Memories of Previous Tertiary Level Science Classes and Practical Experiences

The experience of previous university science courses was varied among the participants. Alan, Maria, Lucy and John had either begun or completed a previous degree in a science-related degree, while Kate had completed multiple science discipline units as part of her specialisation in science for her primary teaching degree. No other participants had completed any additional science study at university. For Alan and John, there was a perceived discrepancy between what they had hoped they would experience and the actual experience of their science degrees. John came into university to begin a sports science degree, primarily due to his love of sport and despite his high school science experiences. He hoped that the emphasis would be on the analysis of sport, but the emphasis on physiology during his first semester led him to transfer to primary education. Alan completed a previous degree in geophysics before coming into education for postgraduate studies, and shared how his experiences of geophysics seemed incompatible with his own personal beliefs:

My experience of science going into geophysics eventually and my inspiration was I wanted to understand how the world worked. I just was so intrigued by why, how, and I was met with a very dry approach, I felt, and although I wasn’t conscious of it, later on it would become known to me that I was actually yearning for a more meaningful approach to science. One that was integrated with the human body, with the human mind and so on. (Alan, interview Aug. 13) Maria and Lucy enjoyed their tertiary science studies but questioned their long-term career paths. Lucy enjoyed her science learning in nursing and biomedicine, but she felt they did not translate into a desired vocation for her personally. For Maria, a disconnect emerged between her tertiary studies in neuroscience and her feelings about what she wanted to do in her career:

I really like engaging people, I love working with kids and it was an epiphany in a chemistry lab and [the lecturer] was doing titration and I just thought, I don't want to do this for the rest of my life. I actually want to be with people, I want to be with kids and doing rather than the paper academic side. (Maria, interview Aug. 13)

Kate’s descriptions of her experiences of science during her tertiary study were positive. For her, her university science study reawakened a holistic view of science, which had narrowed for her during her studies in Year 11 and 12, due to the overemphasis on examination preparation and grades. In coming to university, she realised that she had more opportunities to show what she knew and she could broaden her perspective. In the following comment, Kate describes a moment in one of her units, where she felt connection to the learning due to her interest in the subject matter:

I did [a science unit], which was the human anatomy one, I think something clicked there for me. I just thought, I love learning about the muscles and the bones and stuff. (Kate, interview Aug. 13)

At the beginning of the Primary Science unit, six participants had completed another science methods unit as part of their degrees called Environmental Science and Technology. Environmental Science and Technology was normally completed in Semester Two of the first year of the degree for those completing the Bachelor of Education (Primary). The unit was structured with a one-hour lecture and a two- hour tutorial each week for 13 weeks. While focusing on environmental content, it provided an introduction to some aspects of the science curriculum and was designed to assist preservice teachers with the development of a repertoire of science teaching strategies. At the time of the August 2013 interviews, this unit was being phased out for those enrolled in early childhood degrees in order for a replacement early childhood science methods unit to meet ACECQA requirements. This meant that for those enrolled in the Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood and Care: 0-8 years), Jamie had completed the unit, but Kerrie had not, as she was a mid-year enrolment. Additionally, Lucy was completing the unit concurrently with the Primary Science unit.

The in-depth interview participants’ perceptions of this unit were overly positive. Only Toni and Sarah expressed ambivalence with the unit. Toni shared that she felt a lack of integration between the lectures and tutorials but enjoyed the resources that were shared through the course reader. However, when it came time for her to have a go at using the resources when on her practical experiences, there was limited opportunity. For Sarah, while some aspects of the unit were perceived as beneficial, she still felt hesitant, which she felt was connected to the unit’s timing in relation to her degree. She explained:

It was all right. The content was good and it was useful, and [the science teacher educator] was very passionate about what she was talking about. I think being in the first year and my first real contact with science since I left school, left me a bit unsure of it. (Sarah, interview Aug. 13)

Mark, John, Jamie and Kate detailed positive experiences with the unit. For Mark, he felt that the real strength of the unit, similar to Toni, was the course reader. In contrast to Toni though, Mark felt that he was able to use the resources presented in the course reader as the basis for providing direction to some lessons during his practical experiences. Environmental Science and Technology appealed to John for different reasons. In his previous experiences of science in high school and university, he felt that his immaturity was partially responsible for his lack of engagement. John felt that the hands-on nature of the tutorials in particular was a highlight of the unit. Jamie appreciated that the structure and content of the unit catered effectively towards teaching science at a primary school level in relation to environmental science. She perceived Environmental Science and Technology as her favourite unit within her degree and felt that the course reader and group presentations were a real highlight. Kate shared that she enjoyed the unit for similar reasons, stating:

I enjoyed going to the lectures…I think because it was environmental science, it was something we could really relate to. But relate to on a personal level, because it was implementing pedagogy and how we could teach it to kids. It was not just, “Oh global warming sucks”, but what you could do right now to make a difference. (Kate, interview Aug. 13)

In August 2013 at the start of the Primary Science unit, the in-depth interview participants also had experience of tertiary science through the practical experiences they had as part of their degree. As previously discussed, the university that the preservice teachers were attending had a high practical experience component incorporated into teaching degrees, which was greater than AITSL requirements and a point of difference between other universities in Western Australia. At the start of the Primary Science unit, Jamie, Mark, John, Toni, Sarah and Kate had completed a 10-week practical experience in their second and third year of their degree, as well as a two-week immersion in their first week. Kerrie, Lucy and Alan had completed a 10- week practical experience and two-week immersion, as Kerrie and Lucy were mid- year enrolments and Alan was enrolled in a Master of Teaching (Primary) degree. Maria was the only in-depth interview participant who had not completed practical experiences, due to the fact that she was a practising teacher and practical experiences were not a requirement of her degree.

Practical experiences of quality science were varied for the participants. Kerrie, Jamie, John and Sarah all had at least one practical experience where they saw limited or no science taught. For Kerrie and Jamie, these were both in early childhood settings, with Jamie experiencing limited science in both a Kindergarten classroom and in her childcare centre practicum. Alternatively, Mark, John and Kate had one experience where they were able to plan and teach a series of science lessons after strong modelling and support from their cooperating teacher. All of these participants felt that, as a result, student engagement was high and felt fulfilled in the experience. Similarly, Sarah, in the most recent practical experience before beginning the Primary Science unit, was able to observe and assist a passionate and highly skilled cooperative teacher with his science lessons.

Toni, Lucy and Kate had one practical experience where a science specialist teacher provided release time for their cooperating teachers, which meant that their only experiences of observing science was limited. For Toni and Lucy, they attended some of these lessons and offered support to the science specialist teacher, but for both, having a science specialist teacher did not always translate to quality learning and teaching. However, Kate decided that she wanted an opportunity to teach science and

convinced her cooperating classroom teacher to run a series of science lessons, in addition to the science specialist classes.

Mark, Toni and Alan all had practical experiences where the resource Primary Connections was used to teach science. However, these in-depth participants shared that the resource was used as more of a checklist and their cooperating teachers shared an ambivalence or dislike of teaching science. When Mark and Toni were asked to do a science lesson from the resource, both experienced challenges in understanding what they were required to do and were given limited support by their cooperating teachers. Alan observed the students enjoying science, but also significant behaviour management issues, which further limited the quality of the learning and teaching. Further exploration of how these science units and practical experiences influenced the science teaching efficacy beliefs of in-depth interview participants will be discussed in Chapter Five.

4.3.5 Other Factors that Influenced Beliefs about Science Learning and