Developing  an  Interpre've  Framework  for  school-­‐based    

primary  science  teacher  educa8on    By  Linda  Hobbs,  Jeff  King,  Mellita  Jones,  Gail  

Chi9leborough,  and  others  

Science Teacher Education Partnerships with Schools

In  memory  of  Dr  Jeff  King  

Paper  presented  to  the  Deakin  Methodology  Symposium  Melbourne,  28-­‐29  November  2013  

 

OLT  Project:  School-­‐based  pedagogies  and  partnerships  in  primary  science  teacher  educaRon    

The  STEPS  outcomes  •  The  project  outcomes  will  be:  

–  A  synthesis  of  the  variety  of  teaching  and  reflecRve  pracRces  and  informing  theories  

–  DocumentaRon  of  exemplars  of  innovaRve  pedagogies  –  CreaRon  of   informed  by  contemporary  pracRce  –  DeterminaRon  of  sustainable  methods  for  establishing  and  maintaining  

effecRve  school-­‐university  partnerships  generalisable  across  a  range  of  contexts.  

–  Facilitate  uptake  of  innovaRve  school-­‐based  pracRces  within  the  sector  

•  Deliverables:  –  Interpre8ve  Framework  designed  to  help  support  judgments  about  current  

pracRce,  and  provide  a  framework  for  iniRaRng  pracRce  –  Case  studies  –  Database  and  annotated  bibliography  of  pracRces  in  the  sector  –  Website  (under  construcRon)  h9p://stepsproject.org.au  

STEPS  Project  Methodology  •  MulRple  case  study  approach  

•  Data  generaRon  

•  OLT  –  “analysis  of  pracRce”  not  research  

•  Reflexive  

•  Purpose:  process  of  ideas  development  

Working  longitudinally  

Working  with  a  purpose  

Working  collabora;vely  

Working  Longitudinally  

•  Timeline  of  meeRngs,  ideas  development  

•  Face  to  face  •  Time  –  having  Rme,  Rmeliness  (just-­‐in-­‐Rme)  

• Project)team)meetings)• Project)design)• Roles)de3ined)

Application*development*

• Research)focus)• Case)study)structure)• Research)processes)

2013*Retreat*

• Prepration)for)ASERA)• Case)studies)June*meeting*

• Reporting)• Raising)interest)

ASERA*Conference*

• Case)studies)for)website)•  Interpretive)Framework)C)Parameters)

August*meeting*

• Draft)1)presented)• Draft)2)outcome)

October*reference*

group*meeting*

• Draft)2)presented)• Draft)3)outcome)• DS)preparation)

November*meeting*

Working  Longitudinally  

•  Case  studies  •  Data  •  Literature  Review  

• Project)team)meetings)• Project)design)• Roles)de3ined)

Application*development*

• Research)focus)• Case)study)structure)• Research)processes)

2013*Retreat*

• Prepration)for)ASERA)• Case)studies)June*meeting*

• Reporting)• Raising)interest)

ASERA*Conference*

• Case)studies)for)website)•  Interpretive)Framework)C)Parameters)

August*meeting*

• Draft)1)presented)• Draft)2)outcome)

October*reference*

group*meeting*

• Draft)2)presented)• Draft)3)outcome)• DS)preparation)

November*meeting*

• Project)team)meetings)• Project)design)• Roles)de3ined)

Application*development*

• Research)focus)• Case)study)structure)• Research)processes)

2013*Retreat*

• Prepration)for)ASERA)• Case)studies)June*meeting*

• Reporting)• Raising)interest)

ASERA*Conference*

• Case)studies)for)website)•  Interpretive)Framework)C)Parameters)

August*meeting*

• Draft)1)presented)• Draft)2)outcome)

October*reference*

group*meeting*

• Draft)2)presented)• Draft)3)outcome)• DS)preparation)

November*meeting*

Working  Longitudinally  

•  Drawing  from  •  Working  with  •  Building  on  

Working  with  a  purpose  

•  Shared  philosophy  –  coming  from  same  background,  understanding  research  

•  Certain  events  •  Clear  focus,  targeted,  obtainable  

Working  collabora;vely    •  Working  together  (Group  

discussions)  –  InterrogaRon  of  ideas  –  sharing    –  “Rules”  of  engagement  –  shared  understanding  of  process  

–  Face  to  face  •  Working  alongside  

–  Providing  opportuniRes  for  input  and  ownership    

–  Roles  negoRaRon  and  responsibility,  trust,  ethical  

Challenges  in  developing  the  InterpreRve  Framework  

•  Typology  –  common  language  

•  Diversity  v  specificity  –  tension  

•  Need  for  constant  reinforcement  of  the  need  to  use  data  specifically  to  address  project  outcomes  and  research  quesRons    

The  Interpre;ve  Framework  

•  DepicRng:  Processes  (GUSP)  and  Types  (RPP)  

•  As  a  result  of  being  in  a  partnership  •  Key  stakeholders  •  Elements  of  pracRce  

Growing  University-­‐School  Partnerships    (GUSP)    Components  of  development:    A.  Need  and  

RaRonale  B.  InsRtuRonal  and  

unit  demands  C.  Partnerships  D.  Curriculum  

Development  E.  Elements  of  

pracRce    Phases:  1.  IniRaRon  2.  ImplementaRon  3.  EvaluaRon  

Representa;ons  of  Partnership  Prac;ces  (RPP)    Components  of  development:    A.  Purposes  B.  InsRtuRonal  

Structures  C.  Nature  of  

Partnerships  D.  Linking  Theory  with  

pracRce    Types:  1.  ConnecRve  2.  GeneraRve  3.  TransformaRve  

Feedback  on  the  IF  

•  Credibility  and  reliability  of  the  framework:  –  IntenRonally  –  Intensively