 Speldewinde, C.A. (2014). STEPS (Science Teacher Education Partnerships with Schools):
Annotated Bibliography. Geelong VIC: Deakin. Available: http://www.stepsproject.org.au