CHAPTER 4
One thing that stuck in my head was just trying to keep them limited to that
particular topic because as soon as you start talking about the Sun and the
Moon and Earth, they just start thinking space and planets and things. So, just
trying to get them focused on that aspect I thought was hard.
While this session took a different path to expected, Lisa believed it was important
for students to express their ideas and experiences during this engage lesson (the
first in the sequence of the 5E model) and re-focus them later.
Every child should feel that what they’re saying is valued even though it may
simply not be relevant. You don’t want to be cutting them off in the engage
lessons when you really want them involved.
Lisa revisited the word wall in Lesson 2. The students’ brainstormed words related
to the Sun, Earth and Moon in small groups before sharing their ideas with the
whole-class as a way of refocusing their attention. This resulted in words that
better reflected the topic such as hot, light and gas for the Sun, oxygen, gravity and
round for the Earth, and phases, crescent and craters for the Moon. Lisa asked the
focus group students to look at the existing word wall words and decide which
words were not related to the Sun, Earth and Moon. Lisa entered the students’ new
words into the word wall document and deleted any words the focus group
identified as irrelevant.
Lisa elicited each student’s existing ideas about the topic through their responses
to a worksheet about how day and night occur and their labelled scientific diagram
showing the relationship between the Sun, Earth and Moon. The worksheet
provided Lisa with some insights into her students’ ideas about day and night, but
found that it was not the most effective way to elicit student ideas.
I found that the children were really confused with the wording [on the
worksheet], like the Sun goes around the Earth, the Earth goes around the
Sun and because they were really close in wording a lot of them really
couldn’t distinguish which was which.
However, the labelled scientific diagrams provided Lisa with evidence of her
students’ understandings of the relationship between the Sun, Earth and Moon.
The children actually drawing the scientific diagram; it was actually making
them think about these three things; the Sun, the Earth and the Moon, which
they obviously haven’t given much thought to before. And I could really start
to see what their understandings were.
These work samples provided Lisa with diagnostic information about the types
and range of ideas in the class pertaining to the key concepts in the Spinning in
Space unit.
Being Inclusive: A Feature of Lisa’s Effective Primary Science Practice
Some calls for improved school science curriculum have focused on science for all
(Fensham, 1985) or science for life (Symington & Tytler, 2004). This interest in
science education is broadly aimed at connecting students with science at a
46
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
personal level, as opposed to being educated about science disciplines.
Inclusiveness plays a key role in realising this outcome. Lisa brought a number of
beliefs to her teaching of the Spinning in Space unit about the importance of
understanding students’ learning needs and this reflected the ethos of the school in
which she taught. She believed that all students could experience success in
science. The ways in which Lisa incorporated inclusive practices into her science
teaching are explored below with the impact of this approach on students’ learning
highlighted.
Teaching for inclusion in science. Lisa used a Primary Connections unit to
guide her science teaching during this unit. This program is aimed at engaging
student interest in science, whilst enhancing students’ conceptual and procedural
understandings. The coherent and well-structured nature of the Spinning in Space
module meant that instead of focusing on preparing the content of the unit, Lisa
could focus her attention on modifying aspects of the unit to better suit her
students’ learning needs and interests. For example, the astronomy-based unit
incorporates concepts that are potentially very challenging for Year 3 and 4
students. Lisa reduced the level of conceptual demand of the module by focusing
on “just getting that idea that it’s the Earth that’s spinning and that’s what causes
day and night … [as] the main thing I wanted [them] to get out of [the unit].
Lisa’s science background and science teaching experiences enabled her to
modify the unit to better suit her students’ needs, without losing any of the key
science ideas.
Lisa also addressed the different learning needs of her students by drawing on
the three instructional settings of whole-class, small group and individual work in
different ways. In doing this, she provided students with opportunities to engage
with the science phenomena in ways that were appropriate to them. The lessons
were structured to ensure that all students had multiple opportunities for
contributing their ideas. They participated in a broad range of activities and
demonstrated their understandings of science in multi-modal forms. By presenting
science phenomena in different forms and numerous times over the unit, students’
different learning styles were recognised and supported.
Lisa’s teaching approach appealed to her students’ interests in a number of
ways. Her use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), such as
You Tube clips, animations and PowerPoint presentations, formed a key
component of her teaching approach and reflected her beliefs about providing her
students with learning experiences that mirrored the ways in which they access
information in their daily lives. Lisa’s use of ICTs engaged student interest, but her
choices (e.g., time-lapse photography showing day changing into night)
complemented and further consolidated student understandings of the conceptual
aspects of the unit, without introducing or supporting alternative conceptions. For
the focus group students, Lisa’s use of ICTs provided them with opportunities to
experience different science phenomena in a way that they found interesting and
accessible
A distinctive feature of Lisa’s teaching approach was that all students were
encouraged to share their ideas about and experiences of science. To assist with
this, students were provided with ample opportunities to voice their ideas during
47
CHAPTER 4
whole-class discussions. Lisa acknowledged all input and, in particular, during
the engage and explore phases of the unit (the first and second stages of the
5E model), student responses were usually accepted without evaluation or
judgement. She initially used this approach to establish students’ prior
understandings of the topic and, later, to monitor students’ developing
understandings.
The students were provided with numerous opportunities to work
cooperatively to discuss and negotiate meaning. Research has indicated that
cooperative learning facilitates the development of important social skills, such
as leadership, communication, and conflict management (Goodrum, 2007). Lisa
employed cooperative learning strategies throughout the unit, but particularly
focused on this strategy when there was an opportunity for students to explore a
phenomenon and start to develop their own understandings of what was taking
place. The students worked in cooperative learning teams to generate ideas and
communicate their understandings of the science phenomena that they were
exploring through hands-on activity work. Cooperative learning strategies were
usually associated with small group work, but as whole-class discussions were a
daily feature of the class routine. This cooperative learning approach further
stimulated an inclusive classroom culture.
Much importance has been placed on inclusive science education programs,
which consider the learning needs, preferences, interests and experiences of
individual students. The Australian National Professional Standards for Highly
Accomplished Teachers of Science (Australian Science Teachers Association
and Teaching Australia, 2009) identified exemplary practice as including the
creation and maintenance of an engaging and intellectually challenging learning
environment. In particular, this standard refers to exemplary science teachers
believing “that all students can learn science” (p. 9) through the creation of
learning environments that engage students in meaningful ways and enable them
to achieve their personal best. These national standards also note that the
planning, implementation and evaluation of inclusive learning programs, which
includes establishing connections with students’ prior understandings and
interests, are characteristic of exemplary practice. Howitt, Morris and Colvill
(2007), in their review of characteristics of effective approaches to science
teaching and learning, highlighted the importance of inclusivity. They identified
an inclusive approach to science education as enabling all students to participate
and experience success in science activities, to be confident about and enjoy
science, and to be involved in shared learning experiences, which welcomes all
viewpoints and encourages discussion about science within a supportive
environment.
Learning through inclusion in science. The focus group students in Lisa’s class
were eager to contribute their ideas in discussions and to actively participate in
science lessons. They acknowledged having fun during each of their science
lessons. These positive feelings about science were important in terms of student
wellbeing within the classroom and their openness to learn about science.
Campbell and Tytler (2007) argue that while much research energy has been
invested in understanding the cognitive aspects associated with science learning,
48
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
there is a need to emphasise the affective aspects also contributing to science
learning because “learning is not only supported but enhanced through positive
affective factors” (p. 37).
Lisa’s students were highly motivated in learning science. An aspect of
motivation, which is of particular interest in understanding students’ attitudes
towards science, is self-efficacy. This term defines the ways in which
individuals think about their abilities and their beliefs about themselves (Gray,
1999). It is a construct, which has been recognised as ‘situation-specific’
(Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993). While it was difficult for the focus group
students to articulate this, it is possible that their eagerness to contribute their
opinions and demonstrate their understandings stemmed from the inclusive
learning environment that Lisa had developed and the ways in which she
fostered students’ sense of efficacy as a science learner.
The focus group students indicated that they valued being able to listen to
their peers’ different understandings and experiences of science as well as be
able to share their own understandings and experiences. This exposed students
to a range of different opinions, which may have particularly resonated with
them and therefore brought about change in their own ideas. This intercourse
required students to think hard about their own ideas and how they would
articulate them in discussion. This inclusive approach of enabling and valuing
the opinions of all students further supported the development of their interest
in, and attitudes towards science, as well as a sense of their own science
capabilities.
COMPARING DEANNE AND LISA’S APPROACHES TO STUDENT
ENGAGEMENT IN SCIENCE
Deanne and Lisa both incorporated within their approaches to teaching science a
number of strategies and pedagogies that engaged and interested their students
in science. While the endpoint was the same, encouraging student learning in
science, they achieved this objective in different ways. For example, Deanne’s
practice could be described as using a varied, fast-paced and challenging
teaching approach to maintain her students’ interest, whereas Lisa’s practice
focused on fostering an inclusive and supportive classroom environment that
promoted positive student attitudes towards learning science. In comparing the
ways in which Deanne and Lisa engaged their students in science, three factors
have been identified as characterising the differences in their approaches.
First, Deanne and Lisa both held different sets of personal beliefs about
science teaching and learning that reflected the ways in which they engaged
their students in science. As teachers, there is an obvious need to be responsive
to the beliefs and expectations of other stakeholders, such as parents and the
school community. For example, Deanne’s school promoted an image of high
achievement, which was evident in the challenges she set, while Lisa’s focus on
inclusion, mirrored her school’s image of nurturing the whole child.
Second, Deanne’s use of variety incorporated numerous activities and
pedagogies that required students to work autonomously in small group settings.
49
CHAPTER 4
Lisa’s inclusive approach ensured that all students were given opportunities to
contribute their ideas about and experiences of science, usually as part of
whole-class discussion. Both of these approaches promoted and maintained
student interest in science because they addressed the learning needs of their
students, and reflected the different ages of these two cohorts of students. For
example, Deanne’s Year 7 students were able to engage problem-solving
strategies to assist in the development of their own scientific understandings,
whereas Lisa’s Year 3 and 4 students required more scaffolding and support in
the process of meaning making.
Third, Deanne adopted a more student-driven approach to science teaching
and learning by capturing student interest, through fast-paced changing
activities, that challenged students and required their input. Lisa adopted a more
teacher-supported approach by capturing student interest through providing
numerous opportunities for students to actively share their ideas about science
and discuss their discoveries in science. Again, these separate approaches reflect
the different contexts within which Deanne and Lisa were working.
50
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
SUMMING UP
Encouraging student engagement in science during the primary school years is
crucial. Deanne and Lisa both approached science teaching in ways that
stimulated their students’ curiosity and enhanced their enjoyment of learning
about science. Maintaining student interest in, and developing positive attitudes
towards school science, is an important component of being an effective primary
science teacher.
51
CHAPTER 5
PROVIDING STUDENTS WITH CONCRETE
EXPERIENCES OF SCIENCE
The second assertion drawn from this research was that effective primary science
teachers provide students with concrete experiences of science to capture their
interest in science and provide a context in which science understandings can be
developed. This chapter will explore this statement in relation to the science
teaching practices of Deanne and Lisa.
Many of the negative views that students hold about science centre around the
lack of relevance that science, or at least what is learnt in school about science, has
to their lives. It is not surprising that students find it difficult to be enthusiastic
about learning science when they cannot easily connect their science learning to
their life experiences. For learning to occur, students need to see why, and
understand that, their learning matters. Learning with understanding, as well as
learning with interest, is more likely to occur when students are provided with
opportunities to actively construct their own meanings, rather than being required
to passively acquire and accumulate knowledge that is transmitted to them via a
teacher or a textbook (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994; Fensham,
Gunstone, & White, 1994). This suggests that a shift from teacher-centred models
of delivering knowledge to student-driven exploration is required if students are to
feel included and valued as science learners. Inquiry-based approaches to science
education are one way of achieving this shift.
Inquiry-based learning has an important role to play in the active construction of
science understanding. This approach to learning science emphasises that student
curiosity, observations, problem solving and experimentation lead to critical
thinking and reflection about science understandings (European Commission,
2007). It is through inquiry-based approaches that ideas about science are informed
from experiences of science phenomena, students’ prior understandings, rich
discussions, teacher feedback and support, and through opportunities to represent
understandings over the learning process. However, for many students, the notion
of being engaged in, and stimulated by, science lessons seems to be synonymous
with participation in hands-on activity work.
Research emphasises the role of hands-on activity work in enhancing student
understanding and engagement with science, although it is usually reported as
inquiry-based learning. This is not unusual as, for example, Tytler (2007) notes
that the term inquiry seems to be used interchangeably with hands-on science in
numerous documents about primary science education. Regardless of terminology,
inquiry-based approaches to teaching science encourage student curiosity followed
53
CHAPTER 5
by experimentation, observations and problem solving, all of which can occur
through hands-on exploration of science phenomena (European Commission,
2007).
Educational researchers have long argued that context plays a critical role in
learning. Some perspectives of learning, such as situated cognition (Rogoff &
Lave, 1984), identify the situation (context) in which understanding is constructed
as being interconnected with that understanding. This focus highlights the
importance of learning in ways that are congruent with the particular learning
community. The understandings of science that are developed in school should aim
to represent science practices applicable to the wider scientific community.
Learning science in this way would provide students with concrete experiences that
enable them to more clearly see the links between the science phenomena they are
studying and their lives (Beasley & Butler, 2002; Ramsden, 1994). This chapter
will examine some of the ways in which Deanne and Lisa provided their students
with concrete experiences of science.
DOING, THINKING, DISCUSSING: DEANNE’S PROVISION FOR CONCRETE
EXPERIENCES OF SCIENCE
Deanne, early on in this study, expressed her belief about the importance of
incorporating concrete approaches and examples into her science teaching. She
believed that incorporating those types of experiences into her teaching enabled her
to make science more relevant and accessible for her students. In further explaining
her understandings of concrete approaches or examples, Deanne referred to using
“models, simulations, [and] drawings” as part of her teaching of scientific concepts
or presenting of science information. She also expressed an interest in teaching
concepts in ways that her students could relate to easily.
I’m trying to present the concepts in a concrete way, so I do try to think of
really simple ways of presenting [for example] if I can use a model or
something real rather than [being] abstract.
Deanne believed that this is an important aspect of science teaching because “the
concrete, cements understanding, and helps with the transfer to the abstract”. While
Deanne referred to concrete experiences of science in these ways, and they were
evident in her classroom practice, a more dominant feature was her focus on
student-driven exploration. Based on classroom observations, it was evident that
student exploration had a significant place in Deanne’s science lessons with eight
of the 10 lessons incorporating periods of hands-on activity work. These
explorations provided students with concrete and shared experiences of science
from which to think and talk about their science understandings.
Deanne introduced the three conceptual areas covered in the chemistry unit –
matter, properties of materials and change – by providing students with hands-on
experiences of the related science phenomena. Described below are three learning
experiences from three different lessons, which illustrate the ways in which
Deanne incorporated concrete experiences into her science teaching practice.
54
SUPPORTING STUDENT LEARNING
For the first concept, the students explored the three forms of matter by
identifying objects around the classroom (e.g., ruler, paint, book) to use as part of
their small group discussion about the characteristics of solids, liquids and gases.
While observing their chosen objects, the students were encouraged to discuss and
record their ideas on a worksheet. With gas, a more abstract phenomenon, Deanne
provided the students with balloons to inflate and deflate. The balloons provided
students with a concrete way of exploring some characteristics of gases.
For the second concept, the students explored the properties of materials by
observing or testing a number of household materials (e.g., rubber band, glass jar,
treacle) and recording their properties (e.g., elasticity, transparency, viscosity) in a
table. This small group task was unstructured in the sense that Deanne did not
explain to the students what the different properties of materials were or how
students should go about testing their materials for these properties. While the
students initially found this task difficult because they were unsure what was
required, they worked together with some prompts from Deanne to make sense of
what they were required to do.
For the third concept, the students explored change by experimenting with ways
of separating solids from a mixture, such as sieving and filtration. Deanne provided
students with instructions regarding the materials they would need and some
procedures they could use. As the students used these methods to separate their
mixtures, they discussed in their small groups their understandings of how and why
separation occurred. At this point, Deanne did not provide the students with any
definitive answers about the separation methods. However, she did support their
discussions by providing them with science terminology to assist in making sense
of their explorations. For example, replacing terms like bits and things with
particles or the stuff-in-the-filter-paper with residue.
Commonalities are evident in these three experiences, such as using familiar
resources (e.g., classroom items) to introduce science concepts (e.g., three types of
matter) and a certain lack of structure to the activities, therefore requiring students
to become more autonomous in the exploration process. These three experiences
also suggest the need for students to work collaboratively to think through and
discuss these activities as a way of developing a shared understanding of these
science concepts rather than Deanne simply telling or explaining these concepts to
the class. Enabling the students to come to their own conclusions and
understandings provided them with a powerful learning experience. The impact of
this type of experience on student learning is captured in the discussion that is
described below.
A continuing issue for the focus group students was deciding whether a mixture
had been separated through filtration. Yvette (who replaced Natalie in the focus
group for this particular lesson) indicated during the group’s explorations that she
did not think that the tea leaves had actually been separated from the water because
if you tasted the filtrate, it would taste like tea. Mark, Evan and Anna were
unconvinced and, based on their observations, the tea leaves remained as residue in
the filter paper and therefore has been separated from the water. However, after
testing several mixtures, Mark’s thinking started to change and he raised his new
thoughts with Deanne.
55
CHAPTER 5 The filtrate had dissolved sugar in it, so if you dried it out, it
would turn into sugar crystals.
Mark That’s right. Very good, Mark.
And you could taste it as well.
Teacher Excellent. So are you telling me that the filter paper is not
Mark separating the mixtures?
Teacher Ah [pause] no, not all of them.
So, sorry, not separating the two substances.
Mark No, not separating.
Teacher Well, I would agree with that. And how do you know that?
Mark Because we …
Teacher You just told me. How do you know it hasn’t separated the
Mark two substances?
Teacher Because the sugar has dissolved in the filtrate.
How do you know that?
Mark Because it would taste like it.
Teacher You’ve tasted it, haven’t you?
Mark No.
Teacher OK, taste it. It’s OK to taste salt. Taste it and see.
Mark [Mark dips his finger into the filtrate]
Teacher Yep, that’s salty.
So, does it filter or doesn’t it?
Mark Well, you can taste it. If it was filtered, Anna [pause] what
Anna could you expect to see if it’s filtering?
Teacher If it was filtering, it would leave the salt behind and there’s no
salt left behind because it’s dissolved in the water.
Anna Would you see any salt in the water?
No.
Teacher Taste the water. It should be fresh.
Anna EWW!
Teacher Is it fresh?
Anna No!
Teacher
Anna
56
SUPPORTING STUDENT LEARNING
Teacher No. So has the filter paper trapped the salt?
Anna No.
From this discovery, the students discussed their findings and decided they needed
to make changes to their records.
HANDS-ON ACTIVITY WORK: A FEATURE OF DEANNE’S EFFECTIVE
PRIMARY SCIENCE PRACTICE
Hands-on activity work played a key role in Deanne’s approach to teaching
science. This approach was supported by her belief that the concrete experiences
provided by this type of activity were an effective way to support her students’
development of strong conceptual understandings and interest in science. Deanne
also believed that her role in guiding students to reach their learning potential was
to provide a level of challenge in science, and that hands-on activity work provided
students with this element in abundance. Essentially, the concrete experiences and
conceptual challenge provided by the hands-on activity work that Deanne
incorporated into her lessons required her students to work together in the process
of meaning making, resulting in deeper levels of engagement with science
phenomena. Deanne’s use of hands-on activity work as part of her science teaching
approach is highlighted below and identifies how this approach supported student
learning in science.
Using hands-on activity work to teach science. Deanne incorporated hands-on
activity work into most of her science lessons. Collaboration was a key feature
with this work typically involving four or five students working together on a set
task. The set task would usually require students to manipulate and experiment
with different materials as a way of exploring particular science phenomena.
Students were encouraged to use their observations and findings gathered
through their activity work to support their subsequent interpretations and
explanations of the phenomena. Challenging students’ understandings of science
was a clear objective of Deanne’s teaching approach. In particular, she challenged
her students to think about and engage with science through hands-on activity
work by adopting a formidable open-ended approach to these exercises. Rather
than relying on step-by-step instructions or direct support from Deanne, students
were required to work autonomously to explore, question and discuss their
discoveries with their peers.
Deanne wanted to challenge her students’ science understandings. Challenge, in
this context, seemed to be about moving the students beyond straightforward
examples of chemistry (e.g., using sugar or salt as solutes). Deanne found that by
“sometimes not being sure of the answer, the students [had to] come to a consensus
through their own discussions”. This required the students to not only call upon
their understandings from previous lessons, but to examine them in more depth and
therefore deepen their own understandings of the science phenomena. Deanne also
felt that the uncertainty that was raised when the students’ understandings were
challenged brought about unexpected outcomes. “I think prescriptive lessons are
57
CHAPTER 5
really safe and they go really well, but there’s no room for growth or the other
things that happen when it’s more open-ended”.
Deanne’s move away from teacher-scaffolded learning, to more self-regulatory
practices, required students to think more deeply about the science phenomena they
were encountering and to be more active in the process of constructing their
scientific knowledge. Consequently, this process required students to engage in
discussion to make sense of what they were experiencing, which supported the
practise and use of science-specific language. Studies of teacher knowledge (e.g.,
Jones, Carter, & Rua, 1999) have shown that as teachers become more confident
and experienced as practitioners, they are able to shift their teaching practices from
transmissive modes to focus more on student-centred approaches that support
conceptual development and growth. The notion of challenging students in science
has also been recognised within understandings of effective science practice. For
example, the components outlined for Australian teachers by the School Innovation
in Science project (Tytler, 2003) and the National Professional Standards for
Highly Accomplished Teachers of Science (Australian Science Teachers
Association and Teaching Australia, 2009), both acknowledge the importance of
creating a learning environment that challenges students to develop meaningful
understandings of science.
Impact of hands-on activity work on learning science. The focus group
students often identified their science lessons as being “fun”, which they associated
with helping their learning. For example, Evan believed that the science raps they
created and performed at the conclusion of the unit “put learning in a fun
perspective [and] putting something [e.g., science concepts] into something
fun [e.g., a rap] means I could take in more information”. The students’ notion of
fun seemed to be synonymous with participating in hands-on activities, for
example, “doing activities makes lessons more fun”.
The students often referred to hands-on activities as helping their learning in
science and referred to several reasons why they thought it helped. For Anna,
hands-on activity work “helps you learn things because you’re actually doing it
[and] you’re not just sitting there listening”. Similarly for Natalie, she enjoyed
doing hands-on work because “you’re not having to sit there and watch, but
observe while doing it yourself”. Evan added to this idea in another interview by
stating that through the “hands-on and being able to view things, I actually take in
a lot more”. He added that the process of doing an activity allowed students to
experiment with science themselves “instead of the teacher showing you”. Mark
explained that he “like[d] doing hands-on things just because it’s easier to learn”.
Natalie was able to articulate why she found doing activity work helped her
learning in science.
It’s a bit hard if somebody tells you something [about science] and yes, you
know that they’ve told you something, but unless you see it [or] do it how
will you actually know for yourself if it’s true.
These responses indicate that the students valued doing practical activities as they
provided them with concrete experiences that made the science more accessible
and fun. This is particularly important given that Deanne’s students were all aged
58
SUPPORTING STUDENT LEARNING
between 11 and 12 years; a time when engagement with science should be actively
fostered before transitioning into secondary school. While the hands-on activity
work that students participated in over the unit often required a level of student
autonomy, the focus group students felt supported in this process through the
provision of worksheets on which they recorded their observations. The
completion of worksheets, in conjunction with participating in hands-on activity
work, provided students with enough scaffolding to support the self-regulated
learning that took place during these tasks.
It seems that the purpose of hands-on activity work, in this context, was to
provide the students with first-hand experiences that supported them in developing
understandings of science concepts. The students were able to use their concrete
experiences to inform the ways in which they made sense of some of the more
abstract science phenomena they encountered (e.g., solubility). Importantly, hands-
on activity work also enabled students to further extend their understandings
through the application of concepts to new contexts.
Deanne’s repeated use of activity work provided students with a context and
purpose for exploring, discussing and developing their understandings of
chemistry. Through these shared experiences, students were provided with the
challenge of working collaboratively to bring meaning to their conceptual
understandings, to further develop their use of science-specific language and to
apply their knowledge in new situations. Ultimately, participating in hands-on
activity work was an enjoyable experience for students, which contributed to their
interest in, engagement with, and knowledge of science.
EXPLORE, EXAMINE, EXPERIMENT: LISA’S PROVISION FOR CONCRETE
EXPERIENCES OF SCIENCE
Lisa introduced the three conceptual areas covered within the Spinning in Space
unit – the relationships between the Sun, Earth and Moon, light and shadow
formation, and how day and night occur – by providing students with hands-on
experiences of the related science phenomena. Described below are the learning
experiences that were developed across three lessons, which illustrate the ways in
which Lisa incorporated concrete experiences into her science teaching practice.
Lisa showed her students three spherical objects: a peppercorn, a marble and a
basketball. The students agreed in a whole-class discussion that the basketball
could be used to represent the Sun, the marble the Earth and the peppercorn the
Moon. Lisa turned the classes’ attention to the Sun and the Moon by explaining
that there is a common misconception that the Sun and the Moon are the same size
as they appear to be the same size in the sky when viewed from Earth. To explore
this idea, the students moved outside to complete an activity in small groups. The
activity required one student to hold a tennis ball (representing the Moon), while
another student holding a basket ball (representing the Sun) moved away from that
student until the observing student identified that both balls appeared to be the
same size. Lisa led a discussion following the activity to assist the students in
connecting their experiences of the activity with the idea that the apparent
similarity in sizes of the Sun and Moon are due to the Sun being much further in
59
CHAPTER 5
distance from Earth than the Moon. The following dialogue captures how Lisa
used questioning to assist students in making connections between the activity and
the concept.
Teacher What did you notice? What did you see? Ella?
Ella When we were taking the basketball back, when the basketball
looked about the same size as the tennis ball we normally
stopped around the start of the cricket pitch.
Teacher OK. Fantastic. So which one was further away Ella, the tennis
ball or the basketball?
Ella Basketball.
Teacher OK. Fantastic. How does this then relate to the Moon and the
Sun? How does this help us understand how the Moon and
Sun look about the same size?
Andrea Because the Sun is further away then the Moon and because
when we did [the activity] we held the Moon and said stop
when [the Sun] looked about the same size. Even though [the
Sun] was further away then the Moon, it looked the same size
because it is bigger.
Teacher Fantastic. So which one is bigger, Andrea?
Andrea The Sun.
Teacher Why did the Sun look about the same size [as the Moon]?
Andrea Because it was further away.
Teacher Fantastic.
The students created scale models of the Sun to further strengthen their
understanding of the relative sizes of the Sun, Earth and Moon. Lisa elicited the
students’ personal experiences and understandings of model making before
undertaking the activity. She explained that “a model is a representation of the real
thing, so it’s not the same size, it’s a lot smaller, but it’s a way to show what a car
[for example] might look like”. Lisa created scale models of the Earth (10mm
diameter circle) and the Moon (2.5mm diameter circle) for each group, while in
small groups the students created 1m diameter models of the Sun. She asked the
students to predict how far they would need to stand apart for their Sun model to
look the same size as the Moon model.
In creating a learning experience around the exploration of shadows, Lisa
started this lesson with a whole-class discussion to elicit the students’ prior
knowledge about shadows. This was a strategy that Lisa often used to gain an
understanding of what the students were thinking about in relation to a particular
concept.
Year 3, Year 4, we’re still on that cusp of early childhood/middle childhood
and you really do have to be relating it back to their own experiences. And
60
SUPPORTING STUDENT LEARNING
it’s always a good point to start the lesson anyway. Just open [a topic] up for
discussion and see where we are at, at the time.
Lisa moved from the discussion about shadows to an exploration of shadows by
taking the students outside to play a game of shadow tag. This game involved the
students working in pairs and taking turns to tag or step on each other’s shadow.
One of the students commented that the game was a challenge because it was a
cloudy day, which led to an impromptu discussion about why the Sun was needed
for shadow formation. The main activity for the lesson focused on students
exploring shadows in the schoolyard. The students visited four different areas and
identified whether the location was sunny or shady, sketched any shadows that
were present, and used a compass to locate north and mark the direction in chalk at
the location. Lisa modified the activity from the Spinning in Space module by
requiring the students to record their observations in a table. She did this for two
reasons, to be able to use the students’ records as a form of assessment and to
maintain their focus on the activity.
I basically turned these discussion questions into a worksheet and I gave
them that last question at the end, which was discussing their ideas about
amount and direction of sunlight just as another piece of formative
assessment. [Also] I think because they had to come up with a sketch of the
shadow that they did have to focus and find where that shadow was.
Otherwise at this age level, they would have just been out wandering with the
compass and drawing things with the chalk.
Lisa provided students with the opportunity to examine how light travels and to
make connections between light and shadow formation. In looking at how light
travels, the students constructed cubbies, using tables and blankets, so that they
would have a dark place in the classroom in which to work. Inside the cubbies,
the students conducted an activity using three pieces of card with a hole punched in
the middle of each and a torch. The students examined what happened to the
way the light from the torch travelled when the holes in the cards were aligned and
what happened when the holes in the cards were not aligned. The students then
experimented with making shadow puppets using their hands or constructed out of
paper. While Lisa did not feel that the activity with the three cards was successful
in helping students’ learning, she did feel that by creating the shadow puppets the
students were able to develop a better understanding of shadow formation.
Following a series of teacher-led modeling of how day and night occur, Lisa
provided students with the opportunity to explain their understandings of how day
and night occurred by creating their own role-plays. Lisa provided the students
with a detailed explanation of what they were required to do in their groups of four
to create a role-play. Lisa believed that it was important that she and the students
were very clear about the role-play as it was the key activity for supporting the
students’ understandings of the scientific explanation for how day and night
occurs.
I really had to get across that idea that it was the Earth moving and not the
Sun because a lot of them still had that idea that it was the Sun that was
61
CHAPTER 5
moving across the sky. And the Sun does appear to move across the sky, but
that’s because the Earth’s rotating. I just wanted to make sure because we
were in that explain phase that I was very clear that that was what was
actually happening.
The students created and practised their role-plays, which involved the movements
of the students showing the relationships between the Sun, Earth and Moon with a
narrator explaining how day and night occur. Each group performed their role-play
for the class. Lisa felt that this activity was an effective way for the students to
show their understandings of the phenomena being studied.
It worked really well and [despite] the low literacy level of a lot of the kids
actually doing it, the role-play was really good. I’d use it again, especially
like I said [with] the low literacy levels in the classroom it’s a good way, a
different way for [the students] to explain their science without having to
write it down.
INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING: A FEATURE OF LISA’S EFFECTIVE
PRIMARY SCIENCE PRACTICE
Lisa provided her students with many opportunities to actively engage with and
contribute to the learning process over the unit, while still being monitored and
guided by her. Lisa’s use of an inquiry-based approach to science teaching engaged
her students in learning science in ways that stimulated their curiosity and was
authentic, interesting and fun. Lisa’s approach to science teaching and learning is
highlighted below and identifies how this approach supported student learning in
science.
Teaching by inquiry. Lisa provided students’ with opportunities to explore
science phenomena through her inquiry-based approach, which essentially focused
on the incorporation of hands-on activity work as a way of teaching and learning
science. As students participated in these learning experiences, they collected
evidence, discussed their observations (usually in the whole-class setting) and
individually created records of their understandings. Through hands-on activity
work, students were provided with shared experiences and evidence from which
their conceptual understandings could be developed and challenged. During these
explorations, Lisa did not give explanations of the science phenomena or correct
the students’ explanations of these phenomena. She focused on providing the
students with concrete experiences that would enable them to see or manipulate the
science phenomena for themselves. Lisa then engaged the students in discussion or
reflection that required them to make sense of this experience in terms of their
existing understandings.
Lisa used the students’ hands-on experiences as a platform for developing their
understandings and scientific explanations. During the explain phase of the unit
(the third stage of the 5E model), the construction of these explanations was
carefully guided and supported by Lisa through the use of multi-modal
representations depicting relevant science phenomena (i.e., how day and night
occur), such as models, animation and role-play. During the students’
62
SUPPORTING STUDENT LEARNING
performances of their role-plays, Lisa recognised that an alternative conception
had developed regarding the role of the Moon in causing day and night (e.g., the
Earth faces the Moon at night-time). She addressed this issue by providing the
class with immediate feedback. However, this misunderstanding proved to be very
persistent, as it was still evident in some of the students’ explanations of day and
night at the end of the unit.
Incorporating the investigative process into science teaching actively engages
and promotes the natural curiosity that primary school students have for science
(Hackling, 2007). Lisa’s extensive work with Primary Connections, as a trial
teacher and professional learning facilitator, led her to the belief that investigations
have a central role in science teaching and learning. Involving students in an
inquiry-orientated and investigative approach to learning science develops their
understandings about the nature of science (Lederman & Lederman, 2004;
Hackling, 2007). Lisa provided her students with a significant opportunity to
expand on their understandings through a teacher-scaffolded investigation. While
being able to apply their knowledge in new settings assisted students in extending
their conceptual understandings, it was also an opportunity to further develop and
enhance their investigative skills. Students also applied their science
understandings in creative ways through the development of shadow puppet plays.
This task required students to work collaboratively with their peers to think
creatively about science.
Learning through inquiry. The students often referred to the inquiry-based
learning approach adopted by Lisa as helping their learning in science. In referring
to this approach, the students outlined several reasons why doing science helped
their learning.
For Ella, the visual nature of hands-on activity work was appealing because it
allowed her to see for herself different science phenomena at work. For example,
she felt that the role-plays helped her learning because they were “actually showing
us how the Moon spins around the Earth and how the Sun just stays still while the
Earth spins around and the Moon spins around the Earth”. This highlighted for Ella
that learning can occur through “show[ing] the information and [that] you don’t
have to always tell the information”. The tactile nature of activity work also
assisted Ella’s learning in science. She explained that making a scale model of the
Sun helped her understanding, as well as the role-play which also helped “probably
because of instead of using different types of balls, we got to use ourselves for the
Earth, Sun and Moon”.
While this active involvement in meaning making appealed to Ella, David did
not find that this type of hands-on activity work helped his learning. In reference to
the role-play, David believed that “it’s a good way for other people to learn” but
for preference he would “rather learn by reading books, watching documentaries
and that sort of stuff; so researching”. Despite these reservations, David recognised
some aspects of hands-on activity work as an appealing way to learn science
because it was “fun”. For example, he referred to the shadow stick investigation
because “it was fun watching shadows move and it was funny how it changed” as
well as the creation and performance of shadow puppet plays, which he thought
were “very fun”. Similarly, Michael acknowledged that the role-plays helped his
63
CHAPTER 5
learning in science “because they were fun [but] some were a bit wrong, but that
made it even more funny”. The shadow stick investigation and shadow puppet
plays also helped his learning because of their “fun” nature.
Essentially, the focus group students described hands-on activity work as
enhancing their learning because it enabled them to find things out for themselves,
required deeper levels of thinking, reflected the ways in which scientists work and
was essentially a fun way to learn. These ideas are closely aligned with the
characteristics of inquiry-based learning.
Overall, the focus group students responded positively to the astronomy-based
unit. Being able to explore and examine science phenomena first-hand was an
important consideration for the students, which suggests that they were curious and
interested in the process of making sense of what was being presented. This inquiry
approach enabled students to be active participants in their learning, which
provided them with a sense of autonomy, while still being guided and supported by
their teacher in the development of strong conceptual and procedural
understandings. The students were introduced to a wide range of science concepts
and processes as part of the unit and were encouraged to think more deeply about
their learning in science. Evidence of this growth and change in the focus group
students was observed over the unit.
Inquiry-based approaches to learning provide students with an authentic
experience of science (Hackling, 2007). Through their participation in the unit,
students were encouraged to act in ways that reflect how scientists work, such as
participating in hands-on experiences with science phenomena (e.g., in the field
over the course of a day, working on the shadow stick investigation), making
observations, representing their findings in appropriate forms (e.g., tables, labelled
diagrams) and developing explanations based on current scientific views. While
not literally reflective of the work of scientists, the experience of engaging in
hands-on activity work provided students with a context for learning science that
was concrete and relevant. These experiences enabled students to explore science
phenomena and develop shared understandings of their experiences. These
experiences also enabled students to practise and develop their science processing
skills in an authentic way.
COMPARING DEANNE AND LISA’S PROVISION OF
CONCRETE EXPERIENCES OF SCIENCE
Science teaching involves a balancing act between capturing students’ interest in
science, while developing their conceptual and procedural understandings of
science. In achieving this, inquiry-based learning, or hands-on activity work as the
teachers and students in this study more often referred to it, plays an important role
in fostering the link between student interests and engagement in science learning.
Deanne and Lisa both held beliefs about, and knowledge of, science teaching
and learning that strengthened their awareness and understanding of the positive
impact that concrete experiences of science can have on student learning. The
provision of these experiences enabled their students to be active participants in the
construction of their science knowledge. These shared experiences also provided
64
SUPPORTING STUDENT LEARNING
students with a point of reference from which they could engage in discussion
about, or make connections to, as a way of further developing their science
understandings. Concrete experiences of science provided students with a context
for learning about science, as well as an authentic experience of science. This
approach reflects the ways scientists’ work, through making observations and
developing explanations for particular phenomena. While their objectives and
outcomes were similar, there were differences in the ways in which Deanne and
Lisa structured their approaches.
The concrete experiences that Deanne provided her Year 7 students with were
predominantly in the form of hands-on activity work in a small group setting.
However, whole-class demonstrations were used several times over the unit. This
approach focused on students experimenting with materials and manipulating
variables, while making observations and looking for patterns in their data. Lisa
also provided her Year 3 and 4 students with concrete experiences of science that
predominantly took the form of hands-on activity work in small groups. Her
approach encompassed a wide range of activities, such as role-plays, model
making, creating shadow puppet plays and observing shadows in the schoolyard.
The teachers provided students with concrete experiences of science that reflected
the nature of the topics being taught, the students’ abilities and the teachers’ own
teaching styles. Deanne’s approach also mirrored the type of hands-on activity
work that students may encounter beyond primary school as she wished to
facilitate her Year 7 students’ transition to secondary school.
Deanne, using a personally designed unit of work, supported students in the
process of exploring by providing multiple opportunities for participation in hands-
on activity work. During these experiences, Deanne provided her Year 7 students
with the autonomy to self-regulate their learning and to work with their peers to
develop shared science understandings. Lisa supported student learning through
using the 5Es model as part of her science teaching approach. The explore phase of
this approach provided students with opportunities to participate in concrete
experiences of science. The different instructional phases used by the teachers
provided students with similar opportunities for connecting with science
phenomena in concrete, hands-on, ways.
SUMMING UP
The concrete experiences of science that inquiry-based approaches, or hands-on
activity work, provides is appealing to students. Being hands-on and active in
science is an interesting way to learn, but also significantly assists in the
development of science understanding. Deanne and Lisa both incorporated
numerous opportunities for students to participate in concrete science experiences
as part of their teaching approaches. These experiences provided students with a
context and purpose for talking about and representing science, which enabled their
science ideas to be explored and developed. Enhancing students’ understandings of
science through concrete experiences can be considered another significant
component of effective primary science teaching.
65
CHAPTER 6
SUPPORTING STUDENTS TO TALK
ABOUT AND REPRESENT THEIR
LEARNING IN SCIENCE
The third assertion drawn from this research was that effective primary science
teachers provide opportunities for students to talk about and represent their science
understandings in ways that support their science learning. This chapter will
explore this statement in relation to the science teaching practices of Deanne and
Lisa.
Talk has the potential to be an important classroom tool for learning science
(Lemke, 1998). Teachers and students can use talk to work through their science
ideas and build shared understandings of science phenomena (Mortimer & Scott,
2003). For example, Barnes (2008) highlights that “the flexibility of speech makes
it easy for us to try out new ways of arranging what we know, and easy also to
change them if they seem inadequate” (p. 5). In particular, exploratory talk enables
students to engage critically, but constructively, with their peers’ or teacher’s ideas.
It is through this type of talk, according to Mercer (2000), that students’ can
present their tentative understandings of science and be involved in a process of
extending their thinking and learning in science through talking about and
connecting with other ideas in a supportive, but challenging, environment. While
this type of talk is valued in science education, it is not occurring in many
classrooms (Alexander, 2008b).
Effective science practice uses talk as a valid way of fleshing out students’
existing and developing understandings. However, students’ need to be engaged in
and supported by their teacher in this process. Alexander (2008b), based on a
review of studies that occurred in European classrooms, revealed a number of
features contributing to increased quality in classroom talk. Some of the strategies
teachers’ used to build student understanding through talk were: using questioning
to promote reasoning; adopting wait time to enable students to think ideas through;
and treating incorrect answers as a way of reaching accepted understandings. It is
assumed that at the centre of this productive and interactive discourse is a
classroom culture, which has cultivated a supportive and safe environment around
classroom talk. Using talk to support learning in science can prove to be a
challenging exercise for students and teachers.
Current understandings of teaching and learning draw on Vygotsky’s (1978)
work, which highlights the importance of talking about ideas in social situations as
67
CHAPTER 6
a precursor to the development of individual understanding (Mortimer & Scott,
2003). Mortimer and Scott (2003) outline three key steps, related to effective
science teaching, as part of this sociocultural approach:
First, the teacher must make the scientific ideas available on the social plane
of the classroom. Second, the teacher needs to assist students in making sense
of, and internalising, those ideas. Finally, the teacher needs to support
students in applying the scientific ideas, while gradually handing over to the
students’ responsibility for their use (p. 17).
Students’ ideas and understandings of science should be developed within the
social setting of the classroom with talk acting as the central mode of
communication. In undergoing this discursive process, students should also be
given the opportunity to make sense of their science understandings by drawing on
their prior knowledge and experiences (Driver et al., 1994).
Alexander (2008a) identifies five principles contributing to the development
of a classroom culture supportive of productive talk. A classroom with this
culture is:
collective in that teacher and students address learning tasks
together, whether as a group or a class;
reciprocal in that teachers and students listen to each other, share
ideas and consider alternative viewpoints;
supportive in that students articulate their ideas freely, without
fear of embarrassment over ‘wrong’ answers, and help each
other to reach common understandings;
cumulative in that teacher and students build on their own and
each other’s ideas and chain them into coherent lines of thinking
and enquiry; and
purposeful in that the teacher plans and steers classroom talk
with specific educational goals in view (p. 105).
Science education researchers have also increasingly acknowledged that student
learning can be enhanced through the interpretation and construction of a variety
of representations of the science phenomena that they study (Ainsworth, 1999;
Evans, 2002). This field of research is of particular interest because being able to
recognise the various ways that students may relate to and represent their
understandings of science concepts assists with developing a more informed
picture of effective science teaching practice. Representations of the students’
developing understandings will also be collected throughout this study as a way of
mapping student learning over a topic.
Research investigating the ways in which students’ represent their
understandings of science has predominantly focused on the use of multi-modal
representations (various modes) of scientific concepts and processes rather than
multiple representations (number of times). Both ways of representing science
assist in enhancing student learning and engagement in science. However, multi-
modal representation is more consistent with current understandings of effective
science practice because it promotes student inquiry, and is more likely to cater
68
SUPPORTING STUDENT LEARNING
for individual learning needs and preferences (Flick, Lederman, & Enochs, 1996;
Prain & Waldrip, 2006; Tytler, 2003). At the primary schooling level, Prain and
Waldrip (2006) suggest that students should be introduced to both multiple and
multi-modal representations of scientific concepts, to assist them with their
understanding and integration of different ideas as part of their learning journey.
It is now often assumed that encouraging student familiarity and engagement
with a variety of representational modes is more likely to enhance student
learning in science. However, findings from Prain and Waldrip (2006) indicate
that despite regular use, primary-aged students were not necessarily able to
integrate and translate their scientific understandings across modes, or know
which features they should emphasise when designing their own representations.
These findings do not suggest that the use of multiple or multi-modal
representations are inappropriate learning tools for primary-aged students, but
rather indicate that teachers need to continually work with students to build their
confidence in using these strategies.
THE ROLE OF CONSOLIDATION: DEANNE AND HER SUPPORT OF
STUDENT LEARNING IN SCIENCE
Deanne focused on providing students with lesson structures and supports that
would assist them in strengthening their understandings of the science phenomena
they encountered over the course of the unit. Illustrating this point was Deanne’s
belief that there was a need “to keep drawing back to what [the] focus [of the
lesson] was through consolidation; just keep consolidating all the time”. In relation
to supporting the development of student understanding, Deanne often used terms
such as “constant reinforcement”, “constant exposure” and “revise” to express the
processes that she used.
Deanne’s science lessons often started with a review of what had occurred in the
previous lesson. This process served an important purpose in terms of re-
introducing students to what had been learnt and helped improve the students’
understanding of the science phenomena they had encountered. This approach to
support student learning also fitted with Deanne’s idea of using class time
efficiently to make the most of, what she sometimes felt were, limited teaching
opportunities. “It’s that constant reinforcement. A little bit everyday and in fact I
think it’s better than probably another hour session anyway”. Deanne used several
revision-type strategies in her science lessons, which are outlined below.
One strategy Deanne used to revisit what had been learnt in a previous lesson
was to ask students to silently read their own journal entries. Students were able to
use this time to not only reconnect with their prior learning experiences, but to
also digest Deanne’s feedback which usually focused on their use of scientific
terminology. Deanne also used this opportunity to model examples of good journal
entries to assist students in the writing process.
Deanne devised a homework activity (i.e., each student individually undertook
an oral presentation of three items and a list of properties related to one of the
items to the class; their peers had to use this information to identify which of the
three items was being referred to by the presenter) to consolidate student
69
CHAPTER 6
understandings of the properties of materials. This activity enabled students to
extend their knowledge of properties of materials in a creative way. Deanne also
designed this activity as a way of fitting more into a crowded classroom schedule.
“I haven’t got the luxury of [time for] having a follow-up, so the only way I can do
it, and I do this with all sorts of things, is to take pockets of time”. This activity
also allowed Deanne to integrate different learning areas into science, in this case
the literacy skills of speaking and listening.
Deanne further consolidated students’ understandings of the properties of
materials through posing a statement to be discussed, in small groups and as a
whole class, “treacle is viscous, translucent, sticky and conductive”. Building on
the initial discussion and making the most of a teachable moment, the following
lesson considered the experimental processes that could be used to verify the
accuracy of this statement.
The more you do, the more research, the more accurate your information
[and] with what we’re doing with investigations it just tied in co-incidentally.
Obviously I hadn’t planned to do that, but it’s come up.
Deanne utilised other techniques over the unit such as demonstrating and
brainstorming to assist students in revisiting their learning and consolidating their
conceptual understandings. She also injected fun into this process by, for example,
using a quick quiz or creating a competitive tongue twister activity utilising science
terminology (e.g., solute, sediment, saturated).
The process of creating journal entries was commonly used in Deanne’s lessons
as a way for the students to reflect on and record what they had learnt during a
lesson. “Number one, [the journal] is to help them with revision and they are
improving [at the process] and two, once they are good at that, I can see what
they’ve learnt in their own words”. Deanne included this reflective practice at the
end of lessons as she identified that students found it difficult to articulate what it
was they had just learnt. “[When] you come to the end of the lesson, [the students]
often can’t remember, [even] if you break it down into the parts, what they [have]
done”.
Deanne not only considered these approaches to supporting learning as a way of
improving students’ conceptual understandings, but also as a way of supporting
their use of science terminology. “I want the language to be scientific. So we’ll
keep reinforcing [it] with these little activities and just using these words more
often”. Deanne found that through introducing and constantly reinforcing the use
of new scientific terms that students were able to incorporate the language into
their ways of talking about science. “I’m quite surprised how easily in some cases
they are using the language. I mean some are having to stop and think about it, but
for some the words are like flying out”.
INTERNALISING UNDERSTANDINGS: A FEATURE OF DEANNE’S
EFFECTIVE PRIMARY SCIENCE PRACTICE
Social constructivism focuses on the social processes and interactions occurring
within a classroom environment, such as the ways in which teacher and students
develop a learning community, use discourse as a way of constructing
70
SUPPORTING STUDENT LEARNING
understandings and draw on prior knowledge to make sense of new experiences
(Campbell & Tytler, 2007). Driver and her colleagues (1994), through a social
constructivist lens, considered that the focus of school science should be
establishing shared meanings within the classroom. Sociocultural perspectives of
teaching and learning highlight the importance of developing ideas in social
situations as a precursor to the development of individual understanding (Mortimer
& Scott, 2003). Examining aspects of sociocultural approaches that have been
incorporated in conceptual change models (i.e., 5Es model), Hubber and Tytler
(2004) highlighted the active role of the teacher in providing opportunities for,
supporting and guiding students’ towards scientific views. Therefore, in the context
of science teaching and learning, and from social constructivist and sociocultural
perspectives, students need to be actively supported by their teacher within a
learning community to develop confidence and competence as science learners.
Deanne actively supported her students in the development of their science
understandings through the provision of ample opportunities to talk about and
represent their science knowledge. Her focus on using strategies that would enable
her students to consolidate their understandings was essentially underpinned by
these two central constructs. This section explores the ways in which Deanne used
talk, and different representational forms, to support the development of student
understanding and examines the impact of this approach on student engagement
and learning in science.
Using talk and representations in teaching science. Opportunities for students
to talk about their science understanding was an important characteristic of
Deanne’s practice. The impact of discourse on student learning is widely
recognised in the literature with Lemke (1998), for example, viewing the learning
of science as being intimately intertwined with learning to talk about science.
Deanne provided students with numerous opportunities to discuss science in both
the whole-class and small group settings, as well as through one-on-one
interactions. It was in the small group setting, particularly during hands-on activity
work, where the students had most opportunities to talk about and clarify their
ideas. This again reveals the balancing act employed by Deanne in supporting
students in this process, while allowing them to take some control of their own
learning. The following dialogue illustrates this point as it based on a learning
situation which Deanne orchestrated as part of a science lessons and captures some
of the discussion between the focus group students as they grapple with their
existing understandings and experiences to piece together a definition of the term
mixtures.
Natalie Well, I would say that mixture, it’s kind of like mixing different
ingredients; it’s a mixture of different ingredients or objects
combined.
Mark It’s not necessarily ingredients, it might be …
Natalie Objects, liquids because for instance have you ever done cooking?
Evan A solid can’t be a mixture. It can only be a liquid or gas.
Mark No. Mixtures can set, like cakes. Ice cream can set.
71
CHAPTER 6
Natalie You would have a mixture for instance, you could have a box of
marbles. You could have a mixture of blue and green marbles.
Anna I didn’t think of that. That’s a really good point. A mix is like
things combined. In other words …
Mark Combining.
Natalie It’s combining liquids, gas and solids really.
Anna Yeah, combining anything.
Mark It’s a combination of [pause] of liquids, gases or [pause] solids.
Natalie It’s the combination of solids, liquids or gases.
Anna I’m not so sure actually. So anything could be solid? So we’re a
solid?
Mark Yeah. We can mix!
Evan No [pause] mmm …
Natalie Yeah, for instance, have you ever seen a mixture of black and
white children together. A mixture of different coloured hair.
Anna A mixture of people.
As a precursor to hands-on activity work, Deanne often provided her students with
minimal instructions or explanations of the science phenomena they would
encounter. This autonomy placed students in a position of uncertainty about how to
proceed. Nevertheless, they would quickly engage in discussion as a means of
developing an understanding of what was required. Neil Mercer (Mercer, 2008;
Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 2004) and his colleagues have developed a body of
work, which identifies the ways in which students talk to each other in small group
settings, including disputational, cumulative and exploratory forms of discourse.
Disputational talk is associated with competitive behaviours and individualised
decision-making, which was largely absent from the focus group’s discussions.
The group often engaged in cumulative talk, as illustrated above, to share and build
their understandings. In addition, they frequently used exploratory talk to engage
more critically and constructively, in making their knowledge and reasoning
clearer through discussion.
Students were provided with numerous opportunities to talk with their peers
about their science ideas, but Deanne also provided numerous opportunities for
students to reflect on these ideas and create their own representations to
demonstrate their understandings. For example, in the journal entries following
their Week 5 science lesson, the students reported on their discoveries about the
process of filtration. The following quotes are drawn from the journal entries of the
focus group students. Mark wrote in his journal entry about two other scientific
terms related to filtration that were also introduced in this lesson. “Residue is the
substance left at the top of the filter paper [and] filtrate is the substance left at
the bottom of the cup”. Anna wrote “we used filtration to separate the powders and
72
SUPPORTING STUDENT LEARNING
water [and] the copper sulphate particles got through the microscopic filter holes
because it is a smaller particle then the crushed chalk”. Natalie compared the
process of filtration to sieving by stating that “only [filtering] separates
microscopic things”.
Journal entries were the most frequent representational mode used during
Deanne’s science lessons with her students’ writing journal entries in most lessons
to document their science learning. However, Deanne’s use of different modes,
such as labelled diagrams and science raps, also gave students the chance to call on
different skills for representing their science knowledge. Research has demonstrated
that representing and re-representing scientific concepts and processes in different
ways enhances student learning and increases engagement with science (Prain &
Waldrip, 2006). Deanne’s use of multi-modal representations further supported
students through appealing to their different learning styles and needs, which acted
to make science more interesting and accessible to the majority of students. This
use of different representational forms is a further example of Deanne’s use of
variety in her teaching of science.
Impact of talk and representations on learning science. The combination of
doing and talking provided students with numerous opportunities to relate their
complex scientific ideas to concrete experiences. This all helped in establishing a
shared understanding of the science phenomena they were examining. The focus
group students identified that opportunities for talking about science assisted their
learning because it enabled them to voice their ideas, access different perspectives
and practise their use of scientific terminology. They also found that engaging in
discussion with their peers provided opportunities to hear different points of view,
which further strengthened their scientific understandings. Peer group interactions,
such as these, typically involved students working in small groups, which provide
greater opportunities for all students to engage in discourse, unlike whole-class
discussion in which teachers may dominate (Mercer et al., 2004). Mercer and his
colleagues (2004) acknowledge that as a part of science education this type of
interaction often takes place in conjunction with practical investigations or hands-
on activities. However, in this case, the focus group students considered
opportunities to engage in and listen to discussions with their teacher as being
valuable. They identified Deanne’s explanations or contributions to whole-class
discussion as assisting their learning in science, especially when following hands-
on activity work.
Deanne used talk as a tool to enable her students to actively engage with and
construct ideas about science. Important as these discursive practices were,
providing opportunities for students to represent their understandings of science in
different ways seems equally important. Deanne’s students were given frequent
opportunities to record, rehearse and reflect on what they had learnt. The female
focus group students indicated that opportunities for reflection during the
chemistry unit enabled them to think more deeply about their learning. Researchers
have become increasingly aware of the broader impact of this strategy (Ainsworth,
1999; Evans, 2002). A representational perspective allows for the integration of
different representational modes in learning science as a way of assisting students
73
CHAPTER 6
to develop understandings of how to think and act in scientific ways (Lemke,
2004).
The opportunities to talk about their ideas and understandings of science in the
social setting of the classroom often progressed to individual reflection and
representation. This shift from the social plane to the individual plane enabled
students to think privately about the science ideas they encountered (Mortimer &
Scott, 2003). It is the process of internalisation, the movement from social plane to
the individual plane, which is considered by Mortimer and Scott (2003) to be the
point of learning.
Deanne’s use of variety extended to providing her students with opportunities to
talk about science in the social setting of the classroom, often as part of small
group activity work, as well as to think about science individually, often through
the writing of science journal entries. In providing these opportunities to conceptualise
science, Deanne was deliberately supporting her students’ internalisation of science
concepts.
MULTIPLYING WAYS OF EXPLAINING: LISA AND HER SUPPORT OF
STUDENT LEARNING IN SCIENCE
Lisa provided her students with a set of learning experiences aimed at introducing
them to the current scientific views about what causes day and night and
supporting them to represent their understanding through creating and performing a
role-play. Her focus was for students to recognise that day and night is caused by
the Earth rotating around on its axis.
Lisa used five different demonstrations to represent how day and night occur.
First, using a basketball to represent the Earth with a icy-pole stick attached as an
object on the Earth and a torch to represent the Sun, Lisa asked the students to
share their observations of what happens to the shadow of the icy-pole stick as the
Earth rotates. The students noticed that the shadow was moving and Lisa reiterated
that as the Earth moves, so do the shadows being formed on the Earth, while the
Sun stays in the same position.
Teacher As I am moving the ball around, what do you notice about the
shadow? What is happening to the shadow? The Sun’s not
moving, the torch is staying still, but the Earth is moving.
What can you see happening, Kate?
Kate The shadow is moving a different way to the movement of the
ball.
Teacher Interesting Kate. What can you see, Andrea?
Andrea As you spin the ball, I can see the shadows moving on the
ball.
Teacher Fantastic Andrea. What can you see, David?
David I can see the shadow moving away from Sun because it is
always on the opposite side.
74
SUPPORTING STUDENT LEARNING
Teacher But the Sun’s not moving, is it?
David No.
Teacher It is the Earth that is moving and as the Earth moves around,
the shadow is moving too.
Second, Lisa asked a student to participate in a role-play as the Earth by spinning
around in front of the data projector, which represented the Sun. As the student
rotated around, Lisa asked the class several questions related to what they observed
happening.
Teacher Now pretend that Keisha is the Earth and the data projector is
the Sun. As Keisha starts to rotate, what do you notice about
Keisha as she is rotating slowly? What parts of her are in the
light? What parts of her are in the dark? Georgia, tell me, what
do you notice?
Georgia The light is shining on her.
Teacher Where exactly is light shining? Would someone else like to
add to that? Ewan, what can you see?
Ewan While Keisha is turning, where the light is ... [loses train of
thought].
Teacher OK. Andrea?
Andrea When she turns around, the dark side is always opposite her
because it’s not facing the data projector. So if she was the
Earth, one half would be like a shadow on the Earth.
Teacher Excellent. As Keisha is standing now, which part of her is in
the light? And you can all see this, so I should see all hands-
up. Dana?
Dana Her back.
Teacher Which part of Keisha is in the shadow or hasn’t got light
shining on her? Leah?
Leah Her face.
Teacher Fantastic.
Third, Lisa added three more students to this model. The four students formed a
circle and rotated around in front of the projector. Again, Lisa asked the rest of the
class to respond to questions, such as “When do the students start to come into or
go out of the light?” To create a more direct link to the occurrence of day and
night, Lisa then connected this model to the Sun (data projector light) and the Earth
(the ring of four students) by asking the students to identify which parts of the
Earth were experiencing day and night. After repeating this line of questioning
75
CHAPTER 6
several times, Lisa asked the students to explain why they thought those parts of
the Earth were experiencing day and night.
Fourth, Lisa showed the students a clip from You Tube based on time-lapse
footage gathered from the space station Galileo, which showed the Earth rotating
around its axis. After watching this clip, Lisa provided the students with the
opportunity to share their observations with the class. She also used questioning to
elicit what the students knew about how long it takes for Earth to rotate once
around its axis (i.e., daily) and around the Sun (i.e., yearly).
Fifth and last, Lisa used three student volunteers to demonstrate the movements
of the Sun, Earth and the Moon. Lisa asked the student representing the Sun to
remain still, while the student representing the Earth rotated around while moving
around the Sun. She then added the student representing the Moon, who moved
around the Earth. It was this last model that formed the basis of the students’ role-
plays.
The students worked in small groups to create and perform role-plays
demonstrating how the Sun, Earth and Moon move in relation to each other and the
subsequent impact of these movements on how day and night occur. For the focus
group, Michael narrated as the other focus group students, representing the Sun,
Earth and Moon, performed their role-play for the class.
Ever wonder how the Earth, Sun and Moon are linked together? Well, this is
a story how. This is our Sun Ella, our Earth Georgia and our little, small
Moon David. The Earth spins around on its invisible axle (sic) every
24 hours, while the Moon goes around it on its own around the Earth. The
Earth orbits around the Sun every year. The Sun makes day because when the
light shines on one part of the Earth we get daytime and on the opposite side
where it is dark we get night-time.
It should be noted that in this lesson Lisa introduced the students to the term axis.
Ella and Michael used the term axle several times, in reference to what the Earth
was spinning around, instead of axis.
NURTURING CONCEPTUAL GROWTH AND CHANGE: A FEATURE OF
LISA’S EFFECTIVE PRIMARY SCIENCE PRACTICE
Constructivist approaches to teaching and learning emphasise the influence of
learners’ prior experiences on the ways their understandings are constructed from
new experiences or information (Fensham et al., 1994). Conceptual change models
for teaching science seek to examine students’ existing ideas about particular
science phenomena before engaging students in different learning experiences.
These approaches are focused on challenging these ideas and developing
understandings more closely aligned to currently accepted scientific views
(Hubber, 2005; Skamp, 2008). The Primary Connections curriculum units, one of
which Lisa used during this research, have been developed with these principles in
mind (Australian Academy of Science, 2007; Bybee, 1997).
The level of conceptual change, or learning demand, required over the Spinning
in Space unit varied from student to student. For example, the focus group
76
SUPPORTING STUDENT LEARNING
students explained that many of the science phenomena introduced in the unit
were not new to them. Therefore, the shifts required in their thinking may not
have been significant. However, this was not the case for all students. For example,
Rebecca explained that day changed into night because “the Sun takes a rest”.
While the amount of conceptual change required may have differed for individual
students, they were supported in two key ways through opportunities to talk
about science and to represent their understandings in conventional forms. This
section examines how, through these two areas, Lisa supported her students’
engagement with learning in science.
Impact of talk on science learning. With talk being acknowledged as the
foundation for learning, it is important to recognise how opportunities for talk
support student learning in science (Alexander, 2008b). Mortimer and Scott
(2003) identified four communicative approaches evident in whole-class
discourse. Their approach examines the degree of interaction occurring between
classroom participants ranging from interactive (many voices) to non-interactive
(one voice) as well as the diversity of points that are taken into account during
classroom discourse ranging from dialogic (many ideas) to authoritative (one
idea). The result is four communicative approaches: interactive/dialogic, non-
interactive/dialogic, interactive/authoritative, and non-interactive/authoritative
(Mortimer & Scott, 2003). These communicative approaches have been mapped
against phases of inquiry in recognition of the ways in which talk can be scaffolded
to suit the instructional purpose associated with each phase (Hackling, Smith, &
Murcia, 2010).
Students in the engage and explore phases of the Spinning in Space unit were
encouraged to contribute their ideas and experiences. Lisa supported students in
this by being as non-judgemental as possible to their responses. She always
provided enough time for all students to contribute. This was evident in the
exploratory nature of the talk, and her positive acknowledgment of each
student’s contribution. During this phase, Lisa collected diagnostic information
that helped shape elements of the unit to bring about desired conceptual changes
and student understanding. She used an interactive/dialogic (many voices, many
ideas) communicative approach, which was appropriate for eliciting students’
prior understandings (Hackling et al., 2010). As an example, the following
dialogue captures some of the students’ existing ideas, prior to undertaking any
exploration, about shadows.
Teacher Tell me what you know about shadows. Anything that you
know about shadows at all. Ruby?
Ruby You can never catch your own shadow.
Teacher Oh, that’s interesting. We’re going to test that in a minute,
Ruby. Keisha?
Keisha They’re grey.
Teacher They’re grey? OK. So you’re talking about colour. Fantastic,
Keisha. Naomi?
77
CHAPTER 6 They’re like a reflection.
Naomi Bit like a reflection. Oh, Naomi is trying to use some science
Teacher words. Great. Rachel?
Rachel It changes shape and size when the Sun moves.
Teacher
Yolanda Oh, fantastic. Thank you Rachel. Yolanda?
Teacher
Dana The Sun has to be shining, so you can see it.
Teacher Very good. Dana, what do you think or know about shadows?
Michael
Like you wouldn’t see a shadow in a classroom because even
Teacher if the light is reflecting on it, it’s too dark. The ground’s too
dark. And if you were outside and it’s raining, you wouldn’t
Naomi see your shadow because it’s too dark.
Teacher
Thanks for that Dana. That’s really interesting. Michael?
Kenny
Teacher I know a shadow is caused when the light hits you and that
Andrea you block out the ground. Sometimes in rooms that are well
Teacher lit, you can see shadows like I can see a shadow right over
Yolanda there.
Teacher
David OK. So you can still see some shadows even though we’re not
Teacher outside in the Sun. Where is the source of light for the
classroom then? Many people have been talking about being
outside and the Sun. But in the classroom where is a source of
light, Naomi?
From the lights.
Can you think of any other sources of light? So we’ve got the
Sun, we’ve got the light. Kenny?
Through the window.
Light coming through the window. Andrea?
Torches.
From torches. Good girl. Yolanda?
Lamps [pause] Fire.
Yolanda, got two in there. Good girl. David?
A light could come from a candle.
It certainly can. Well done.
However, the nature of the talk changed in the explain phase (third stage of the
5E model) to enable the key points developed during the engage (first stage of
78
SUPPORTING STUDENT LEARNING
the 5E model) and explore (second stage of the 5E model) phases to be drawn
together to support the science explanation. This phase focused on the use of
exploratory and cumulative talk (Mercer, 2000), which enabled Lisa to support
and scaffold students in building rich explanations and deeper understandings of
the science phenomena they were investigating. Examples of this kind of talk
are given in the previous section. However, this type of talk was also evident in
the ways that the students worked together in small group settings to establish
shared science understandings and meanings. An example of this is when Lisa
asked the focus group students in Lesson 2 to sort the word wall words
brainstormed in the previous lesson into two piles; words related to the Sun,
Earth and Moon, and unrelated words. The discussion that follows illustrates the
students providing reasoning why a word would or would not fit within the
parameters set for the word wall.
David I need to say something about black.
Ella Yeah.
David If you look inside craters, aren’t they black?
Ella Yeah.
Michael And also the dark side of the Moon. I’m still thinking. I’m
thinking that black doesn’t really go with it because craters
might be shadowy and stuff. But they’re not entirely black.
David Yeah, but …
Michael Like they can be entirely dark, but I think of dark rather than
black.
Teacher Now girls, who’s having the conversation? Is it the two boys
or are you adding as well?
Ella [Georgia and I] are adding as well.
Teacher Good.
Ella You can actually see black spots on the Moon.
David Yeah.
Michael We’ll put black with the Moon.
Ella Because you can see the black spots on the Moon.
Georgia Yeah, from Earth.
Ella And on the Sun.
Michael Yeah, black spots on the Moon, Sun freckles.
This shift to an interactive/authoritative approach (many voices, one idea)
focused on the use of questioning (e.g., What does the data projector represent?)
to draw in the students’ responses and maintain the focus of the enquiry.
79
CHAPTER 6
Following this explanation of the science phenomena, the students represented
their understandings through the performance of the role-plays. Lisa’s
recognition of an alternative conception emerging about the Moon, enabled her
to further support student learning by adopting a non-interactive/authoritative
approach (one voice, one idea) to rectify this. She re-stated the scientific
explanation for how day and night occur, without inviting the students to provide
any responses or input.
Impact of multi-modal representations on science learning. Students
represented their science understandings over the Spinning in Space unit in
various forms, ranging from individual journal entries of written and pictorial
information, to the small group production of shadow puppet plays. Engaging
with different representational practices enabled the students to develop an
understanding of how each form can be used in science, as well as buttressing
their learning of how to think and act scientifically (Ainsworth, 1999; Lemke,
2004). Lemke (2004) suggests that students live and operate within an
increasingly multi-modal world and that teachers need to harness this by
incorporating a wider variety of multi-modal representations within their
science teaching approaches.
It is difficult to capture in writing the multi-modal ways in which the students
represented their understandings about this astronomy-based unit. However, one
example is drawn from a small group brainstorming activity that was conducted
following a class exploration of the shadows in the schoolyard and the tracking
of the movement of shadows over the course of a day. In particular, this activity
required the students to discuss and respond to several questions on a worksheet
examining their thinking about shadows. The focus group students’ responses to
each of the questions are summarised below. Ella was absent for this lesson.
The three focus group students explained that a shadow is created when light is
blocked out, though Georgia and David were more specific in their responses
(e.g., “blocking the Sun from hitting the floor” or “like a tree or you”) compared
to Michael (e.g., “block out a light that is bright”). When asked why they think
shadows change during the day, Georgia responded that the change occurred
“because the Earth is spinning” and Michael felt that “shadows change because
the Sun moves across the sky and you block out the Sun going to another area
because the Earth rotates around the Sun”. David did not respond to this
question. In relation to the final question, David and Michael both responded
that that we “sometimes” see shadows at night “because sometimes the Moon’s
bright” or “on a full moon you can see a shadow because you block out the
Moon”. Georgia did not respond to this question.
This representational focus adopted by Lisa supported her students’ learning
by providing them with opportunities to think more deeply about, and reflect
upon, their understandings in science. Using different representations also
helped students to develop an understanding of how literacy products can help
them engage with and learn science. The use of multi-modal representations
also allowed students to represent their understandings of science in ways that
suited their preferred learning styles.
80
SUPPORTING STUDENT LEARNING
COMPARING DEANNE AND LISA’S APPROACHES TO SUPPORTING
STUDENT LEARNING IN SCIENCE
Deanne and Lisa’s teaching approaches stimulated student interest in science and
provided opportunities for students to experience science in concrete ways. Two
factors played a key role. Deanne and Lisa provided their students with
opportunities to talk about science and regularly use different representational
forms.
Consistent with sociocultural perspectives of teaching and learning, talk about
science within the social setting of the classroom was a central feature of both
Deanne and Lisa’s practice. However, their uses of, and purposes for, encouraging
talk were different. Deanne’s Year 7 students engaged in talk predominantly in the
small group setting. These opportunities for talking about science enabled students
to share their ideas with their peers, as well as challenge, make changes, and to
practise their use of science-specific terminology in a supportive environment.
Deanne did not structure how the students talked about science, instead she created
situations that were open-ended and challenging, which invited strong engagement
in exploratory talk. Lisa also provided her Year 3 and 4 students with opportunities
to talk about science, though this predominantly occurred in the whole-class
setting. This talk focused on students’ sharing their existing ideas and experiences
of the key conceptual areas, as well as making connections between these
understandings and their new experiences. In the process of sharing their ideas, the
students also listened to and elaborated on the ideas of their peers. The way talk
was structured during Lisa’s science lessons changed over the unit to suit the
different instructional purposes of each of the 5Es phases. Deanne and Lisa both
used classroom discourse as a tool for students to develop their science
understandings.
Both teachers provided students with opportunities to document or represent
their learning in science, which assisted in the process of students internalising
their science understandings, as well as tracking conceptual growth over the units.
Students in both classes were encouraged to document their learning in a variety of
ways. This process was regular and ongoing. However, the ways in which the
teachers used this information differed. Deanne assessed student learning over the
unit based on their completion of two written tests. While she did respond to
students’ journal entries, her feedback was aimed at improving the process of
journal writing rather than monitoring student learning. Lisa gathered evidence of
the students’ conceptual understandings at the beginning and end of the unit to
assess how their understandings changed. She also used the students’ role-plays
and journal entries to monitor the progress of student understanding during the
unit. These differences again reflect the different classroom contexts. Deanne
focused on providing her Year 7 students with experiences and skills that would
enable them to be more autonomous in their learning of science, which perhaps
reflects and is relevant to the ways in which science is taught and learnt in
secondary schools. Lisa’s approach embedded assessment and multi-modal
representational forms within the various teaching and learning sequences.
Nevertheless, they both provided students with opportunities to reflect on their
learning in science, which supports the development of science understandings.
81
CHAPTER 6
SUMMING UP
Teaching and learning science has moved beyond telling and listening. The world
of the modern student is interactive, social and multi-modal, therefore ways of
teaching need to reflect this change. Contemporary thinking about teaching and
learning, such as social constructivist and sociocultural perspectives, acknowledges
the important roles of discourse and the use of different representational forms in
enhancing student understanding. Deanne and Lisa supported these processes in
ways that were appropriate for their students. Effective primary science teaching
cannot be separated from this expectation.
82
CHAPTER 7
MONITORING STUDENTS’ LEARNING IN SCIENCE
The fourth assertion drawn from this research was that effective primary science
teachers monitor and provide feedback on the development of their students’
science understandings based on their learning needs. This chapter will explore
this statement in relation to the science teaching practices of Deanne and Lisa.
Monitoring, assessing and providing feedback on student learning is a
common thread running through several frameworks that examine components of
effective teaching. For example, the National Standards developed by the
Australian Science Teachers Association and Teaching Australia (2009) identify
one of the five key qualities associated with accomplished teachers of science as
the use of “assessment and constructive feedback to inform teaching and
learning” (p. 3). Similarly, the Victorian (one of the states in Australia)
Department of Education and Training’s Principles of Teaching and Learning
(PoLT) (2003) includes a focus on assessment as an “integral part of teaching
and learning” (p. 1). In unpacking this further, this component of PoLT identifies
that the teacher:
designs assessment practices that reflect the full range of learning
program objectives;
ensures that students receive frequent constructive feedback that
supports further learning;
makes assessment criteria explicit;
uses assessment practices that encourage reflection and self-
assessment; and
uses evidence from assessment to inform planning and teaching
(DET, Vic., 2003, p. 1).
The interconnected nature of good assessment practices, appropriate feedback,
ongoing monitoring, and effective teaching and learning, are evident from these
two documents.
Within classroom practice, there are three commonly recognised purposes of
assessment: diagnostic; formative; and summative (Hackling, 2007). Diagnostic
assessment involves identifying students’ prior understandings, so that a teaching
program can be developed to match students’ learning needs with the intended
learning outcomes. Formative assessment is predominantly used to monitor and
provide feedback to students and teachers that informs improvements to teaching
and learning. Summative assessment determines the extent to which students have
achieved the intended learning outcomes. These forms of assessment occur at
83
CHAPTER 7
different stages of the learning journey with diagnostic usually at the beginning,
formative occurring throughout and summative at the end.
Black and Wiliam’s (1998a) extensive review of research evidence connected
with assessment, indicates that “there is a body of firm evidence that formative
assessment is an essential feature of classroom work and that development of it
can raise standards” (p. 12). The use of formative assessment enables teachers to
respond to and interact with students’ thinking as part of the process of
conceptual development (Bell & Cowie, 2001). Nevertheless, Black (1993) argues
that assessment can only be considered formative if it leads to action by the
teacher and students to enhance learning. This focus on enhancing rather than
measuring student learning is a distinguishing feature of formative assessment
(Cowie, 2002). Formative assessment of students’ understandings can be used to
share and improve those understandings. Students and teachers alike can use this
feedback as a means for bridging the gap between students’ current performance
and their potential achievement. Based on these understandings, formative
assessment can be considered as forming the matrix between teaching and
learning (Gipps, 1994).
In using formative assessment as a tool for monitoring the development of
student understanding, a collaborative relationship between student and teacher is
imperative. It enables the negotiation of learning experiences to ensure that they
provide each student with an appropriate level of challenge. This notion of an
appropriate level of challenge can be related to Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of
proximal development (ZPD). The ZPD brings together an individual’s current
level of learning progress and what outcomes might be achieved with the
assistance of the teacher. The role of the teacher in supporting student learning is
crucial. Teachers are required to monitor student learning and, based on this
process, provide students with opportunities, experiences and feedback that will
enhance their learning.
In the context of student understanding in science, Leach and Scott (2002)
refer to the gap existing between students’ everyday views, or existing
understandings of science, and the accepted scientific view as learning demand.
Learning demand is considered as how much of a shift is required in a student’s
thinking, for their understandings to move from naïve conceptions about a
conceptual area, to the accepted scientific views. Therefore, the greater the
difference between these two ways of thinking, the greater the learning demand
faced by the student. In undergoing this conceptual growth, students need to also
be able to take responsibility of their learning through being aware of their
existing understandings and the further development of these understandings
(Hewson, Beeth, & Thorley, 1998). It is this process of students’ monitoring
their learning, with the support of their teachers, which assists in bringing about
this growth.
Feedback on learning assists students in the process of closing the gap, but also
in moving towards scientifically recognised understandings for the phenomena
they are exploring (Black & Wiliam, 1998b; Cowie, 2002). Teachers need to
consider how this feedback is managed and offered. It seems in monitoring and
providing feedback on the development of students’ science understandings,
84
MONITORING STUDENT LEARNING
teachers need to be aware of what it is their students require in terms of support for
their learning in science.
WRITTEN RESPONSES AND RAPS: DEANNE AND HER MONITORING OF
STUDENT LEARNING IN SCIENCE
Deanne used testing (the completion of a written test under test conditions) as the
main way of assessing students’ understanding in this chemistry-based unit. In
general, she believed that tests have the potential to be learning tools when students
are given opportunities to mark their peers’ tests. However, she did not feel it was
suitable for this to occur during this chemistry unit due to the complexity of the
questions and number of potential responses. The students’ completed two written
tests in Week 5 and Week 10. Outlined below are some examples of the test
questions that Deanne provided her students with and their responses.
Students were asked to respond to two questions related to the properties of
materials as part of the first test in Week 5. They were each provided with a square
of foil and asked to identify four properties that foil does and does not have. This
question produced a mix of responses. Lustre, malleability and conductivity were
the common responses from the four focus group students in regards to the
properties that foil does have. Transparency, brittleness and strength were the
common responses amongst the group as properties that foil does not have. Also as
part of the test, students were required to think creatively about the ways in which
ways foil could be used and which properties enable foil to be used in those ways.
The focus group students made the following responses. Anna explained that foil
could be used to make fake flowers as it is malleable, to make curtains as it is not
transparent and to keep heat in food, though no property was given for this use.
Evan identified that foil could be wrapped around items because it is flexible, used
in a circuit because it is conductive and used to block out light because it is
opaque. Mark drew diagrams to indicate that foil could be used to create a foil
sculpture, wrapped around a sandwich and used as part of a circuit. He did not
identify the properties of foil that made it suitable for these three uses. Finally,
Natalie explained that foil could be used to steam fish as it is waterproof, to wrap
lunches as it is malleable and to make a toy rocket as it is silver.
Students were asked a question in the second test in Week 10, which related to
the effect of temperature on solubility. Forming a practical component of the test,
students created two mixtures using potash alum (potassium aluminum sulfate);
one with cold water and one with hot water. Based on their observations, the
students were asked the following question.
Solubility of sugar increases with temperature.
Did you come to this conclusion with potash alum? Explain.
The focus group students responded in the following ways. Anna responded that
“the hot water with the potash alum particles dissolved quicker than the cold water
and potash alum particles” and that this was “because the heat broke down the
particles”. Mark outlined that he came to the conclusion that solubility increases
with temperature “because the hot water potash alum dissolved, but the other test
85
CHAPTER 7
has not” and therefore “in the hot water (like the sugar), the potash alum is more
soluble than in the cold water”. Natalie also agreed with the conclusion that
solubility increases with temperature as “ [she] mixed each cup 80 times and
observed that the second cup [hot water] was more soluble because there was less
potash alum at the bottom of [that] cup”.
Deanne also used more creative forms of assessment to measure student progress.
The final lesson of the unit culminated in the students’ performing science rap songs.
In small groups, the students developed raps based on terminology and conceptual
understandings related to matter, properties of materials, and change. Deanne did
not assess the raps as she considered them to be a fun activity that integrated
science with her drama focus for that term.
I thought it reinforced some of the words, but I just don’t know if [I could
assess it] and it would be assessing a group rather than an individual. It was
more a speaking and listening [task] using science as a vehicle.
However, each group was given a rating (on a scale of 0 (not shown) to 10
(excellent)) by their peers on different areas of their performance, such as their use
of science words and teamwork skills. The completed rating sheets were pinned up
on a notice board to enable the groups to read the feedback they each received.
Deanne felt this peer evaluative process was an important one because it helped
students to consider the giving and receiving of constructive feedback.
It’s good to be critical, but it’s also good to see that glimmer of positive. But
you’ll see some of them will pause because they didn’t think there was
anything positive. It’s just being sensitive to people’s feelings.
Deanne did use techniques to monitor her students’ learning over the course of the
unit, but did not necessarily consider this process as part of her approach to
assessment. In particular, Deanne concluded most science lessons by providing
students with opportunities to review and reflect upon their learning. This usually
occurred through whole-class discussion, in which the class would collectively
identify the key points of the lesson, followed by the students’ individually
writing a journal entry. In the whole-class discussions, the students often found it
difficult to articulate what they had learnt during the lesson despite the
scaffolding provided by Deanne (e.g., provision of topic sentences to complete).
For Anna and Natalie, the act of reflecting assisted with their learning in
science. Natalie appreciated the opportunity to think and write about her learning
in science. “It’s nice to finally get some [time for] proper thinking and writing to
reflect”. Similarly, Anna found the reflection sessions and journal writing as a
“good way to think over things”. Mark and Evan, however, did not find the
opportunity to review and reflect as being as helpful to their learning. Mark viewed
this time, especially writing journal entries, as “just writing what was learnt in the
lesson [and it is] boring writing about what you learnt”. Similarly, Evan found
writing journal entries as “a waste of time” and felt that he “[did] not learn things
from journal entries”.
In the final lesson for the unit, Deanne held a science forum, which enabled the
students to discuss the data they had gathered from the four science station
86
MONITORING STUDENT LEARNING
activities in the previous lesson. Following the forum, Deanne asked the students to
share their reflections on the process of participating in the science forum.
Approximately half the class indicated that they enjoyed participating in the forum,
while the other half indicated that they found the session uninteresting. However,
when probed further, the majority of the students explained that this type of session
was important as it allowed them to hear other people’s ideas, broaden their own
points of view, gain more knowledge on the topic and gave everybody the chance
to have their say. The focus group students agreed with these benefits of the
science forum, but also added that it helped their learning because it allowed them
to compare their observations and findings from the science station activities with
other groups.
Deanne provided students with numerous opportunities to listen to the
understandings, observations and ideas of their peers. The science forum was one
way in which Deanne provided her students with the opportunity to listen to their
peers’ ideas about what they had learnt. However, chances for sharing and listening
often arose at the start of a lesson as a way of revisiting the learning that had
occurred in the previous lesson or following the completion of small group
activity.
The focus group students valued the process of listening to their peers’ ideas and
findings as a way of supporting their learning in science. Mark thought that
listening to others helped his learning as it provided him with a way of “seeing if
my group was right”. Natalie believed her learning also benefited as “everyone had
different points of view”. Similarly for Anna, she liked “how we always discuss, so
we can see [or hear] what other people think and what they got”. This sharing of
information over the unit helped the students’ learning through exposing them to
other ways of thinking about the science phenomena they encountered. However,
Anna explained that while this way of building on the students’ scientific
understandings can assist learning, it can be ineffective if the information is
already generally well understood or is used in repetition (e.g., repeating the
‘solution formula’ out loud as a class several times over Lesson 6).
It’s good because listening and discussion helps you learn more and keeps it
stuck in your head as long as it’s not easy things that we already know a lot
about or have to repeat.
PREPARING STUDENTS FOR THEIR FUTURE SCIENCE EXPERIENCES:
A FEATURE OF DEANNE’S EFFECTIVE
PRIMARY SCIENCE PRACTICE
The transition between primary and secondary school, in general, marks a period of
significant adjustment for students. While there is a body of research examining
the impact of this transition, one of the more puzzling findings is the significant
and sustained regression in learning, and attitudes towards learning, that occurs
during this time (Nicholls & Gardner, 1999; Speering & Rennie, 1996). At the core
of Deanne’s practice was her belief that her role as a Year 7 teacher was to prepare
students for the more “independent [style of] learning” required in secondary
school. Part of Deanne’s focus in preparing students for secondary school was to
87
CHAPTER 7
build her students’ “confidence, particularly in science because I see so many kids
just switching off [from science] and we hear from their [secondary] teachers
that they’re switching off”. She saw the secondary school approach to teaching
science as concentrating on “concepts, [being] abstract, often out of texts, [and]
with much less emphasis on experiments”. These beliefs were based on Deanne’s
many years working as an upper-school primary teacher and her experiences of
having her son in secondary school. This section examines the influence of
Deanne’s teaching approach on preparing students for their future learning
experiences in science and the subsequent impact this had on developing
scientifically literate students.
Teaching for future interactions with science. Deanne considered her role as
“teaching [students] how to learn” and, importantly, to assist them in becoming
more independent as learners. In particular, her focus was on transitioning her
students from the science teaching and learning approaches they were familiar with
in primary school, to the ways they were likely to encounter in secondary school.
For example, developing students’ skills in reflection, such as “reflect[ing] on what
they’ve done and pick[ing] out facts”. She also focused on providing students with
“the basic skills [such as] structures of certain things [for example, to] have the
skills of research[ing], note taking, working on paragraphing and being able to
[think of] topic sentences”. Deanne’s attention on skills such as these would
hopefully assist her students in a secondary school environment. She encouraged
the development of her students’ skills in these areas through writing journal
entries, creating labelled scientific diagrams, using scientific language and
terminology, and through being reflective learners. The two written tests were
further testimony to her ideas about preparing students for the type of science and
assessments they may experience in secondary school.
Challenging students’ understandings of science was an instructional purpose
used by Deanne to extend student learning over the unit. While this purpose was
particularly evident in Deanne’s choice of hands-on activity work, the notion also
directly contributed to the ways in which she prepared students for their future
science experiences. The challenge provided by “exploratory type[s] of lessons” in
her teaching gave students’ opportunities for “sharing their ideas and listening to
each other and I guess being receptive to what other people are saying”. This
suggests that Deanne was trying to raise her students’ awareness regarding the
active contribution not only of their ideas, but also of being responsive to the ideas
of others. The use of more open-ended tasks was also connected to Deanne’s
recognition of her students’ capabilities. For example, she considered that “they’re
maturing much more now and [are able] to direct themselves a bit”. Deanne’s
introduction of a wide range of concepts over the chemistry unit acted to not only
challenge her students, but also to prepare them for the conceptual aspects of their
future science learning. This is particularly evidenced by the fact that she
anticipated some overlap with the Year 8 and 9 science curricula. Her rationale for
doing this was that while “90% of [the students] might forget [the concepts],
they’ve heard it once, they’ve heard it twice”. Introducing students to concepts and
subject-specific vocabulary that they will encounter in secondary school may
88
MONITORING STUDENT LEARNING
develop a familiarity that will assist them as they further develop their scientific
understandings.
Learning to assist future interactions with science. Mortimer and Scott (2003)
considered the notion of social language as being distinct to a community of
practice at a given time. The social language of science refers to the different ways
of talking about and representing science within scientific communities. There is a
range of social languages that we will develop overtime and that we will draw on
at different times for different purposes or in different contexts (Mortimer & Scott,
2003). Therefore, the social language of school science could be considered as one
way of talking and thinking about science within the school setting. Wertsch
(1991) argued that we develop a toolkit of ways of communicating based on the
different social languages that we become familiar with and competent in.
Deanne’s students were introduced to the tools and practices associated with the
social language of school science, which subsequently provided them with another
way of talking and thinking about their life experiences and understandings of the
world. This included working on science literacies associated with creating
representations of science.
It is important to recognise that often the difficulties students experience in
adjusting to the transition from primary to secondary school are associated with
changes in the learning culture (Hargreaves & Galton, 2002). In bridging this
divide, Deanne focused on gradually inducting students into, what she perceived to
be, the social language of secondary school science as a way of easing this
transition.
Deanne was able to develop the students’ ability to communicate their scientific
understandings in ways that were consistent with the genre, and specific, to the
topic. While some of the students’ conceptual understandings were incomplete or
contained alternative conceptions, they were progressing towards developing the
language needed to articulate their ideas about science phenomena. This created a
basis from which the students’ scientific understandings could be further developed
as they progressed towards secondary education.
LISTENING AND LOOKING: LISA AND HER MONITORING OF STUDENT
LEARNING IN SCIENCE
From the outset of the astronomy-based unit, Lisa was aware of the poor match
between the learning needs of her students and the level of challenge provided by
the Spinning in Space unit. She recognised the importance of modifying the
teaching and learning strategies she used to deliver the unit to ensure that her
students’ learning needs were catered for and that they experienced success. For
example, Lisa realised that her students would be unable to achieve all of the
learning outcomes identified for the unit and therefore she needed to reconsider
what should be the key learning outcomes for her students.
You can’t teach them everything at Year 3 and they’re not conceptually
ready for it anyway. Just getting that idea that it’s the Earth that’s spinning
and that’s what causes day and night, so that is the main thing I wanted to get
out of [the unit].
89
CHAPTER 7
However, as the students performed their role-plays, Lisa noted that a number of
the groups had formed an alternative conception that the Moon was involved in
how day and night occurs. Lisa addressed this issue by again modelling how day
and night occur using a torch (Sun), globe (Earth) and a tennis ball (Moon). She
did explain that sometimes the Moon does block the Sun’s light from reaching
Earth, which is known as an eclipse. Lisa believed, in hindsight, she should have
left the Moon out of the role-play to lessen the conceptual confusion of the
students.
Unfortunately, I should have left the Moon right out of it because then they
got that idea that the Moon was causing the day and the night. But I think by
following that up at the end, talking about that idea of the eclipse rather than
day and night really helped. [However] when I went around and was reading
their responses to what causes day and night, [some of the students] still had
that the Moon causes day and night.
Lisa revisited the concept of day and night with students a week later by showing
an animation, which depicted how day and night occurs. Lisa used this opportunity
to reiterate this conceptual idea and readdress this alternative conception.
Teacher What sorts of things did we learn last week about day and
night? How does day and night happen? How does the
Earth, Sun and Moon move together? Andrea?
Andrea As the Earth moves around, one side is facing to the Moon
and one side is facing to the Sun. So the side that’s facing
the Sun, that’s day and on the other side, that’s night.
Teacher Fantastic. Excellent. How does the Earth move? There was
two ways that the Earth moved. Who can remember what
one of those were? Ewan?
Ewan It spins around on its own axis.
Teacher It does. Very good. How else does the Earth move?
Michael?
Michael It moves around the Sun and the Moon moves around the
Earth too.
Teacher Fantastic Michael. And as we spoke about last week, the
Moon doesn’t actually have anything to do with day and
night. The Moon is still moving around the Earth.
Sometimes the Moon gets in the way of the Sun’s rays. Can
anybody remember what that was called? It started with an
E. Whose got a really good memory? Nathan?
Nathan An eclipse.
Teacher An eclipse. Excellent. But the Moon doesn’t actually have
anything to do with day and night.
90
MONITORING STUDENT LEARNING
The final piece of work for the unit was for students to create a poster in Lesson 8.
Lisa used an assessment rubric to provide scaffolding for what science information
students would need to include on their posters. Lisa invited the students to use
their experiences of creating posters to add some other criteria to the rubric.
Through a whole-class discussion, the students added presentation, titles and
spelling as the additional areas to be assessed. Using a rubric as a teaching and
learning tool is something that Lisa had only recently introduced to the class as she
recognised it was important for the students to start to think about and take
responsibility for their learning.
And I just find that [using a rubric] puts a little bit more of the onus back on
the kids and they do know exactly what they are looking for. So if I had said
design a poster about what we have done in the unit, we could have got
anything.
Students presented their finished posters to their peers in Lesson 9. In small
groups, the students were each given one-minute to explain their posters to their
peers. Lisa did not assess the students on their presentation of their poster.
I’m not going to have an assessment rubric on the presentation as such
because we do, do a lot of assessing with their listening and speaking with
their news. But because they’re trying to explain their science, I don’t want
them actually worrying about anything else. I want them to concentrate on
telling each other about the science.
Lisa finished the lesson and the unit by asking students to reflect on their learning
experiences using a PMI chart (a strategy for recording positives, minuses and
interesting things). She highlighted the importance of thinking carefully and
identifying at least three points for each area. Lisa had found in the past that
students had difficulty reflecting on their learning and, in particular, identifying the
difficulties they faced (minuses).
The thing is [that] they always associate the minus [section] with bad and
getting into trouble, and I think that’s just a logical progression. Whereas,
[I’m] trying to get them around to see that the minuses actually help us learn
and help us do it better for next time.
FOCUS ON FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT: A FEATURE OF LISA’S
EFFECTIVE PRIMARY SCIENCE PRACTICE
Lisa assisted her students in achieving conceptual growth and change over the unit
through her ongoing monitoring of, and feedback on, their progress. Through an
inquiry-based approach, teachers can embed diagnostic, formative and summative
assessment into their teaching and learning process (Australian Academy of
Science, 2007). In particular, research has indicated that providing ongoing,
formative feedback can significantly impact on student achievement (Black &
Wiliam, 1998b).
Impact of formative assessment on science teaching. Lisa used formative
assessment, particularly during the explore, explain and elaborate phases (the
91
CHAPTER 7
second, third and fourth stages of the 5E model, respectively) of the unit, to
monitor and provide feedback on the development of students’ conceptual
understandings. Cowie and Bell (1999) describe two types of formative
assessment used by teachers; planned and interactive. For planned formative
assessment, the teacher decides what will happen before the lesson starts, whereas
interactive formative assessment enables the teacher to respond spontaneously as
opportunities arise (Cowie & Bell, 1999).
Student learning was maintained through both types of formative assessment
during the unit. Planned formative assessment included the students’ completing
journal entries, participating in role-plays and evaluating their shadow stick
investigation. These literacy products provided Lisa with concrete examples of her
students’ understandings. In developing these products, students were provided
with the opportunity to reflect upon and articulate their understandings. Interactive
formative assessment particularly took place when Lisa and her students had
opportunities to engage in discussion, which allowed students to express their
science understandings and opened up avenues for Lisa to recognise and respond to
alternative conceptions. Lisa’s rich science pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
enabled her to recognise students’ stages of conceptual development and respond
in ways that supported that conceptual growth and change.
Through Lisa’s awareness of students’ learning needs, she was able to provide
students with appropriate and meaningful opportunities that would support their
conceptual growth. She actively monitored their science understandings and
provided appropriate feedback, which supported student learning in science.
Impact of formative assessment on science learning. The students were
exposed to their peers’ ideas often through listening or watching. These
experiences were facilitated by Lisa through a variety of learning opportunities,
such as whole-class discussion about shadows, the performance of role-plays and
listening to the poster presentations. The focus group students noted on several
occasions that they benefited from their peers sharing their opinions, though each
student focused on different activities as being of the most benefit to them. David
explained that “[he] found that listening to other people’s comments [was
interesting] because [he] likes seeing what other people know”. In particular,
David found the way that Lisa encouraged the students to share their ideas helped
his learning. “I think the way that [the teacher] asked for ideas, that helped me to
learn”. Georgia also “liked to hear the other [students] ideas”. She found that she
learnt from watching the performance of the role-plays because she could “see
other peoples’ ideas and how they thought they should present it”. Georgia
recognised that it was important to listen to her peers’ ideas because it was an
opportunity to “learn from other people and [to] see what other people think”. Ella
also found the role-plays to be a useful learning experience “because [she] got to
see other peoples’ explanations of how day and night occur”. Similar to Georgia,
Ella also thought it was important to be aware of other peoples’ ideas “because
other people [know] different things to you and if you’re learning from older
people they have already had an experience from it”. For Michael, he found the
process of completing the TWLH charts assisted his learning “because you [can]
see each others ideas”.
92
MONITORING STUDENT LEARNING
The focus group students generally felt that the sharing of ideas from their peers
assisted their learning in science. During the development of the role-play, Michael
felt that he “might have helped [the learning of] Ella, Georgia and David because
they listened to what [he] had to tell them”. He also explained that learning from
his peers might not be helpful because “sometimes they might not be correct, so
it’s not always best to listen to their ideas”.
The students were given time to reflect on their learning during most lessons,
usually in the form of whole-class discussion and journaling. Whole-class
discussion usually took place at the start of a lesson and provided the students with
the opportunity to think about their learning from the previous lesson. Different
reflective strategies were adopted to scaffold discussion, such as brainstorming, the
TWLH chart or PMI chart. Students were given opportunities to use these
strategies and were provided with some explanation about how and why these
particular strategies were used. For example, the TWLH chart was used as a
reflective strategy as it required students to think about what they had learnt over
the unit and what evidence they had to support their claims. The writing of a
journal entry occurred at the end of most lessons and provided the students with an
opportunity to reflect upon and formally document their learning over a lesson.
The development and presentation of a poster in the final two lessons of the unit
required the students to reflect on their learning over the entire unit and document
it in an appealing way. While the focus groups students did not usually make any
comments on the reflective strategies they used over the unit, some comments were
made about the TWLH charts and the posters as part of their review of the unit.
Michael identified the TWLH charts as being interesting “because you see each
others ideas”, while David identified them as a being a minus without providing
any further explanation. The posters were considered as being a positive by Ella
because it gave her an opportunity “to present [her] information” and identified as
interesting by Michael because it allowed him to “show off [his] work”.
In relation to day and night, the TWLH chart was used again. The following
dialogue captures how one of the students explained to the class what she had
learnt (L) about day and night and how (H) she knew this.
Teacher What is something that we have learnt (L)? Think back to
the activities we have done. Rachel, what’s something we
have learnt?
Rachel We learnt about day and night.
Teacher What about day and night? You need to be more specific.
Rachel How it’s dark at night and light in the day.
Teacher How do we know that Rachel?
Rachel Umm.
Teacher How (H) do you know when it’s day and night? Which of
our senses do we use?
93
CHAPTER 7
Rachel Because when it’s night, we can’t see many things because
it is dark and in day, you can see lots of things.
Teacher Great.
Lesson 5 focused on the development of the correct scientific explanation for how
day and night occur. The students created and performed role-plays representing
how day and night occur. The dialogue below is part of Michael’s narration as the
other focus group students, representing the Sun, Earth and Moon, performed their
role-play.
The Sun makes day because when the light shines on one part of the Earth
we get daytime and on the opposite side where it is dark we get night-time.
There was some confusion amongst the groups regarding the role of the Moon in
causing day and night. For example, one group explained “when the Moon is on
one part of the Earth, it’s night time [and] on the opposite side, the Sun is shining
so it’s daytime”. Another group explained “day is made by the Sun shining on the
Earth, but when the Moon comes to this side and blocks the Sun’s light on the
Earth that makes night time”.
The TWLH chart was revisited in Lesson 8. The following dialogue captures
how students explained to the class what they had learnt (L) about day and night
and what evidence they had to support how (H) they knew this.
Teacher What can we add to our TWLH [chart]? What is something
else that we have learnt (L)? Ruby?
Ruby When one side of the Earth is facing the Sun, it is day.
Teacher So what would be the point that would lead from that? If
one side is facing the Sun and that is daytime, what then
goes with that? Ella?
Ella The side that is not facing the Sun is called night time.
Teacher Excellent. What evidence or what have we seen in the
classroom to know that (H)? We know from our own
experiences, but what evidence have we seen in the
classroom to help us understand that? We’ve done a couple
of things to help us with that. Ben, what was one of those
things?
Ben The light through the windows.
Teacher Yes, we can see that. But what activities have we done in
the classroom to help us understand that day and night
occurs? Leah?
Leah When the people stood in front of the data projector and we
could see them coming in and out of the light as they spun
around.
94
Teacher MONITORING STUDENT LEARNING
Michael Excellent. One of our role-plays. Great what other role-
Teacher plays did we do to help us understand about day and night?
Michael?
Andrea
Teacher We did a role-play where we had to explain how day and
night occur.
Fantastic. OK, is there anything else that we want to add?
Actually, there was something that we did to help us with
day and night. What other evidence have we looked at? We
looked at it last week. Andrea?
Images.
That’s right. We have also looked at images from space.
And this leads back to what we talked about yesterday,
different ways of learning. We’ve used the role-plays to
help us, we’ve used pictures to help us.
COMPARING DEANNE AND LISA’S MONITORING OF
STUDENT LEARNING NEEDS
Deanne and Lisa’s teaching approaches incorporated ways of monitoring their
students’ learning in science and determining what support was needed to
strengthen these understandings. This section compares the different approaches
that Deanne and Lisa used to monitor and provide feedback on the development of
their students’ science understandings based on their learning needs.
Deanne recognised that her role in assisting her Year 7 students to reach their
learning potential was to provide them with a high level of challenge in science,
which required students to contend with a higher level of conceptual demand. She
monitored and supported her students’ learning through their involvement in whole
discussions, small group activity work and individual tasks, such as their journal
entries. Her verbal and written feedback was minimal, but when given, it was often
in the form of open-ended questions designed, to further probe and query the
students’ understandings. Deanne’s focus was on developing the students’ skills in
reflecting on their own learning and provided them with significant autonomy in
making sense of the science phenomena they were encountering during hands-on
activity work. It was in this forum that students were encouraged to provide each
other with feedback on their science ideas and the development of their science
understandings. While their regular journal entries could have been used as a
means of formative assessment, Deanne did not use them in this way, instead
focusing on the process of journal writing rather than the product. The main form
of assessment for this unit was summative and consisted of students’ completing
two written tests. This choice reflects Deanne’s belief about preparing students for
their potential learning experiences of science at secondary school.
Lisa’s use of ongoing monitoring, feedback and assessment to support student
learning in science was more direct than the approach taken by Deanne. Lisa
recognised, based on her awareness of her students’ learning needs, that she would
95
CHAPTER 7
need to provide her Year 3 and 4 students with a high level of support and
scaffolding to achieve conceptual growth over the unit. This was partly addressed
through adjusting the unit to focus on three key conceptual areas, which meant that
the learning demand placed on the students’ was manageable. There were two
main ways in which Lisa was able to monitor and provide feedback on student
learning in science. Firstly, she assessed the students’ level of conceptual change
over the unit based on student completion of diagnostic (e.g., labelled scientific
diagram showing relationships between Sun, Moon and Earth) and summative
(e.g., poster presentation) assessment tasks at the beginning and end of the unit.
The diagnostic tasks were aimed at eliciting students’ prior understandings of the
topic, while the summative task was aimed at gathering evidence about what the
students now understood about the topic. Secondly, Lisa monitored the
development of the students’ science understandings during the unit through the
use of formative assessment tasks, such as attending to student responses in whole
class discussion, recognising alternative conceptions and responding with
appropriate feedback. The feedback that Lisa provided students with during these
tasks was designed to encourage students to think more deeply about their science
understandings and experiences. Lisa did not often directly explain a concept to the
students, but instead used a series of questions, or the explanations of other
students, to build understanding.
SUMMING UP
For students to learn science, they need to be supported through ongoing
monitoring of and feedback about their conceptual development. Deanne and Lisa
supported their students learning in science in different ways, which reflected the
different learning needs of their students. This process is a valid component of
effective primary science teaching.
96
CHAPTER 8
DEVELOPING SCIENTIFICALLY
LITERATE STUDENTS
The fifth, and final, assertion drawn from this research was that a goal of effective
primary science teaching is to support students in becoming scientifically literate
citizens. This chapter will explore this statement in relation to the science teaching
practices of Deanne and Lisa.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002),
reporting for the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),
defines scientific literacy as “the capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify
questions, and to draw evidence-based conclusions in order to understand and help
make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it through human
activity” (p. 1). With this concept being increasingly viewed as the primary goal
of school science, there is widespread agreement that the purpose of science
education should be developing scientifically literate citizens (Goodrum et al.,
2001; Millar, 2007).
If the aim of science education is to develop scientific literacy, then there is a
need to understand what it is that characterises the behaviours of a scientifically
literate person. As part of the call for a greater focus on developing scientific
literacy in Australian schools, the report The Status and Quality of Teaching and
Learning of Science in Australian Schools identifies a number of attributes of a
scientifically literate person. This list emphasised that scientifically literate
people are:
interested in and understand the world about them;
able to identify and investigate questions and draw evidence-based
conclusions;
able to engage in discussions of and about science matters;
sceptical and questioning of claims made by others; and
able to make informed decisions about the environment and their own
health and wellbeing (Hackling, Goodrum, & Rennie, 2001, p. 7).
These attributes emphasise scientifically literate citizens as being curious,
questioning and having the capacity to engage with science in ways that allow
them to view the world scientifically. Rather than being discipline-based, this
perspective of scientific literacy focuses on the development of a more generic set
of skills that would be of assistance in dealing with scientific issues and
97
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Home
Explore
Science in Primary Schools - Examining the Practices of Effective Primary Science Teachers
View in Fullscreen
Science in Primary Schools - Examining the Practices of Effective Primary Science Teachers
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search