An Introduction to Science Investigations: Student Teachers Learning to Work on Process Skills With Children Aged 4 - 11
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, England, 12-14 September 2002
Jenny Cumming University of Sunderland, School of Education and Lifelong Learning.
Abstract
The English National Curriculum for science has four strands. Three of these relate to subject knowledge: biology, chemistry and physics. The fourth strand, that of scientific enquiry, relates to practical skills in science. The emphasis is on the positivist model of investigations as hypothesis-testing, including the manipulation of variables. The research literature relating to the training of primary teachers (with pupils aged 4 - 11) indicates a useful section on students’ developing subject knowledge in science but very little on their ability to carry out practical investigations.
Even though students must have studied some science for entry into initial teacher training, they are frequently challenged by the requirement to work on open-ended investigations with young children. Early in their course they begin to address this problem by engaging in a simple group investigation in class. Then they carry out an individual one at home, which is reported in a written assignment. They also have a short school placement, when they must observe a science lesson and also teach one themselves to a group of children.
A review of all this work allows examination of the relationship between students’ entry qualifications and their performance on the module. It also provides information about students’ response to the module input and the relevance of experiences provided on the school placement.
Introduction
In following the English National Curriculum it is compulsory to teach primary pupils (children aged five to eleven) how to carry out science investigations (DfEE/QCA, 1999). Associated with this is the directive of the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998) circular that beginning teachers have to demonstrate that they know and understand the processes of planning, carrying out and evaluating scientific investigations. Primary education students must have at least one science General Certificate in Secondary Education (GCSE) grade C or above (or its equivalent) for entry into English initial teacher training courses for children aged five to eleven. Nevertheless they are frequently challenged by the requirement to work on open-ended investigations, believing that their own skills are not up to the task.
What are investigations?
Whereas, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary (Allen, 1991), the word investigate has the broad meaning “to enquire into; to study carefully”, in current science education literature the word investigation has become more focused. Thus the National Curriculum for England (DfEE/QAA, 1999) identifies ten investigative skills which children should be taught in the context of “collecting evidence by making observations and measurements when trying to answer a question” (DfEE/QAA, 1999: 16). These skills involve planning a fair test, obtaining and presenting evidence, and evaluating the outcome. Furthermore, science investigations are regarded as involving more than practical activities. They incorporate the use of concepts and cognitive processes as well.
Other types of practical work
Investigations are not the only type of practical work to be found in science lessons. For example, Gott and Duggan (1995: 21) identify three others:
- acquiring a practical skill, such as using a thermometer,
- observing objects and events which can be related to scientific ideas,
- discovering or illustrating a scientific concept, law or principle.
The purpose of investigations in the curriculum
The rationale for incorporating investigations into science lessons in the 1960s and ’70s reflected the heuristic approach to learning. The pupil was trained to find things out for him/herself, based on a belief in the effectiveness of learning through action as opposed to the passive assimilation of knowledge. However, the heuristic view of learning has fallen out of favour since the realisation that pupils need input from their teachers as well as practical experiences. They cannot be expected to ‘discover’ complex scientific ideas for themselves without guidance (Gott and Duggan, 1995: 17).
Another purpose for investigations is seen in the constructivist view of learning, where pupils are believed to correct mistaken ideas in response to cognitive conflict (Piaget, 1969). If taught within a constructivist framework, pupils are encouraged to express their ideas about objects and events and then to test them through investigations. It is hoped that pupils will modify their misconceptions in the light of the empirical evidence produced (Jarvis et al., 2001: 10).
A third purpose for investigations is the belief that they will help develop scientific literacy. By engaging in processes similar to those of professional scientists pupils will be better able to understand how science knowledge is created and to take part in debate about scientific issues. However, Jenkins (1996) suggests that the idea that first-hand experience of investigations will develop pupils’ understanding of the nature of science is problematic and contentious, while Donelly (2001: 181) notes that “the phrase ‘the nature of science’, unless carefully qualified, suggests that science can be characterised in some unitary and integrated way”. Jenkins argues that “as a component of school science education, it is marked by a variety of broad interpretations, some of which are mutually contradictory, and by a diversity of rationales” (Jenkins 1996: 145). For example, on one hand the description of investigations presented in the English National Curriculum implies that scientists work according to a simple formula, while on the other hand by the final Key Stage pupils should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence. Even if there were a simple way of describing the processes undertaken by professional scientists, there is no guarantee that they could be replicated by school pupils. Therefore, according to Donelly (2001: 182) much of the work of curriculum developers in the United States, Canada and the UK “elides the distinction between individual/pupil understandings and that displayed by professional scientists”. The very notion that learning about the nature of science will result in pupils being more able to engage in decision-making about scientific issues is contested by Eisenhart, Finkel and Marion (1996: 268), who “disagree with the implicit assumption that teaching students key concepts and scientific methods of inquiry will necessarily lead to socially responsible use or to a larger and more diverse citizenry who participate in discussion and debate of scientific issues”.
Despite the reservations just described, scientific literacy is seen as a desirable goal. “Science education literature and organisations clearly present that the nature of science is a major, if not the major, goal in science education” (Alters, 1997: 46). This is because “All citizens have a responsibility as well as a right to develop their capacity for making judgements … and this entails serious engagement with the practices of formal science” (Quicke, 20001: 126).
The place of investigations in the initial teacher training curriculum
Teacher trainers in England have been required to meet the directive of the DfEE (1998) circular, where the inclusion of investigations is justified in terms of scientific literacy: “knowledge and understanding of science and of the ways scientists work can help pupils understand the basis for decisions in an increasingly technological world” (DfEE, 1998: 68). Students must “demonstrate that they know and understand the processes of planning, carrying out and evaluating scientific investigations” (DfEE, 1998 78) as part of their knowledge and understanding of science. As part of their training in effective teaching and assessment methods, students must also be taught “how to decide whether the use of investigative, exploratory or other practical work is the most effective way of meeting [a learning] objective” (DfEE, 1998: 72).
However, the demand for an understanding of the nature of science in the circular is overshadowed by the requirement for a large amount of factual knowledge which must be audited. Burton and Machin (1999: 274) questioned staff from thirty-two teacher training institutions and found that over half admitted to increasing the number of taught hours of subject knowledge, hence reducing teaching time in other areas in response to this directive.
Previous research relating to investigations in initial teacher training
Previous research has addressed three aspects of initial teacher training relevant to students’ knowledge and understanding of investigations:
i) / Student conceptions of the nature of science,ii) / Teacher mentors’ confidence in supporting students in their teaching of investigations,
iii) / Developing students’ knowledge and understanding through the experience of carrying out an investigation.
i) Student conceptions of the nature of science
Gustafson and Rowell (1995: 589) note that just as children bring prior knowledge with them into the classroom, so do student teachers. Such knowledge interacts with the new ideas presented to learners, sometimes in unexpected ways. These authors administered an initial questionnaire to twenty-seven pre-service teachers engaged in a four-year, Bachelor of Education programme for primary teaching (children aged five to eleven) in Alberta. All but one considered that children learn science through hands-on physical manipulation and thirteen presented science as knowledge and explanations gained through a process of enquiry. However, although by the end of the programme students were more inclined to identify a number of different ways in which children learn science, they demonstrated little change in their views about the nature of science itself. Believing that knowledge about the material world pre-existed the scientists who ‘discovered’ it, they had little appreciation of knowledge as a human construct.
In Skamp’s (2001) detailed longitudinal study, twelve post-graduate Canadian students were engaged in a two-year, initial teacher training course in Ontario. He found that the number of students believing that a good primary science teacher involves pupils in hands-on activities increased from six to ten. However, only three advocated investigations by the end of the course.
ii) Teacher mentors’ confidence in supporting students in their teaching of investigations
Student teachers in initial training have two avenues for professional development. These are higher education departments dedicated to teacher training and school placements. In England, a partnership is expected between the two. For example, a four-year undergraduate course based at a teacher training establishment must include school placements amounting to thirty-two weeks in all. Each school must have a dedicated teacher mentor, trained by the higher education establishment, who is expected to supervise and help students on placement.
This partnership model can work well in secondary schools, where teachers are subject specialists. However, the role of the mentor is more problematic in primary schools because teachers are expected to address all the subjects of the curriculum. This is especially so with regard to science. According to Jarvis and her colleagues, “despite their own limited training in science, some teacher mentors are being required to take on more responsibility for helping trainees teach science effectively” (Jarvis et al., 2001: 7). These workers conducted research in two teacher training establishments in central England. They studied teacher mentor confidence in teaching aspects of primary science. Of sixty-four mentors they found that only fifty-two per cent were confident or very confident in teaching investigative science. The implication is that higher education institutions must provide students with the necessary input.
iii) Developing students’ knowledge and understanding through the experience of carrying out an investigation
Throughout their school careers, students will have witnessed a didactic orientation to science instruction. Therefore, “students of teaching see science as a process of discovering what is out there, not as a human process of inventing explanations that work. Likewise, they see learning as a process of acquiring knowledge through discovery”, argues Abell (2001: 1096).
In a science methods course for future primary teachers in Indiana, USA, students were encouraged to examine their own science learning as they undertook a six week investigation of the phases of the moon. While keeping a moon journal, noting its shape and position, they moved toward a more scientifically accurate understanding of moon phases and at the same time built their own theories about science teaching and learning. Students also enhanced their own understanding of the nature of science. After the first week, Abell asked students to begin to organise their data and find patterns. She encouraged them to talk to other members of their group about the changes in shape and location of the moon. Then students were expected to make and test predictions. She asked small groups to present the result of their discussions to the larger classroom for consideration in the hope that they would recognise that disagreements may arise during evaluation of the data or theory, but are eventually resolved. Students were asked to invent explanations, saying when they went beyond what they had observed. “Thus we tried to help students see that science was not only empirical, but also relied on the interpretation of evidence and creation of explanations” (Abell, 2001: 1102).
At the end of the unit, participants were asked in what ways they thought the moon investigation represented what science is or the things scientists do. Abell explains that many students made a direct link between the activities of the moon investigation and the activities of scientists. Students were expected to understand that observations are guided by the ideas that scientists bring to an investigation and that although disconfirming observational evidence may lead to theory change, often it is ignored. However, “by the end of the moon investigation students described science as an empirically based activity that involves making predictions, yet most of them seemed to disregard the inventive aspect of science” (Abell, 2001: 1103).
In this review one study (Abell, 2001), provides an account of how primary student teachers might develop their own knowledge and understanding by undertaking an investigation of their own. Of course this does not imply that other teacher training institutions neglect such work. In fact it would be surprising to find an English institution which omits to help trainees carry out investigations. Nevertheless, as yet it has not been reported as the subject of a research project. Even the moon project omits the manipulation of variables and the collection of numerical data, as this would be impossible. Therefore the training of students to carry out such investigations represents an area as yet under-researched.
The study
The work presented here is part of a larger study located in a ‘new’ university (previously a polytechnic) in the North of England. The focus is on two groups of students training to become primary teachers who were following the same module. They were in their first year, either of a four year undergraduate course or of a two year Post Graduate Certificate in Education.
All primary student teachers at the university take three science modules, which together are designed to help them to meet the requirements of the DfEE (1998) circular for pedagogical knowledge and understanding, effective teaching and assessment methods and knowledge and understanding of science. Each module involves ten three-hour tutor-led sessions incorporating a mixture of theory and practical activities as well as directed personal study and a school placement. A three-hour session is devoted to investigations in each of the three science education modules of the course. Early in the first module, students engage in a simple group investigation in class. Then they have to carry out an individual one at home, to be reported and discussed in a written assignment, which is submitted in the ninth week of the course. After this, they experience a short school placement, when they must observe a science lesson and also teach one themselves to a group of children. However, it is not a requirement that the science lessons observed and taught be investigations. In the final session of the module the marked assignment is returned to the students and all this work is reviewed. It takes place some twelve weeks after the one on investigations.
The review session provides an opportunity to gather data for the research. Two main areas of interest are identified. The first is the students’ developing ability to plan, carry out and evaluate investigations and their opportunity to learn about them on school placement. The second is students’ understanding of the nature of science and their ability to relate this to debate about scientific issues. Two professional concerns are identified as well. The first is the relationship between students’ entry qualifications and their subsequent performance on measures of their understanding of investigations. The second is the contribution of the module to students’ developing confidence in carrying out the processes identified in the schools’ curriculum (DfEE/QAA, 1999) required for a successful investigation. It is expected that the findings will inform the teaching of the second and third science modules. Therefore the questions for this study are: