Theoretical background and rationale

Recent changes in the A-level (16-18 yr olds) curriculum mean that Biology

teachers are confronted with more mathematics to teach (DfE, 2014). This

initiative set out to design a one day course for these teachers to address

some of the gaps in mathematical content knowledge, to build maths

confidence. We report on a study in which three biology teachers, a biology

education researcher and a maths education researcher collaborated in a

Community of Interest (CoI) (Fischer, 2001) to develop a professional

development day covering maths skills in A level Biology. Within these CoIs

teachers who co-design and use resources for teaching, can contribute to

their own professional development (e.g., Jaworski, 2006). The day was

approached as a boundary object (Akkerman & Bakker, 2014) as it resides

on the boundary of two distinct dimensions, one the practical-theoretical cut

between practice and research, and one the two disciplines maths and

biology.

Involving teachers in the design of continuing

professional development (CPD) – Maths in the

new A level Biology curriculum

Dr. Christian Bokhove and Dr. Carys Hughes CSciTeach MRSB

Author contact details

Email: a.n.other@soton.ac.uk

Conference Name 6-7 May 2010

Research design and methodology The study consists of two parts. In part A, which is process oriented, the CoI

of three Biology teachers, one maths education researcher and one biology

education researcher, set out to design the one day course. In part B the one

day course was delivered to a group of Biology teachers (N=22).

Part A was constructed along the lines of a course design and review model,

excluding the assessment element (Butcher, Davies, & Highton, 2006). Three

two-hour sessions with the teachers were organised. The first session

considered the aims of the one day course, the second the mathematical

content, and the third the actual delivery and teaching/learning methods.

During the session field notes and recordings were made. After delivery of the

CPD there was an evaluative focus group.

Part B involved the delivery of the one day course to 22 biology teachers.

This day focused on exponentials/logarithms and statistics. The aims,

accompanying content and pedagogical design of the day were designed by

the CoI. We were interested in hearing about maths confidence, evaluation

and impact, and used a range of questionnaire instruments to collect data. For

example, to gauge maths confidence we used two subscales of modified

Fennema-Sherman Attitude Scales (Fennema & Sherman, 1976) on personal

confidence about maths and usefulness of maths.

Conclusions and discussion

The preliminary findings of this study suggest that it is beneficial for teachers’

professional development to work in a CoI with researchers to design CPD

for their peers. However, our conclusions are limited by the following factors.

• It will be important to be realistic about the feasibility of involving teachers

in a design process or even to attend a one day course. We specifically

tried to (i) keep the design process ‘short and sweet’ and planned in

twilight sessions, (ii) offer the day for free to increase uptake, and (iii)

planned the day after exams, avoiding peak workload moments.

• Data collection: all data collection that was planned after the one day

course was hard to collect. Nevertheless, it is very worthwhile to further

investigate the potential of the approach.

• The fact that the teachers involved in the CoI reported an increase in

maths confidence, but the teachers who attended the course and

completed the maths confidence survey did not brings into question

whether “maths confidence” has been adequately measured. It also

suggests that the longer term involvement in the CoI had more impact that

a one day course.

Key objectives

The study intended to answer the following questions about the design of the

day course:

1. In what way can these teachers contribute to the design of the delivered

session?

2. What impact does the involvement in the design process have on their

professional development?

3. What impact does a one day maths course for the new Biology A-level

curriculum have on participants’ maths confidence and teaching practice?

Findings

Part A – Teacher involvement in course design

1. The teachers identified aspects of maths that biology teachers would find

hard to teach, the level at which the maths should be pitched and

appropriate biological contexts in which to teach the requires maths skills.

2. The teachers expressed improved confidence in teaching the maths in A-

level biology, which they felt would transfer to their students, improving

their confidence in maths in biology also. They felt less “scared” is a

student did not “get it” first time, as they could now explain the maths

process is different ways, use different language, or a different example.

The greatest perceived benefit to the teachers was the CoI, in which

knowledge and resources were shared.

Part B – Impact of one day course

3. An initial survey of participants indicated that teachers valued the

elaboration of new content on exponentials/logarithms. The statistical

content was well-known already but the chosen teaching and learning

methods allowed attendees to compare and discuss their own pedagogies

in teaching statistics, which built confidence. Finally, the maths confidence

questionnaire showed that the teachers thought they could learn maths,

and found it important for their work, but that they needed support

because it was difficult. However, in general there was no effect on their

maths confidence. A follow up survey 4 months after the course indicated

that maths confidence may have fallen slightly.

REFERENCES Akkerman, S., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of educational research, 81(2), 132-169.

Butcher, C., Davies, C. & Highton, M. (2006). Designing learning. From Module outline to effective teaching. London & New York: Routledge

Department for Education (2014). GCE AS and A level subject content for biology, chemistry, physics and psychology.

Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1976). Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 6(1), 31

Fischer, G. (2001). Communities of interest: learning through the interaction of multiple knowledge systems. In the Proceedings of the 24th IRIS Conference S. Bjornestad, R. Moe,

A. Morch, A. Opdahl (Eds.) (pp. 1-14). August 2001, Ulvik, Department of Information Science, Bergen, Norway.

Jaworksi, B. (2006). Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: critical inquiry as a mode of learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(2),

187-211.

Contact: c.bokhove@soton.ac.uk, c.f.hughes@soton.ac.uk

We thank the teachers for their participation: Hilary Otter,

Rebecca D’Silva and Nicky Miller

Resource page produced for the maths in

biology course

How many times can you fold a sheet of

A4 paper and how does this link to maths

and biology?

What are your experiences of collaborating

with teachers in communities of interest?