Science in Primary Schools - Examining the Practices of Effective Primary Science Teachers

CHAPTER 8

phenomena that impact on daily life. In broad agreement, Norris and Phillips’
(2003) examination of the literature resulted in a list of factors identifying
scientific literacy, which included: the desire to be an independent, lifelong
learner of science; to have a willingness to engage with science ideas; and the
ability to interpret and construct science texts. Their review argues that while
scientific literacy should focus on students’ orientations to science, it should also
encompass their abilities regarding the understanding and application of
scientific ideas.

While these different interpretations contribute to understandings of scientific
literacy, greater clarity can be brought to this construct. In bringing meaning to
the literature concerning scientific literacy, Roberts (2007) referred to two visions
representing the continuum of understanding. Vision 1, the traditional end of the
scale, focuses on the processes and products of science itself, therefore
examining literacy from within the practice of science. Whereas, Vision 2,
adopting a more socio-scientific approach, examines the scientific components of
situations that students are likely to be faced with in their daily lives, suggesting
literacies that connect with science-related situations.

The learning of science can be viewed as an active and adaptive process rather
than simply leading to resolve conceptual end points. The literacies of science
should therefore be considered as an important teaching focus (Tytler, 2007).
Science teaching should promote the development of scientific literacy and assist
students in the process of actively making informed decisions about science-based
issues impacting on them at a public and on personal levels (Laugksch, 2000).
Since scientific literacy encompasses a wide range of views, it is likely that
different teachers develop and promote scientific literacy with different purposes in
mind.

TALKING THE SCIENCE TALK: DEANNE AND HER DEVELOPMENT OF
SCIENCTIFICALLY LITERATE STUDENTS

To improve her students’ ability to communicate scientifically, Deanne provided
students with opportunities to develop their use of scientific terminology, draw
labelled scientific diagrams, and represent data in tabulated and graphical forms.

Deanne strongly encouraged the students to use scientific language when
describing observations or explaining ideas. She acknowledged that “[the students]
do like to use the vocabulary because it makes them feel intelligent”. Deanne
provided students with a very safe environment in which to practise their use of
science-specific language and terminology. In particular, the focus group students
enjoyed being able to use science terms with this feeling summed up in the
following quote from Anna.

I like lessons where you can learn big words and talk scientific. And you can
really understand it and I like being able to explain things; talking about
larger and smaller particles. It makes you sound scientific.

98

SCIENTIFCALLY LITERATE STUDENTS

However, the focus group students did enter the chemistry unit with an existing
vocabulary that enabled them to describe their observations in detail, make
comparisons and draw connections with their past experiences. The students
engaged in the following dialogue during the opening activity in Lesson 1.

Mark That is absolutely custard powder.

Anna How do you know?

Natalie That is custard powder. Substance turns gooey, yellow with
orange spots.

Evan It’s glunky

Anna It’s not custard powder because it’s orange.

Mark It is.

Anna Custard powder is pale yellow.

Natalie It doesn’t matter.

Anna It does matter.

Natalie Can I just say, it doesn’t matter what it is. It matters what it
looks like.

Evan What are we going to write?

Natalie The substance turns sticky, yellow and thick with orange
spots.

Mark I’ll give you any money if that’s not custard powder.

[Teacher joins group]

Natalie That looks a lot like custard powder.

Teacher Why do you say that?

Mark Because custard powder goes the same yellow.

Anna But custard powder is a very pale yellow.

Teacher But that’s not pale yellow.

Anna I know. That’s why I don’t think its custard powder.

Over the unit, the students were exposed to and encouraged by Deanne to use
science terminology related to the topic of chemistry. Table 1 includes some of the
science-specific vocabulary introduced to the students over the unit.

99

CHAPTER 8

Table 1. Sample of the science terminology introduced in each lesson of the chemistry unit

Lesson Science terminology
1
2 Chemistry, matter, properties of materials, change, states of
3 matter, solids, liquids, gases
4
5 E.g., Transparency, viscosity, malleability, elasticity,
density
6
7 Planning, variable to be changed, variable to be measured,
8 variables to be kept the same, prediction, conducting
9
Averages, patterns in data, processing data, evaluation of the
investigation

Mixture, substances, separation, sieving, filtration,
magnetism, particles, filter paper, microscopic, filtrate,
residue, evaporation

Physical change, solutions, solute, solvent, transparent

Solubility/soluble, insolubility/insoluble, dissolving

Suspension, colloid, sediment, saturated, concentrated
diluted

Chemical change, impact of surface area, temperature and
particle size on solubility

As science terminology was introduced, Deanne and the students incorporated it
into their ways of talking about science across the unit. This changed the ways that
students communicated their ideas about science to each other, to their teacher and
how they communicated their understandings in writing. An example of this is the
contrast of the students’ discussions about custard powder in Lesson 1 (see
previous dialogue) compared to their discussions in Lesson 8, which are
highlighted below.

Anna Wow! [The custard powder] is definitely dissolving.

Yvette And that would be soluble.

Anna So do we all agree it’s soluble? It does dissolve because it was
in a big clump before.

100

Mark SCIENTIFCALLY LITERATE STUDENTS
Anna
Mark I think the custard powder is soluble.
Anna Why? Why?
Mark What do you mean why?
Anna Why is it soluble?
Mark Because it looks soluble.
Yvette Because it looks soluble? It’s soluble because it dissolves.
I suggest we leave it, so the custard powder can settle.
Mark Do you think its see through? Oh it is. Because you can see
the spoon through it.
Yvette No, leave it Yvette. Then you can properly see if it’s a
Anna suspension. If you wait, you’ll see what I mean. See there is
Yvette already a gap [indicating to the cup and the slowly settling
Anna custard particles].
Mark Do you think it’s a solution?
Yvette It’s not a solution.
Anna Yes, it is.
No, it’s not clear.
Yvette It is clear. Look. It’s translucent.
Mark No, it’s a solution because the solute dissolves in the solvent.
Yvette If we let it settle. So right now, it’s only translucent when it
settles?
Mark No, it’s still translucent.
Anna Don’t pick it up.
Evan But that one [custard powder and water] does dissolve and
that’s why it’s a solution.
I think it’s actually, it’s soluble, but …
Look! There’s powder, you can see it.
Exactly, so it’s a suspension.

Deanne also provided students with opportunities to engage with different
processes aimed at enhancing their scientific literacy. Some lessons required
students to represent their understandings as labelled scientific diagrams. While
there had been some discussion in Lessons 5 and 6 about features of a good
diagram, Deanne conducted a session on drawing labelled scientific diagrams

101

CHAPTER 8

outside of the designated science time between Lessons 7 and 8 (not part of the
data collection). The students started drawing labelled scientific diagrams in
Lesson 5 to represent the separation of solids from mixtures. In comparing these
diagrams from in the earlier and later lesson in the unit, it is evident that the
students’ diagrams shifted from being pictorial, three-dimensional representations
of what they observed to representations that incorporated the correct conventions
associated with drawing labelled scientific diagrams (i.e., each diagram had a title
and three-dimensional objects were represented in two dimensions).

In several lessons, the students recorded their observations and findings in
tables. These tables were usually provided by Deanne as part of a worksheet,
which provided students with a framework that scaffolded what might be observed
and recorded during activity work. As part of the investigation, the students’
individually created a table for recording their data based on their own knowledge
of this process and with the assistance of their group members. As the students
conducted the investigation, they recorded data in their table after observing what
happened when a weight was dropped on a biscuit from three different heights (i.e.,
10cm, 20cm, 30cm). To process the data, the students’ worked within their groups
to individually create a graph representing their findings. Throughout this process,
Deanne stopped the class to discuss issues that were raised about graphing, such as
an appropriate title for their graphs or whether a bar or line graph should be
constructed.

Natalie, one of the focus group students, explained that during Lesson 4, which
focused on processing and evaluating the data they had collected in the previous
lesson, she “learnt how to record certain things and what graphs to use for what
information”. Evan also explained that during the lesson he had learnt about
“recording information and which graph is easier to [use for] stor[ing]
information”. For Mark, the processes of “recording data on paper and
[developing] graphs” were also strengthened during this phase of the investigation.
Anna mentioned that the processes of “recording and summarising what happened
[in the investigation]” required the students to “think about [the investigation]
more deeply”. When queried about why we need to do this in science, Anna
responded with the following statement.

Because if you didn’t [think deeply], you couldn’t process [the data] and
think scientifically about it. If you just did [the investigation] and you didn’t
think about it or record [the data] or actually study the changes or the
averages and things, you wouldn’t really get an answer.

REPRESENTING UNDERSTANDING: LISA AND HER DEVELOPMENT OF
SCIENCTIFICALLY LITERATE STUDENTS

To improve her students’ ability to communicate scientifically, Lisa provided
students with opportunities to show their learning in science through representing
data in tabulated and graphical forms, drawing labelled scientific diagrams, role
plays, writing journal entries, producing shadow puppet plays and developing
appropriately formatted posters.

102

SCIENTIFCALLY LITERATE STUDENTS

To process the data gathered during the investigation, Lisa introduced students
to the idea of tabulating data as a way of making sense of it. The students were
provided with a table as part of their investigation planner and, when prompted by
Lisa, could identify several features that a table required, such as a title and that
data is entered sequentially (e.g., from 10am to 3pm). The students transferred the
data they had collected in the field onto their tables. Lisa believed that students had
sufficient experience in creating graphs and therefore only provided some
reminders about graphing (e.g., axis names, increments, title) before students
individually developed a column graph of their tabulated data. When the graphing
was completed, Lisa encouraged students to share the patterns they could identify
from their graph.

The most common representational form used in Lisa’s science classes was
labelled scientific diagrams. The students were already familiar with the
conventions associated with drawing labelled diagrams, but Lisa incorporated a
session into Lesson 1 that reinforced what a diagram should look like in science.
The students used labelled scientific diagrams several times over the Spinning in
Space unit. Students created diagrams in Lesson 1, which represented their current
understandings of the relationship between the Sun, Earth and Moon. They also
used their experiences exploring light in Lesson 4, as a basis from which to draw a
labelled scientific diagram, identifying how light travels and how shadows are
formed. Again in Lesson 5, a diagram was used to represent how day and night
occur, and finally diagrams were used in their posters as a way of conveying their
understandings of key conceptual areas at the conclusion of the astronomy-based
unit. The students consistently applied correct conventions to their scientific
diagram drawing, such as using titles, appropriate labelling, a readable format,
using arrows to depict movement and using lead pencil (with the exception of the
diagrams added to their poster).

Journaling was a process that Lisa used at the conclusion of several lessons to
assist students in reflecting on their learning. Lisa also used the journal entries as a
way to monitor the students’ learning over the unit and to identify the formation of
any alternative conceptions. She scaffolded the process of journal writing by either
providing topic sentences to be completed or questions to be answered. The
students’ wrote a journal entry (usually a mix of written and diagrammatic
representations) at the conclusion of Lessons 1 to 5 as a way of reflecting on their
learning over each lesson. Generally, the students’ journal writing style and
approach did not change significantly over the unit. The most noticeable change
was in the students more sophisticated understandings of the key science
phenomena being examined (e.g., how day and night occur), especially through the
use of topic-specific terminology (e.g., axis, orbit, rotating). The students were also
encouraged in their journal responses to support their claims about what they had
learnt in a lesson with evidence. For example, when the students indicated learning
about why the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size in the sky when viewed
from Earth, they cited the ‘activity with the tennis ball and basket ball’ as assisting
their understanding of this phenomenon.

The students had some experience of producing posters and were able to
identify what a good poster would look like. Lisa created a rubric that outlined the

103

CHAPTER 8

science understandings she would be looking for in the students’ posters. However,
she provided the students with the opportunity to have input into the assessment
rubric regarding the features of a good poster. Their suggestions included eye-
catching presentation, correct spelling and appropriate use of titles. Before
commencing the poster, the students planned what their poster might look like and
what information they would include.

The focus group students spoke about the use of posters as a way of displaying
information and conveying understanding about science. David thought that
posters allowed for the “combination of lots of topics together in science”. Ella
thought the use of a poster in science could be considered as “a different way of
presenting a piece of work instead of just writing it down, you can do it a different
way and present it nicely”. Building on David and Ella’s ideas, Michael felt that a
“[poster] also shows people information [and] it’s not just like if we wrote it down
… it wouldn’t look as nice in our portfolios”. Georgia built on Michael’s
sentiments by stating that a “[poster] might be a bit easier and kind of more eye-
catching than lots and lots of information in words because if you’ve got lots and
lots of information on your poster [than] people won’t want to read it”. The
students’ ideas centred on posters as being an alternative way of presenting
information that combines different ideas and is aesthetically pleasing.

The students’ creation and performance of role-plays also helped develop their
scientific literacy. In the context of the unit, the use of role-play focused on the
students’ communicating their understanding of science phenomena, such as how
day and night occur and the impact of the Sun’s position in the sky on shadow
length.

COMPARING DEANNE AND LISA’S DEVELOPMENT OF
SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

Neither Deanne nor Lisa specifically mentioned the development of scientific
literacy as part of their science teaching goals, but there was abundant evidence of
this within their practice. Both teachers provided their students with opportunities
to engage in discussions about science, to explore and investigate science
phenomena, and to represent their understandings of science in different ways.
These opportunities not only assisted students in learning science, but also in
developing skills connected to other components of scientific literacy. The
differences in their approaches reflected the different stages their students were at
in their learning journeys.

Deanne’s approach to science teaching focused on preparing students for their
future learning experiences in science at secondary school. Through her experience
as an upper-primary teacher and mother, she had become increasingly aware of the
need to facilitate her students’ transition from primary to secondary school.
Deanne’s approach to this transition was to build students’ confidence in their
abilities as science learners. She supported her students in the development of
scientific literacies, connected predominantly to concepts and processes, which
would assist them in communicating scientifically in a secondary school setting.

104

SCIENTIFCALLY LITERATE STUDENTS

This approach to scientific literacy connects more closely with Roberts’ (2007)
Vision 1, the process-product end of the continuum.

Lisa’s approach to science teaching focused on supporting the conceptual
growth and development of her Year 3 and 4 students. Her use of an inquiry-based
pedagogy, particularly focused on the development of investigative skills and
understandings, enabled the development of scientific literacies to be embedded in
her ways of teaching science. She viewed her role as providing students with
opportunities to develop their understandings and experiences of science in
relevant, real-world contexts that were appropriate for this stage of their learning
journey. Hickey (2007) referred to this view of science learning as ‘getting the full
story’. She proposed that “teachers can engage students in science successfully if
they view science learning as ‘getting the full story’ not just ‘getting it right’” (p.
44). It is through building on students’ experiences of the world and providing
them with opportunities for the revision and extension of the scientific ideas that
accompany these experiences that they start to move towards ‘getting the full
story’. Lisa’s view suggests that science learning is a gradual and on-going process
that develops understandings of science relating to the natural world. This
approach to scientific literacy connects more closely with Roberts’ (2007) Vision
2, which views science as relevant to students’ real world experiences.

SUMMING UP
Deanne and Lisa’s teaching practices are consistent with, what Aikenhead (2006)
refers to as, a humanistic perspective of school science. This suggests a shift from
school science being about the acquisition of conceptual knowledge, to being about
fostering a positive view of science that encourages students to engage with
science ideas in ways that will assist them in their learning journey. This view also
suggests that if students are to operate effectively within the community, there is a
need for them to become scientifically literate. Therefore, in assisting the
development of scientific literacy, effective science teaching practices are required
to move students beyond simply knowing about science, to knowing about science
in ways that are relevant to their lives and the future choices that they may need to
make.

105

CHAPTER 9

CONCLUSIONS AND REFLECTIONS

The aim of this study was to examine the practices of two effective primary
science teachers, and how they took account of the different contexts in which
they taught to meet the learning needs of their students. The case studies
illustrate the teachers’ science teaching practices and their students’ learning in
science. The cases were constructed from data collected over two phases, which
drew on video footage, teacher and student focus group interviews, and student
work samples. Deanne and Lisa, who were nominated as effective practitioners
of science by a professional colleague, and their students, were the participants
and key informants for the study. The processes used during the data collection
and analysis (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) ensured that the key findings punctuating
the case studies, and the emergent assertions, were actually grounded in the
experiences of the participating teachers and their students. This chapter
presents the conclusions for the study, as well as discusses the contributions this
study makes to the body of knowledge, the limitations of the study and the
potential avenues for future research.

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this research are based on the data gathered, findings identified
and the interpretation of these findings to form five principal assertions about the
practices of effective primary science teachers. The conclusions are presented as
responses to two research questions, stated in the opening chapter of this book,
which were framed at the commencement of this study and were maintained
throughout the research process.

What Characterises the Practice of an Effective Teacher of Primary Science?

Drawing on the data gathered from the video footage and the teacher and student
interviews, several attributes emerged as characteristics of Deanne and Lisa’s
science teaching practices. While aspects of their practice were similar, their
science teaching approaches were often enacted in different ways for different
purposes reflecting different contextual influences.

The foundation for Deanne and Lisa’s science teaching approaches was the
acknowledgement of their students’ learning needs in science. Deanne’s use of
variety created fast-paced science lessons that engaged students in different
activities using different pedagogies. Lisa fostered a classroom environment that

107

CHAPTER 9

valued inclusion, in terms of participation in and contribution to science activities
and discussions. Both of these approaches contributed to enhancing their students’
attitudes towards and engagement with learning science.

Hands-on activity work played an important role in both Deanne and Lisa’s
science teaching approaches. Deanne provided students with opportunities to
engage in concrete experiences of science phenomena as a way of challenging her
students to work together in the process of meaning making. This encouraged
students to self-regulate and become more autonomous learners. Lisa’s inquiry-
based approach provided her students with stimulating learning experiences, which
engaged them in authentic and interesting ways. Throughout this process, Lisa
monitored and provided feedback to her students to support the development of
their science understandings. In using hands-on activity work, both Deanne and
Lisa provided students with opportunities to engage with science in accessible
ways.

Providing opportunities for talking about and representing science
understandings were significant ways that both teachers supported student learning
in science. Deanne encouraged students to talk about their science ideas and
understandings, particularly in the small group setting, as a way of making sense of
the science phenomena they encountered, before individually representing their
ideas, as a way of documenting and reflecting upon their learning. This process
assisted students in the internalisation of their science understandings over the
chemistry unit. The process also assisted Deanne in preparing her students for their
future learning experiences of science by inducting them into the ways of talking
about, and acting in science, that are recognised by the science community. Lisa
also encouraged her students to talk about their science ideas and understandings,
though usually within the whole-class setting, before individually reflecting on
their learning, usually through writing a journal entry. Lisa’s use of formative
assessment further supported student learning through providing constructive
feedback on the development of their science understandings. This monitoring
actively supported the students’ conceptual growth and change over the Spinning
in Space unit.

Why is the Observed Practice Effective?

The data gathered from the video footage, teacher and student interviews, and the
student work samples, provided significant evidence about Deanne and Lisa’s
science teaching practices. From this evidence, understandings about why their
practice was effective emerged. In recognising their science teaching practices as
effective, the impact on student learning behaviours and outcomes in science were
examined.

Deanne and Lisa assisted student learning in science through maintaining their
interest in and their positive attitudes towards science. Engaging students in
science is often considered as a starting point for embarking on science learning.
While Deanne and Lisa did this in ways to suit the different needs and interests of
their student cohort, their practice could be considered effective as they both

108

CONCLUSION

created a firm foundation from which their students’ understandings of science
could be nurtured.

Deanne and Lisa provided students with concrete experiences of science, which
assisted in enhancing their science understandings. Through participating in hands-
on activity work, the students had the opportunity to explore the science
phenomena for themselves, be part of a group and to share the experience. This
provided a context and purpose for discussion, and the creation of representations
that supported learning. The focus group students from both Deanne and Lisa’s
classes reported that the process of doing science helped their learning because
hands-on experiences actively involved them in science. Learning science in this
way also engaged their interest because they considered their participation in the
activities to be fun and exciting. Lisa’s students were also exposed to science
phenomena through her use of information and communication technologies
(ICTs). The focus group students explained that watching footage of science
phenomena helped their learning because they found it interesting and it provided
them with another way of experiencing science.

Deanne and Lisa supported learning in science by encouraging their students to
talk about and represent their science understandings. Their practice could be
considered effective because both teachers understood the conceptual levels of
their students, and their learning needs. Opportunities for engaging in talk and
for representing understandings in multi-modal forms played a key role in both
classes. The focus group students from Deanne and Lisa’s classes reported that
being able to talk through and share ideas about science helped their learning in
science. For Deanne’s students, talking about science enabled them to gain
access to the different perspectives and ideas of their peers, as well as provided the
opportunity to practise and develop their use of science-specific terminology.
Connected with this process, the students also found that listening to their peers’
points of view and to Deanne’s explanations assisted their learning in science, as
it helped in shaping and reinforcing their science understandings. Lisa’s students
held similar beliefs, but referred to this process as sharing. The students
explained that sharing ideas through discussion helped their learning in science
because they were able to listen to their peers’ science understandings as well as
share their own understandings with the class. Deanne’s focus group students
were divided about the process of reflection and its impact on their learning in
science. The two female students in the group identified it as helping their
learning in science as it provided them with the opportunity to think more deeply
about their learning; while the two male students did not find reflection beneficial
to their learning in science.

Both Deanne and Lisa monitored and provided students with feedback on the
development of their science ideas over the respective units. Their practice could
be considered effective because the ways in which they provided feedback on
science learning addressed the different needs of their students. A focus for Deanne
was to challenge her students to achieve a higher level of conceptual understanding
over the chemistry unit. This was partly achieved through keeping her verbal or
written feedback to a minimum, but when given, it was often in the form of open-
ended questions designed to further extend her students’ understandings. This was

109

CHAPTER 9

also achieved through encouraging the students to develop their own skills in
monitoring their learning. She worked with them in developing their skills in
journal writing as a way of documenting and reflecting on their own science
understandings. The students were also encouraged, during small group activity
work, to provide each other with feedback on their science ideas. While Deanne’s
students were expected to self-regulate to a certain degree, the focus group students
appreciated having worksheets to complete as part of their lessons. Lisa recognised
that her students would need support and scaffolding to achieve individual
conceptual growth over the Spinning in Space unit. She modified the unit to better
suit her students’ learning needs and monitored change through comparison of the
diagnostic and summative assessment tasks. Formative assessment tasks were used
to provide herself and her students with feedback that guided the teaching and
learning.

Deanne and Lisa guided their students towards becoming scientifically literate
citizens. Deanne encouraged her students to develop scientific literacies, connected
predominantly to concepts and processes, as she believed that they would assist
them in communicating about science in a secondary school setting and beyond.
Lisa viewed becoming scientifically literate as part of a gradual and on-going
process that connected the development of her students’ science understandings
with their interpretations of the natural world. Their practices could be considered
effective because they encouraged and provided opportunities for their students to
engage with science ideas in ways that would assist them in their lifelong science
journeys.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE

This study has contributed to the existing knowledge base and literature on
effective science teaching practice in several ways. There are numerous reports
and studies within the literature examining effective teaching (e.g., Hattie, 2003)
and, in particular, effective science teaching (e.g., Goodrum et al., 2001).
However, there are few studies that have examined how teachers orchestrate
science teaching practices, across a whole unit of work, in a primary setting. This
study has generated new evidence about effective science teaching practice in
primary schools. It illustrates how two teachers developed a coherent and
integrated sequence of lessons to maximise student learning in ways that met
their students’ needs and with consideration given to the contexts in which they
worked.

The study also has contributed to the existing knowledge base by using
classroom video footage to capture and illustrate effective practice. It highlights
three possible implications for the use of video research in education. First, case
study research is often used in qualitative education studies. The permanent record
of video footage enables the case studies, developed through this study, to be
useful beyond the original context, for example, in supporting the professional
learning of other teachers (preservice and inservice). Second, the use of video
ethnography, as a way of documenting and analysing teaching and learning, is not
a common methodological practice in the field of education. It is more commonly

110

CONCLUSION

used in the areas of cultural studies and anthropology. This study provides useful
evidence as to how this practice can be used and incorporated into classroom-based
research. Third, it addressed the limitation of the TIMSS 1999 video study, which
captured a single science lesson from a number of different classrooms. This study
examined how effective primary science practitioners orchestrated science teaching
and learning over a whole sequence of lessons.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This study has highlighted the fact that effective primary science teaching can be
achieved in different ways to suit different classroom contexts. However, coming
to an in-depth understanding of what constitutes effective primary science teaching
in a general sense, is beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, this study
purposively focused on effective primary science teachers, who were nominated by
a professional colleague as being effective practitioners in the state of Western
Australia. Four teachers contributed to Phase 1 of the study with Deanne and Lisa
continuing their participation into the Phase 2 data collection. There is significant
confidence in the credibility and authenticity of the research findings in relation to
these two case studies. Nevertheless, there are limitations to these findings (Stake,
2000). These limitations may reduce the predictive power of the general assertions
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The findings are therefore not a definitive examination
of the practices of effective primary science teachers and their general application
should be approached with caution.

IMPLICATIONS OF THIS STUDY FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The tendency for primary school teachers to avoid the teaching of science has been
well documented (e.g., Appleton, 2006; Tytler, 2007). Research has suggested that
as little as three per cent of teaching time, on average, is allocated to the teaching
of science in Australian primary schools (Angus, Olney, & Ainley, 2007). Other
research has demonstrated that interest in and attitudes to science learning are
entrenched in 14-year-old students (e.g., Lindahl, 2007). When combined, these
findings concern all stakeholders in primary science education. The primary
school years are therefore a crucial time for capturing students’ interest in science.
A more comprehensive understanding of what constitutes effective primary science
teaching is needed if we are to support primary school teachers in the practice of
teaching science.

A FINAL REFLECTION

This study has highlighted the fact that beliefs and knowledge have a significant
influence on teachers, in terms of how they teach and why they teach in the ways
they do. Contextual factors cannot be ignored. They impact on teaching and,
subsequently on, students’ engagement in learning science. This study suggests
that effective primary science teaching is dynamic and made up of components that
interact in unique ways. The study illustrates, that due to these complexities, there

111

CHAPTER 9

is no one way of being effective. Through telling the stories of these two, different
primary school teachers, the hope is that this research will inspire other teachers to
become more effective practitioners. The future of science teaching, and the
learning needs of students, is in their hands.

112

REFERENCES

Aikenhead, G. (2004, July). The Humanistic and Cultural Aspects of Science and Technology
Education. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Organisation for Science and
Technology Education, Lublin, Poland.

Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science Education for Everyday Life: Evidence Based Practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2),
131–152.

Alexander, R. (2008a). Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. In N. Mercer &
S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring Talk in School (pp. 91–114). London: Sage Publications.

Alexander, R. (2008b). Towards Dialogic Teaching (4th ed.). York, UK: Dialogos.
Angus, M., Olney, H., & Ainley, J. (2007). In the balance: The future of Australia’s primary schools,

Kaleen, ACT: Australian Primary Principals Association.
Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In K.

Appleton (Ed.), Elementary Science Teacher Education: International Perspectives on
Contemporary Issues and Practice (pp. 31–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Australian Academy of Science. (2007). Primary Connections: Spinning in Space. Canberra: Australian
Academy of Science.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2010a). My School: Fact Sheet about
ICSEA. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://www.myschool.edu.au/Resources.aspx
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2010b). My School: School Profile for
Lake Henry Primary School. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://www.myschool.edu.au
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2010c). My School: School Profile for
Western Plains Primary School. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://www.myschool.edu.au
Australian Science Teachers Association and Teaching Australia. (2009). National Professional
Standards for Highly Accomplished Teachers of Science. Canberra: Australian Science Teachers
Association.
Ayres, P., Sawyer, W., & Dinham, S. (2004). Effective teaching in the context of a grade 12 high-stakes
external examination in New South Wales, Australia. British Educational Research Journal, 30(1),
141–165.
Barnes, D. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring Talk
in School (pp. 1–15). London: Sage Publications.
Beasley, W., & Butler, J. (2002, July). Implementation of Context-based Schooling within the
Freedoms Offered by Queensland Schooling. Paper presented at the annual conference of the
Australasian Science Education Research Association, Townsville, QLD.
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science
Education, 85(5), 536–553.
Bell, J. (2002). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researcher in education and social
science. London: Open University Press.
Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (4th ed.). Needam Heights,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Berliner, D. C. (1986). In search of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5–13.
Black, P. (1993). Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Studies in Science Education,
21(1), 49–97.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1),
7–74.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2002). How to Research (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics
instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473–498.

113

REFERENCES

Brophy, J. (1987). Socializing student motivation to learn. In M. L. Maehr & D. A. Kleiber (Eds.),
Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 1, pp. 181–210). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Brown, A., & Dowling, P. (1998). Doing Research/Reading Research: A Mode of Interrogation for
Education. London: Falmer Press.

Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making Sense of Teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Burns, R. (1990). Introduction to Research Methods in Education. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving Scientific Literacy: From Purposes to Practices. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.
Campbell, C., & Tytler, R. (2007). Views of student learning. In V. Dawson & G. Venville (Eds.), The

Art of Teaching Primary Science (pp. 23–42). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Carpenter, V. (1999, July). Neither Objective nor Neutral? Reflecting on My Subjectivity throughout

the Research Process in Takiwa School. Paper presented at the AARE – NZARE Conference,
Melbourne.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Cooper, P., & McIntyre, D. (1996). Effective Teaching and Learning: Teachers’ and Students’
Perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cowie, B. (2002). Re-viewing conceptual change through a formative assessment lens. In R. K. Coll
(Ed.), Science and Technology Education Research Papers (pp. 164–179). Hamilton, NZ: Centre of
Science and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato.
Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in
Education, 6(1), 101–116.
Creswell, J. W., (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Curriculum Council. (2007a). Curriculum Guide – Science: Earth and beyond – Middle Childhood.
Retrieved March 26, 2009, from http://www.curriculum.wa.edu.au/internet/Years_K10/
Curriculum_Resources
Curriculum Council. (2007b). Curriculum Guide – Science: Natural and Processed Materials – Early
Adolescence. Retrieved March 26, 2009, from http://www.curriculum.wa.edu.au/internet/
Years_K10/Curriculum_Resources
Curriculum Council. (2007c). Curriculum Guide – Science: Natural and Processed Materials – Middle
Childhood. Retrieved March 26, 2009, from http://www.curriculum.wa.edu.au/internet/
Years_K10/Curriculum_Resources
Department of Education and Training, Victoria. (2003). The Principles of Learning and Teaching P-12
Unpacked. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/
teachingprinciples/principles/unpacked.htm
Department of Education and Training, Western Australia. (2008a). Resourcing the Curriculum -
Primary Science Project. Retrieved March 26, 2009, from http://www.det.wa.edu.au/education/
cmis/eval/curriculum/learningareas/psp/index.htm
Department of Education and Training, Western Australia. (2008b). Schools Online: Lake Henry
Primary School. Retrieved March 26, 2009, from http://www2.eddept.wa.edu.au/
schoolprofile/main_page.do
Department of Education and Training, Western Australia. (2008c). Schools Online: Western Plains
Primary School. Retrieved March 26, 2009, from http://www2.eddept.wa.edu.au/
schoolprofile/main_page.do
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in
the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
Doyle, W. (1990). Classroom knowledge as a foundation for teaching. Teachers College Record, 91(3),
347–359.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational
Practice. New York: MacMillan.
Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J.
Preissle (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education (pp. 201–225). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
European Commission. (2007). Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of
Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

114

REFERENCES

Evans, J. (2002). Effective teachers: An investigation from the perspectives of elementary school
students. Action Teacher Education, 24(3), 51–62.

Fensham, P. J. (1985). Science for all: A reflective essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4),
415–435.

Fensham, P. J. (2006, August). Student Interest in Science: The Problem, Possible Solutions and
Constraints. Paper presented at a meeting of the Australian Council for Educational Research,
Canberra, ACT.

Fensham, P. J., Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (Eds.). (1994). The Content of Science: A
Constructivist Approach to Its Teaching and Learning. London: Falmer Press.

Flick, L. B., Lederman, N. G., & Enochs, L. G. (1996, April). Relationship between Teacher and
Student Perspectives on Inquiry-orientated Teaching Practice and the Nature of Science. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
St Louis, MO.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond Testing: Towards a Theory of Educational Assessment. London: Falmer.
Gobo, G. (2008). Doing Ethnography. London: Sage Publications.
Goodrum, D. (2007). Teaching strategies for classroom learning. In V. Dawson & G. Venville (Eds.),

The Art of Teaching Primary Science (pp. 108–126). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The Status and Quality of Teaching and Learning of

Science in Australian Schools. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from http://www.dest.gov.au/schools_publications
Gorman, G. E., & Clayton, P. (1997). Qualitative Research for the Information Professional: A Practical
Handbook. London: Library Association Publishing.
Gray, P. (1999). Psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Hackling, M. W. (2007). Inquiry and investigation in primary science. In V. Dawson & G. Venville
(Eds.), The Art of Teaching Primary Science (pp. 127–148). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Hackling, M. W., Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. (2001). The state of science in Australian secondary
schools. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 47(4), 6–17.
Hackling, M. W., & Prain, V. (2005). Primary Connections: Stage 2 Research Report. Canberra, ACT:
Australian Academy of Science.
Hackling, M. W., Smith, P., & Murcia, K. (2010). Talking science: Developing a discourse of inquiry.
Teaching Science, 56(1), 17–22.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in Practice (3rd ed.). Hoboken:
Routledge.
Hargreaves, L., & Galton, M. (2002). Transfer from the Primary Classroom: 20 Years On. London, UK:
Routledge Falmer.
Harrison, A. (2007). The wonder of science. In V. Dawson & G. Venville (Eds.), The Art of Teaching
Primary Science (pp. 3–22). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Hassan, G., & Treagust, D. (2003). What is the future of science education in Australia? Australian
Science Teachers Journal, 49(3), 6–15.
Hattie, J. A. (2003, October). Teachers Make a Difference: What is the Research Evidence? Paper
presented at a conference on Building Teacher Quality Research, Melbourne, Vic.
Hewson, P., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. Fraser & K.
Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 199–218). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Hickey, R. (2007). Understanding how children learn science. In V. Dawson & G. Venville (Eds.), The
Art of Teaching Primary Science (pp. 43–61). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Hollingsworth, H. (2005, August). Learning about Teaching and Teaching about Learning: Using Video
Data for Research and Professional Development. Paper presented at a conference of the Australian
Council of Educational Research, Melbourne, Vic.
Howitt, C., Morris, M., & Colvill, M. (2007). Science teaching and learning in the early childhood
years. In V. Dawson & G. Venville (Eds.), The Art of Teaching Primary Science (pp. 233–247).
Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Hubber, P. (2005, June). Explorations of year 10 students’ conceptual change during instruction. Asia-
Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(1), Article 1. Retrieved December 16, 2009,
from http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/

115

REFERENCES

Hubber, P., & Tytler, R. (2004). Conceptual change models of teaching and learning. In G. Venville &
V. Dawson (Eds.), The Art of Science Teaching (pp. 34–53). Perth: Allen & Unwin.

Jones, M. G., Carter, G., & Rua, M. J. (1999). Children’s concepts: Tools for transforming science
teachers’ knowledge. Science Education, 83(5), 545–557.

Killen, R. (2007). Effective Teaching Strategies: Lessons from Research and Practice. South
Melbourne, Vic: Cengage Learning Australia.

King, K., Shumow, L., & Lietz, S. (2001). Science education in an urban elementary school: Case
studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Science Education, 85(2), 89–110.

Lake Henry Primary School School Council. (2008, November). Annual Report. Perth, WA: Author.
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.
Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach

drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning.
Studies in Science Education, 38(2), 115–142.
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research
(2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2004). Revising instruction to teach nature of science. The
Science Teacher, 71(9), 36–39.
Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin & R.
Veel (Eds.), Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science
(pp. 87–114). London: Routledge.
Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing Borders in Literacy and
Science Instruction: Perspectives on Theory and Practice (pp. 33–47). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Lewthwaite, B. (2007). Critiquing science lessons for their authenticity as a means of evaluating
teacher-candidate understanding of nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(1),
109–124.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. C. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lindahl, B. (2007, April). A Longitudinal Study of Students’ Attitudes Towards Science and Choice of
Career. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science
Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
Lokan, J., Hollingsworth, H., & Hackling, M. (2006). Teaching Science in Australia: Results from the
TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Louden, W., Rohl, M., Barratt Pugh, C., Cairney, T., Elderfield, J., House, H., et al. (2005). In
Teachers’ Hands: Effective Literacy Teaching Practices in the Early Years of Schooling. Mount
Lawley, WA: Edith Cowan University.
Lyons, T. (2005). Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experiences of school science in
their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–614.
Mercer, N. (2000). How is language used as a medium for classroom education? In B. Moon, S. Brown,
& M. Ben-Perez (Eds.), Routledge International Companion to Education (pp. 109–126). London:
Routledge.
Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of
Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping
children to use language to learn science. British Education Research Journal, 30(3), 359–378.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach (2nd ed.).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Millar, R. (1996). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review
(SSR), 77(280), 7–18.
Millar, R. (2007). Can the school science curriculum deliver? In M. Claessens (Ed.), Communication
European Research 2005 (pp. 145–150). Netherlands: Springer.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Making Meaning in Secondary Science Classrooms.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Mulholland, J. (2007). Understanding the self as instrument: Learning to work with data in qualitative
research. In P. Taylor & J. Wallace (Eds.), Contemporary qualitative research: Exemplars for
science and mathematics education (pp.45-59). Netherlands: Springer.
Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2003). Facilitating primary science teaching: A narrative account of
research as learning. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(2), 133–155.

116

REFERENCES

Murphy, P. K., Delli, L. M., & Edwards, M. N. (2004). The good teacher and good teaching:
Comparing beliefs of second-grade students, preservice teachers and inservice teachers. Journal of
Experimental Education, 72(2), 69–85.

Nicholls, G., & Gardner, J. (1999). Pupils in Transition: Moving between Key Stages. London, UK:
Routledge.

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific
literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2002). Education at a Glance. Paris:
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and
its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Peshkin, A. (2000). The nature of interpretation in qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 29(9),
5–9.

Pink, S. (2007). Doing Visual Ethnography (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Pintrich, P., Marx, R., & Boyle, R. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational

beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational
Research, 63(2), 167–199.
Pole, C., & Morrison, M. (2003). Ethnography for Education. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University
Press.
Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal
representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15),
1843–1866.
Ramsden, J. M. (1994). Context and activity-based science in action. School Science Review, 75(272),
7–14.
Ramsden, J. M. (1998). Mission impossible? Can anything be done about attitudes to science?
International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 125–137.
Ratcliff, D. (2003). Video methods in qualitative research. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes & L. Yardley
(Eds.), Qualitative Research in Psychology: Expanding Perspectives in Methodology and Design
(pp. 113–129). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Reiss, M. J. (2004). Students’ attitudes towards science: A long-term perspective. Canadian Journal of
Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(1), 97–109.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Rogoff, B. & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984). Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2004). Sowing the Seeds of ROSE: Background, Rationale, Questionnaire
Development and Data Collection for ROSE – A Comparative Study of Students’ Views of Science
and Science Education. (Acta Didactica 4/2004). Oslo, Norway: Department of Teacher Education
and School Development, University of Oslo.
Schuck, S., & Kearney, M. (2006). Using digital video as a research tool: Ethical issues for researchers.
Journal of Educational Multi-media and Hyper-media, 15(4), 447–464.
Shrum, W., Duque, R., & Brown, T. (2005). Digital video as research practice: Methodology for the
millennium. Journal of Research Practice, 1(1), 1–19.
Skamp, K. (Ed.). (2008). Teaching Primary Science Constructively (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, VIC:
Cengage Learning.
Speering, W., & Rennie, L. (1996). Students’ perceptions about science: The impact of transition from
primary to secondary school. Research in Science Education, 26(3), 283–298.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative
Research (2nd ed.) (pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Symington, D., & Tytler, R. (2004). Community leaders’ views of the purposes of science in the
compulsory years of schooling. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1403–1418.
The Royal Society. (2006). Taking a Leading Role. London, UK: The Royal Society.
Thomson, S., & Fleming, N. (2004). Examining the Evidence: Science Achievement in Australian
Schools in TIMSS 2002 (TIMSS Australian Monograph no. 6). Melbourne: Australian Council for
Educational Research.

117

REFERENCES
Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1990). What does it mean to be an exemplary science teacher? Journal of

Research into Science Teaching, 27(1), 3–25.
Tytler, R. (2003). A window for a purpose: Developing a framework for describing effective science

teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33(3), 273–298.
Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining Science Education: Engaging Students in Science for Australia’s

Future. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Cripps Clark, J. (2008). Opening Up Pathways:

Engagement in STEM across the Primary-Secondary Transition. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/career_development/publications_resources/profiles/Opening_Up_P
athways.htm
Tytler, R., Waldrip, B., & Griffiths, M. (2002). Talking to effective teachers of primary science.
Investigating, 18(4), 11-15.
Usher, R. (1996). A critique of neglected epistemological assumptions of educational research. In D.
Scott & R. Usher (Eds.), Understanding Educational Research (pp. 9–32). London: Routledge.
van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S.
Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Western Plains Primary School School Council. (2008, October). Annual Report. Perth, WA: Author.
Wolcott, H. F. (1988). Ethnographic research in education. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary
Methods for Research in Education (pp. 187–206). Washington, DC: AERA.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis and Interpretation.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Applications of Case Study Research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

118