Ilkka Ratinen, Sami Lehesvuori, Jouni Viiri

1

METHODOLOGY

S-TEAM Work Package 6

Jyväskylä University – JYU

Ilkka Ratinen, Sami Lehesvuori, Jouni Viiri

Introduction

In the present paper we introduce the methodology relating to the development of our training package.Professional development starts from pre-service teacher training. Therefore, in the S-TEAM JYU project, teacher professional development is depicted in association with initial teacher training. The literature review also shows that inquiry based methods are not very popular and teachers tend to use teaching methods which are not dialogic because they are easier for teacher. These are the main facts on which we base our science education course for primary student-teachers.

In the University of Jyväskylä the science education course for primary student-teachers is 9 credits out of the total Master's degree which is 300 credits (ETCS). The course extends for one academic year. The core of the course is a study project which the students prepare in groups. The aim of the project is todevelop a teaching-learning sequence of one science topic. The project includes the content analysis, finding out pupils’ ideas about the topic, finding, selecting or creating the most appropriate presentations and teaching strategies, and making a plan for a teaching-learning sequence of severallessons.Most of the teaching of the course (lectures, group work, assignments etc.) supports the study project. Since we believe that classroom communication, which enhances the quality of cognitive knowledge, is essential for the purposeful learning processes and professional development, the course includes tutoring towards more dialogic teaching.

The starting point of the study project is a concept of learning as a process whereacquiring knowledge and skills is a necessary tool for learning whichaims for conceptual change. The task of the teacher is to create dialogic teaching and learning situations where students negotiate meanings for concepts, and throughthis process, become aware of their own thinking. It is essential that students sharetheir ideas during group discussions.

There are three essential processes in the study project. Firstly, existing knowledge must be critically analyzed in order to achieve a revelation of what has been achieved or not. Then students’ interest is directed to different alternatives which exist for solving the emergent problems. Thirdly,by students collaborating, when the group communicates collectively, this creates a meaningful learning environment for each learner. The purpose of the collaboration is to seek together scientifically accurate solutions for problems that areunder consideration. During the S-TEAM JYU project our students concentrate in developing teaching-learning sequences on global warming.

Consequently, thetraining package will be focused on the greenhouse effect, instruction of the greenhouse effect in the primary school and dialogic teaching related to the greenhouse effect and its scientific conceptualization (e.g. wave model, molecule vibration, biological consequences, local and global aspects). Data is collected during student-teachers’ study project and their practise classes. Student teachers’ concept maps, their interviews and classroom videotaping are primary data sources that are analysed mainly theory based qualitative analysis.

The particular purpose of the S-TEAM JYU project is to develop the science education course in the University of Jyväskylä. Probably the most important issue of the study project is that after the course our primary student teachers may consider learning processes in science more deeply and not only their own knowledge about science.The model which is developed during the project can also be used for in-service teacher training in the future.

Research questions

The S-TEAM JYU project is focused on finding answers to the following questions:

• How do primary student-teachers conceptualize the greenhouse effect?
• How do science course develop primary student-teachers’ understandingand implementation of inquiry-based dialogic science teaching

a)in the beginning of the course and

b)at end of the course?

The following chapters introduce first, the framework ideas for the study project (educational reconstruction, classroom communication andprocedure and schedule of study project) and then methods of data collecting (concept mapping, interviews, video recording) thathas already been developed in the University of Jyväskylä and in theinternational research community

Framework ideas for the study project

Educational reconstruction

Student teachers’ study projectsfollow the model of educational reconstruction. The focus in educational reconstruction is the reconstruction of science knowledge for the purpose of making key ideas of this knowledge understandable for students. The overall aim of practicing educational reconstruction is to identify the connections between scientific knowledge and the students’ alternative frameworks in everyday life. (Kattman, Duit & Gropengießer, 1998; Duit, Gropengiesser & Kattmann, 2005).Scientific knowledge is the result of a process of abstraction and reduction. On the other hand teaching science involves making the science point of view understandable and meaningful to learners, hence the term ‘reconstruction’. The first step is clarification of scientific knowledge or subject matter structure. The term ‘educational’ reconstruction is justified here because the analysis of content structure is influenced by educational issues: there is a close interplay between the clarification and investigation of students’ perspectives (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The dynamic interrelations of the model of educational reconstruction (Kattman, Duit & Gropengießer, 1998).

The first step in educational reconstruction is ‘elementarisation’ (Figure 2), herethe aim is to detect the key ‘elementary’ ideas of the science content under inspection.The analysis and reconstruction of the science content is based on the analysis of leading textbooks, key publications and even the historical development of the relevant scientific ideas (Duit,2000). Some studies on learning science can also be used as an entry point for the analysis of the science content. Clarifying questions are used in the analysis process, for instance (Kattman, Duit & Gropengießer, 1998):

• Which are the scientific theories, principles and concepts on a specific subject, and where are their limitations?
• Which scientific terms are being used, and which of these constrain or promote learning just because of their literal meaning?

‘Content’ is used in the model with a somewhat broad spectrum of meanings. The term does not only include science concepts and principles but also science processes, views of the nature of science and views of the significance of science in society.

The second component includes investigation of students’ understanding of the identified basic ideas. This could take the form of empirical investigation and/or a literature search. The results concerning students' learning processes and learning difficulties inform the construction of the content structure for instruction and the design of efficient learning environments as well (Duit, 2000). It is noted that affective features (like students' interests and motivations) have been given only minor attention in international literature so far.

Clarifying questions are used also in identifying important conceptions students hold regarding the target area, for instance (Kattman, Duit & Gropengießer, 1998):

• How are the scientific concepts represented from the students’ perspective?
• Which conceptions are used by the students?
• How do alternative student conceptions correspond with scientific conceptions?

Figure 2. Educational reconstruction and its interdisciplinary nature. (Duit, Niedderer & Schecker, 2007).

An important feature in educational reconstruction is that the reconstructed science content is “simpler” than the science content, i.e. the scientific content is changed to make it accessible to students. Duit (2000) stresses that the major features of scientific ideas and their relationships should be adequately matched in the reconstructed science content. On the other hand, the reconstructed science content has to be much more complex than the abstract science content which has to be embedded into various contexts (‘enriching’) in order to correspond to various difficulties and learning potentiality of the learners. This feature is consistent with the epistemological learning demand discussed earlier.

The third component, the construction of instruction, attempts to take students’ conceptions seriously. Students’ conceptions and alternative frameworks in everyday life are accepted as a starting point and an aid for learning. Hence, the educational reconstruction approach relies on students’ existing ideas and aims at extending them to a new domain in order to promote conceptual change. It might be very difficult to take into account the whole complexity of interrelated issues in a holistic manner from the very start (Duit, 2000). Therefore, there has to be some kind of an iterative procedure as outlined in Figure 3.

Figure 3. The process of Educational Reconstruction (Duit, 2000)

The subsequent step deals with the construction of the content structure for instruction based on these key elementary ideas. Both parts of the process of the educational reconstruction are significantly influenced by both students’ perspectives and the aims of instruction which are usually provided by the curriculum. Subsequently, the aims may be understood in terms of level of detail and mathematical abstraction at which the given science topic should be dealt with.

Classroom communication

Student teachers plan their teaching sequence using educational reconstruction. Besides the content of the teaching-learning sequence they also have to plan classroom communication. Therefore, we have seminars about classroom communication. The aim of this part of the programme isto introduce student teachers to different talk patterns that are strongly (but not solely) related with specific communicative approaches (Mortimer & Scott, 2003).

Communicative approachis a framework for analysing classroom discourse and consists of four categories generated from the combination of two dimensions: interactive – non-interactive and authoritative – dialogic (Figure 4). The authoritative approach focuses on the scientific point of view. In contrast, the dialogic approach explores and exploits students’ ideas (everyday views), and has no evaluative aspect. Interactive talk allows students to participate, whereas non-interactive talk is of a lecture type.

Figure 4. Communicative approaches with teacher interventions and the common patterns of talk

Classroom teaching is known to be commonly based on authoritative types of communication which should not be the case, all the time, in science classroom meaning making processes (e.g. Alexander, 2004). This focus on authoritative talk most likely follows from dialogic approaches being more challenging to identify and implement in teaching, even if this is not commonlyacknowledged by the teachers. Dialogic discourse in Mortimer and Scott’s categorisation is considered when the teacher is not trying to achieve a specific point of view (science point of view). Rather the teacher tries to elicit the students’ point of view (students’ everyday views) and works with these. As an exception, if the teacher asks for further explanations in order to negotiate the correct answer, or the science view, the discourse is not considered as a dialogic communicative approach, although it could be considered as an I-R-F-R-F-chain.

Communicative approach in relation to inquiry based learning. Since the key feature of the project is inquiry based learning, it would be appropriate to discuss what role the communicative approach plays in it. There are many models of inquiry based learning, but probably Wells’s (1999) dialogic inquiry fits best when it comes to linking a communicative approach, and especially dialogic approach, to this kind of learning. According to Wells’s (1999) model, in order to reach this complex level of inquiry-based learning, inquiry should consist of three main phases: Launching, inquiring and reflecting (p. 160-161). In the first phase students’ pre-knowledge and interest areas are accessed and they are familiarised with the topic to be addressed in student inquiries. The inquiry phase includes conducting, interpreting, and displaying results. After the actual inquiry is conducted and results presented, students should evaluate the process and reflect upon their work. All of this should happen in collaborative settings in this way fostering the development of the community of researchers. It is also important for teachers to plan and reflect which kind of communicative approach would be appropriate in each different phase of inquiry based learning.

Procedure and schedule of study project

During the course, teacher students analyze the content structure of global warming and seek the elementary ideas for teaching global warming in primary schools. They scrutinize textbooks and pupils’ thinking and preconceptions and familiarisethemselves withthe pedagogical articles dealing with the topic. The construction of instruction has an important role in students’ study project and during the S-TEAM project especially dialogic based learning environments are developed. Finally, students write a report of their findings and also present their thoughts in a seminar.

The time-table for the course is shown in Table 1. The training module concentrates on the development of the skills necessary for developing of dialogic inquiry in the classroom. The course will contain lectures and demonstration classes about teaching sequences based on existing material developed by the Jyväskylä team to exemplify this teaching approach. Written and video material developed during the project will be used for analysis of the primary student teachers' dialogic training classes on collaboration with a group of primary school teachers.

The initial teacher training will focus on all categories shown in Table 1 but the main focus isonthe figurative and model level relating to the greenhouse effect. During science lectures and small group seminars student class teachers will be familiarisedwithbasic ideas about global warming. The principalidea is to collect data and evidence of the effects of this new course on student teachers’ teaching practices, and especially on dialogic teaching.

Table 1. Timetable for training package developing.

Stage / Task / Dates
1. Development of the teaching sequences / Meeting with primary student-teachers at the University of Jyväskylä. Instructing dialogic teaching strategies to students. Demonstrations. / 09/09-12/09
Implementation of the teaching sequences, classroom observation and analysis during teacher training. / 01/10-02/10
2. Development of the teacher training material / Discussion with students and teachers about their experiences, dialogic inquiry strategies and communication to other students and teachers. / 01/10-05/10
Development of the teacher training course materials in collaboration with primary student-teachers. Students will produce the reconstructive educational model related to global warming and dialogic teaching. / 01/10-05/10
3. Assessment and further development of the teacher training course / Running of the in-service teacher training course (including some classroom observation and analysis). Model evaluations during teacher training period. / 01/10-02/10
Students will finish their report. Analysis of the course and its results. Implementation of the strategies in the schools by the teachers participating in the course. / 03/10-05/10
Discussion on the teaching (teachers’ experiences and self, peer and/or researchers’ assessment) / 05/10

Data for supporting the design of the training package

In the present case the data for the developing of the training package will be collected through the observations and classroom video data of classroom activities for the further analysis.

Questionnaire

In the initial phase of the study project the qualitative data about student teachers’ assumptions toward meaningful science classes was collected. Students were asked: “According to my opinion a good science class is…” Question is asked during the science education courseand after the course the same question will be repeated. Students’ responses are analysed by theory-based qualitative analysis.

Group interview

At the end of the study project,a group interview will be used for supporting the training package development. This phase of the project will beespecially valuable since student teachers may build upon the comments of their peers. In this way memories canbe refreshed and fruitful insights into the student perspective and perceptions may beattained (Eybe & Schmidt, 2004). The data of group interview is analysed be theory-based qualitative analysis. Then students’ ideas will be divided up concept categories which are compared to the principles of inquiry based dialogic science teaching and the objectives of science course.

All sixstudent teacherswill participate in the group interview. One aim of the interview isto providean opportunity for the student teachers to share their experiences and to get feedback from specific parts of the course as well as from the whole course. The interview will include structured questions from the interviewer but the student teachers willalso be encouraged to express their thoughts freely. Thus, the interview issemi-constructed by nature and in some parts will follow the structure of a group discussion rather than a group interview (Eybe and Schmidt, 2004; Welzel and Roth, 1998). The group interview was chosen because it does not rely only on a question-answer format, but rather on interaction and dialogue emerging between participants. It emphasises the development of ideas in the context of the dialogue and elicits more of the participants’ points of view. It will be important to take notice of the remarks emerging from the student teachers during the group interview forimproving the science education course in the University of Jyväskylä.

Concept mapping

In the study project concept mapping is a technique that paves the way to represent students’ knowledge about the elements of the greenhouse effect and the interdependency between these elements schematically. Concept mapping opens the way to represent knowledge schematically and helps students attain meaningful learning (Novak, 1990; see more Novak & Cañas, 2008). It largely stemmed from Ausubel’s Theory of Meaningful Learning (Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian 1978). According to the theorythe most important influential factor is the learners’ prior knowledge. Concepts can be briefly presented forms of human’s experiments and the nodal points between the abstract and the concrete (Novak & Cañas, 2008). Student teachers will analyse their initial concept map and evaluate how their final concept map has developed during the project. Due to concept mapping student teachers may achieve a more relevant conceptualization of the greenhouse effect because concept maps help learners to analyse the multidisciplinary concepts of phenomena.Good knowledge of the greenhouse effect is crucialfor effective dialogic teaching, since in dialogic teaching teacher’s scientific content knowledge has to be strong.