the development, trial and evaluation of a constructivist teaching and learning approach in a...

Research in Science Education, 1995, 25(1), 75-88

The Development, Trial and Evaluation of a Constructivist Teaching and Learning Approach in a Preservice Science Teacher Education

Program

Brian Hand LaTrobe University

Ray Peterson University of Adelaide

Abstract

This paper reports on the use of a constructivist teaching/learning approach to improve first year pre-service primary teachers' confidence in, and attitude to, teaching science. The two- semester program was based on allowing the students to explore science concepts in detail during the first semester and then developing constructivist pedagogy in the second semester. There were many benefits reported by students including ownership of knowledge, the development of pedagogic skills and the use of group work to develop ideas. However, a number of concerns were raised such as uncertainty of knowing what to do when exploring knowledge for themselves and the lack of note taking which occurred. A number of issues that need to be considered when re-implementing the program are discussed.

Concerns with both pre-service and practising primary teachers' understanding of science and the ability to teach primary science have been well documented in recent years. Primary teachers', both pre-service and practising, general reluctance to teach science has been attributed to their level of competence and confidence (Jeans & Farnsworth, 1992; Speedy, 1989). Furthermore, Yates and Goodrum (1990) found that many primary teachers they surveyed were not motivated to teach primary science.

To overcome these problems, the Discipline Review of Teacher Education in Mathematics and Science (Speedy, 1989) recommended that the knowledge and practical competence of preservice primary teachers should be extended beyond the level to which it is to be taught in the primary school. To achieve a broader understanding of scientific knowledge, the report suggested there was a need to increase the amount of science discipline knowledge taught to the pre-service teachers. However, some recent studies have focussed on examining the impact on both the attitudes and confidence ofpre-service primary teachers to teach primary science, of increasing the emphasis on science discipline knowledge. For example, when comparing the effect of science discipline studies and science education units, Skamp (1989) found that science discipline studies did not improve the attitudes of pre- service primary teachers toward the teaching of science. More recently, Appleton (1992) conducted a study to establish the relationship between science discipline knowledge and primary teachers' confidence to teach science. In his findings he suggested that science discipline knowledge needed to be taught in a way which provided the pre-service teachers with a positive self image of themselves as teachers. To achieve this, he recommended the pedagogy for the pre-service science units should be centred on constructivism, with science seen as a dynamic people-oriented subject. This was more likely to be achieved in small

76 HAND AND PETERSON

group learning situations rather than traditional lectures. Appleton (1992, p. 17) stated that one of the possible limitations of this approach was the "amount of content 'covered' would usually be less than that delivered" in more traditional teaching approaches.

Constructivist approaches to teacher education in science have been conducted in secondary pre-service programs (Gunstone, Slattery, Baird, & Northfield, 1993; Parsons, 1991), secondary inservice programs (Hand & Treagust, 1994; Baird & Mitchell, 1986; Baird & Northfield, 1992), primary inservice programs (Kirkwood, Bearlin, & Hardy, 1989; Hardy & Kirkwood, 1994) and in primary pre-service education (Stofflett & Stoddart, 1994; Stofflett, 1994). In the primary pre-service programs, the studies by Stofflett and Stoddart (1994) and Stofflett (1994) have demonstrated that pre-service teachers need to experience, as learners, a constructivist approach to learning, if they are to consider teaching using these approaches. In these studies, pre-service teachers who experienced constructivist approaches to learning science were able to, as teachers, develop and implement constructivist pedagogy in the primary classroom.

The Study

In responding to the recommendations of the Speedy Report the authors were keen to implement constructivist teaching/learning approaches with a first year pre-service primary science teacher education course. The students enrolled in the three year (6 semesters) Bachelor of Teaching (Primary) degree, are required to complete a compulsory science education component of four semesters in length. They do have the option of undertaking some additional elective units in science if they wish to do further studies in this area. This study focuses on the first two semesters of the compulsory component of the course.

The two guiding aims of the study were to (a) promote greater confidence in students to explore and understand science concepts, particularly those which are unfamiliar to them, and (b) to allow students the opportunity to begin the process of translating their own understandings of science into student-centred approaches to the teaching of those topics. To achieve these aims the authors split the two semesters into distinct focal areas. The first semester was to be centred on allowing the students opportunities to explore a particular science topic. That is, rather than participating in a range of one or two week practical activities for a number of topics the students would be given the opportunity to explore in depth one topic. In the second semester the students would begin to look at student centred approaches being modelled by the authors in preparation for a teaching practicum where they would begin to practise these ideas.

Constructivist teaching/learning approaches were adopted by the authors in implementing both semesters work. A constructivist approach was used to allow students to construct science knowledge and was then used to encourage them to examine pedagogical approaches to the teaching of science. The authors were interested in two research questions for the study:

I. Would constructivist teaching/learning approaches improve Year I pre-service primary teachers' understanding of science?

2. Would consmactivist teaching/learning approaches promote a better understanding forthe students of their emerging pedagogy?

Qualitative methods were used for this study, and centred on the application of naturalistic case study methods. The classes involved were taught by the authors as part of

CONSTRUCTIVIST TEACHING AND LEARNING 77

their normal teaching load and thus the study was conducted within the normal confines of a tertiary setting. A number of students (4 per class) were chosen at random to be followed throughout the year. The major selection criterion used centred on ensuring that gender balance was obtained and a broad range of background experiences were covered. That is, students with predominantly physics/chemistry backgrounds were the not the only ones chosen. Weekly debriefing and planning sessions were held throughout the year to discuss classroom observations focussing on students' responses to conceptual knowledge covered in class, the interaction of students within groups, and possible learning pathways arising from the previous teaching session. Results gained from data collection instruments were also analysed and discussed during these sessions.

Data collection instruments included semi-structured interviews, journal records, questionnaires, course evaluations and classroom observations. Results from each instrument were coded and triangulated (Merriam, 1988; Mathison, 1988) to determine validity of results. Triangulation is an important and necessary method for qualitative research, particularly with small samples (Knafl & Breitmayer, 1989), and uses multiple sources of data to conf'Lrm f'mdings, enabling plausible explanations to be constructed. The interviews were conducted by the researchers, Brian and Ray respectively.

Constructivist teaching~learning approaches and the 1st year course

The concept of individual learners constructing knowledge for themselves is an accepted position and is clearly outlined by such authors as von Glasersfeld (1988, 1989a, 1989b, 1989c), Blais (1988) and Bodner (1986). For this study the authors adopted the constructivist approach for curriculum implementation outlined by Driver and Oldham (1986). The approach outlined by these authors focuses on encouraging students initially to def'me their understandings of the topic, presenting some conceptual conflict for them to explore, allowing them opportunities to construct new or broadened understandings, and then providing them with opportunities to use the new knowledge.

Semester one

The 135 fin'st year students were divided into five teaching groups for science education. In each of the teaching groups the students were divided into five approximately equal groups. The division into groups was important to the authors because of their desire to expose students to science subjects they may not have previously encountered. A large majority of the students entering primary teaching courses have a very limited science background in terms of their secondary studies at Year 11 and 12. The students who had studied Year 11 and/or Year 12 physics or chemistry were placed in a single group of their own. All other students were divided equally into groups. The reason for this division was to encourage the students to explore subject areas with which they were not familiar. Thus, the physics/chemistry group was given the topic of genetics, while the other groups had to choose from the topics flight, sound, simple machines and useful substances.

Before beginning their exploration of the topics the students spent time defining science. This was done in an attempt to broaden the students' perception that science is just a body of knowledge. After choosing the topic, each group was asked to draw up a concept map of their understandings of the time as the beginning point of their investigations. No restriction was placed on the direction that the investigation was to take, because the emphasis was on promoting confidence in the students to explore a science topic from their


entry point. This meant that some students were exploring a topic from an elementary level For example, the groups investigating sound spent much of their time trying to determine what a sound wave looked like. Others were able to engage the topic in a more sophisticated manner as can be demonstrated by one group which distilled eucalyptus oil and examined its chemistry.

The topics selected by the groups varied. Typical examples included chemicals in the garden, gears and cogs, how the ear works, the chemistry of eucalyptus oil, and genetic engineering. For example, in the genetic engineering topic, students were unable to conduct laboratory experimental work. However, they were able to research the scientific processes involved. These students arranged to visit an agricultural research laboratory to observe and discuss with scientists some of the positive uses of genetic engineering and people's attitudes to this issue. Questionnaires were prepared and administered to the class groups, and interviews conducted with various representatives from the community so that a cross-section of opinions was obtained. All these data were collated and presented as part of their report. The students investigating the concept of acids, initially established what an acid was through testing for pH. Following a series of experiments using various indicators, they then did some experimental work to test the Ph of soils. This then lead to some research on soil acidity and growth of plants. Another group, examining the chemistry of eucalyptus oil, arranged a visit to a commercial plant where the oil was produced. They subsequently prepared their own oil in the laboratory by using a standard distillation process. Further research investigations were conducted into the uses of the oil. They interviewed an occupational health and safety officer to gather technical information of the product's safety and compared this information with the labelling on commercial bottles of the oil. This lead to a review of the relationship between concentration and safe levels of a substance.

There were three reporting sessions where each group was required to inform the whole class on what they had been investigating and what they had learnt. Each member of the group was expected to be involved in presenting at least one of these reporting sessions. The students were required to complete a written assignment at the end of the semester which was centred on the changes which occurred to their original concept maps, what they had learnt, what investigations they had undertaken and how these investigations had changed their thinking. Particular emphasis was placed on making the students aware that the assignment was not a typical science report but rather a focus on the process o f learning which had occurred.

Semester two

The focus of semester two was to introduce the students to constructivist pedagogy. The intention of the authors was to model these approaches as a means to both introduce the necessary pedagogy and also to introduce another science topic, buoyancy, to the students. Such skills as exploring students' understanding by implementing Predict-Observe-Explain (POE) (White & Gunstone, 1992), questioning, discussing and planning were addressed. These skills were modelled for the students as a means of introducing the concepts of buoyancy, such as density, mass, weight, shape and relative density (i.e., comparing densities between different substances).

The authors wanted to ensure that the students were able to begin to use constructivist approaches with primary children when teaching science. Consequently, the assignment for this semester was centred on the students developing teaching plans for the topic they had studied in first semester. A requirement for the assignment was that the students had to base


their planning on art activity they implemented during the two week teaching practicurn in semester 2. To help them develop their teaching plans, importance was placed on the pre- service students developing skills, such as implementing POEs and questioning, so as to determine what their students knew about the topic they were to plan. Due to the nature of the practicum, the pre-service students only taught the one science lesson and thus the focus was on an initial exploration of the primary students' understandings. From this teaching lesson the pre-service students were then asked to link the responses they obtained from their students to the concept map that they had drawn up in first semester and to decide on a possible course of action. They were then asked to indicate some possible activities that they might use to achieve their teaching goals. The authors readily acknowledge the limited experience that these pre-service students had to tackle this type of exercise, but the intent was to encourage them to begin to focus on their students' ideas rather than solely on their own. The criteria for marking the assignment centred on the initial activity, the interpretation placed on the results of the activity, and the possible sequence of lessons generated from this initial exploratory lesson.

Results

Examination of the questionnaire, interviews and journals indicated that for each semester students identified particular areas of concern as well as recognising benefits associated with the new approaches adopted for the course. The areas of benefit included ownership of ideas, the implementation of group work, examination of different methods for teaching science, and the opportunity to implement teaching topics within the practicum setting. Results of part of the questionnaire (see Table 1) administered at the end of semester 1 indicated that 79% of the students, although finding they found challenging, believed that they were able to enjoy science much more using this approach. Areas of concern centred on confusion during semester one in terms of the topic and the change in approach to studying science.

Semester one

Changing views on learning science

Students entering this first year science education unit had developed a view of learning science through their experiences gained from secondary school science. The students often saw science as "very theoretical [with] a lot of "airy fairy" stuff that doesn't relate to life at all" (Amanda). Students commented on the expectation to write up laboratory reports in a set way, and the need to learn specific science content knowledge to answer assignments and complete tests and examinations. Most students anticipated that the f'n'st year science education unit would be taught in the same way as they had experienced science in the secondary school:

Steve: Usually science is like you do practicals and the teacher explains them to you. When I thought we were going to do science I thought that was how we were going to do it.

However, this view on learning and doing science began to change as the students investigated their science topic using the constructivist approach:


Table 1

Student responses to questionnaire items at the end o f semester one (N = 104)

Percent responses

Questionnaire items SA A U D SD

Using this approach were you able to develop a 13 75 7.7 3.8 0 good understanding of your science topic?

Did you prefer the combination of group work, 38 44 9.5 5.7 2.8 individual work and student presentations compared with a more teacher- directed approach?

Were you able to enjoy science more using this 28 51 14 6 1 approach?

Note. Although initial enrolment was 135 students, at time of administering questionnaire enrolment had dropped to 104.

Tom: Before I had been introduced to science at University level I looked at it [science] as something where we were just fed the facts and we worked on it fi'om there but since I have been introduced to this new [constructivist] type of science here at the University I have sort of found it [science] as the questions of how, when, why . . . . and we discover that ourselves . . . It's basically discovery and resolving problems . . . and you working it out for yourself, that's how I've found it.

Peta: I think it [science] could be called a body of knowledge but I think it's other things as well because the knowledge is always changing.

Students ' views on the influence o f the teacher over their learning were also beginning to change as they now considered they had much more control o f their learning in science. This shift in the control o f learning was illustrated in the fo l lowing transcript:

Brian: Dianne, you suggested that you are learning more now, why?

Dianne: Just because you have to learn for yourself, you don't have someone else teaching you, you are teaching yourself to know more about the subject that we are covering. I just think its more interesting, when you fred out for yourself, you fred it's more interesting at your level. Like you can go to the level you want to go to and if you want to go further well then you can do that. Whereas at secondary school you just went to that level then changed to another topic.

Peter: I think it's more interesting, you gain a lot more out of it because you know you're the one finding out the answer or you're the one who thinks you know the answer you are putting forward.

It would appear that the constructivist approach had enabled the students to rethink their view on the way they should learn science and that it was not jus t a body o f knowledge which had to be learnt. This was an important stage in the program init iated by the authors


as they believed the students' view of learning science was critical in determining how these students would view the teaching of science in primary schools.

Student confusion when investigating science

During the investigation students were required to make decisions about what was to be investigated and how the investigation should proceed. For some students this was a problem as they found it difficult to make decisions about what to investigate:

Andy: Just deciding what we had to do, it was sort of confusing because we weren't sure what we had to do, that was the main point and it was frustrating.

The complete shift in responsibility for learning from a traditional didactic teaching approach toward a more self-directed learning approach was probably significant in causing the confusion students encountered when making decisions about their learning:

Paul: When we have come straight from year 12 where we have had so much guidance and now we have come from that to a place where we have not got any (guidance) at all.

Although the students were given guidance on what could be done some students still preferred a more prescriptive approach by the lecturer to satisfy their learning requirements. This question of balance between the student-centred nature of the constructivist approach and the level of control of learning held by the lecturer was raised by some o f the students when considering their learning in science:

Ray: It seems that the teacher's role has been quite different this year. How do you feel about this role where there has been less information and you have been forced to think about it and search out the information? Has that been useful or difficult?

Sam: I think if you (the lecturer) had worked up to it, it would be more useful than if you are just thrown into situation and you don't know which way to turn. We didn't have any experience with it before and if you are just thrown into something you start to panic.

Ray: So did you panic at all during the year?

Sam: Not really panic but just more lost and you just didn't know where to start, what to do and like you hadn't done it before and you just didn't know what was expected.

Uncertainty when deciding what to investigate and how this would be done was a problem for students who were unable to move toward a more student centred approach to their learning. Students were not necessarily unwilling to make the shift in learning control, but found it a significant change from their secondary school experiences in learning science. Results from the semester one questionnaire indicated that even though there may have been some confusion, eighty eight percent of students recognised that they had developed an understanding of the science topic they had investigated. This sense of confusion by the students was also evident in a similar study done by Stoffiett (1994). Further analysis of their responses indicated that sixty percent of the students recognised that they had learnt and understood a science topic they would not have considered investigating. Sixteen percent preferred having choice in deciding what would be investigated and learnt within their topic,

82 HAND AND PETER,SON

and eighteen percent considered the opportunity to discuss ideas in groups contributed to their learning.

The role of group work

One of the key aspects of the constructivist approach to learning in science was the shift toward co-operative group work compared with a teacher-centred approach to teaching and learning. This shift in the learning style was seen to be necessary as pre-service teachers often entered science education with preconceived ideas about science. Overall, 82% of the pre-service teachers believed group work was a better approach for learning science. For example, the following student comment was typical of the group as a whole:

Joan: [We] worked better as a group, shared ideas, and [had] greater responsibility. I also gained confidence when talking to the class during the presentation.

The opportunities within the group learning situation, to focus on issues relevant to the group and make decisions about their learning was also considered to enhance student motivation to investigate the science concepts.

Although most students favoured the group learning strategy, some were cautious or reluctant participants in the class sessions. One reason put forward for independence from a group was that "I didn't really enjoy the type of work relying on others. I would prefer to just do my own work" (Bruce), whereas other students still favoured the teacher-centred approach because "more guidance from the teacher may be more beneficial" (John). For some students the group dynamics was a major problem due to disproportionate participation and involvement of some members in the group. Another problem with the group work was that the students did not know each other at the beginning of the unit and so "it was harder to communicate with them [group members] because you didn't know what they were like and you didn't want to upset anyone".

Most of the issues relating to group work focussed on the ability of the students to work in groups. This could be overcome by spending some time at the beginning of the year developing students group learning skills prior to starting the extended science investigations.

Semester 2

The structure of the teaching program for semester two was different from semester one in that the authors adopted a more traditional role in the sense of taking the class as a whole group. All students worked on the same science topic, buoyancy, and explored issues of pedagogy as a whole class group. Many students appreciated this change in emphasis from small group independent, to whole class directed, learning "because it's more like a whole class discussion whereas in the first half we had to do it ourselves and it was harder" (Anne). While the emphasis was on modelling constructivist approaches, both authors were concerned that students were aware of, and able to recognise, the pedagogical approaches implemented. Such issues as the role adopted by the lecturers, the pedagogical skills modelled and areas of dissatisfaction were addressed in reviewing the semester.


The role of the lecturer

Even though students were more comfortable in having the lecturer in "apparent" control they were aware o f the lack o f information transfer that was occurring. Even though buoyancy was an unfamil iar topic to most o f the students there was little at tempt made to impart information. In fol lowing the Driver and Oldham (1986) curriculum model, the students were provided with a number o f phenomena and asked to explain what was occurring. They were then provided with some small group activities to complete, with t ime then being spent on whole class discussions to formalise their conceptual understandings arising from these activities. Much time was spent on promoting class discussion leading to a consensus in terms o f the conceptual knowledge arising. The role o f the authors was as devi l ' s advocate providing alternative views so as to promote engagement with scientifically acceptable concepts. The fol lowing transcript provides a view o f the success o f this approach:

Brian: How did you find my role and your roles within the classroom this year?

Dianne: The way I see the class I think that we are very much on a level with each other. Your role is like ours is because you give in so much but we give in so much too, I think its level.

Brian: Do you feet comfortable with that?

Dianne: Yes, I think its really good, it encourages the students to say more and be able to feel they can contribute more to the class. I think that both as a teacher and a student we both gain more from that.

Peter: I honestly think this is the best type of teaching I have met with because I have never had this before and I've really enjoyed it, it's something I've really got involved with. Even if I made these stupid rash statements in the class it's really gained an interest for me because you have to find everything out yourself, you're helping us there and keeping us on track but I have never been in that deep before with my own involvement in science previously.

Dianne: It makes you think too, like sometimes when you just want to be lazy you can sit there and the teacher will say welt alright then that's the answer but you don't do that and its good. Like we know we have to come up with some sort of answer, we don't want to look like duds in front of everyone else.

Some students, although recognising the different role undertaken by the authors, were not as posi t ive about the implementation o f the strategy. There was some discomfort with the perceived lack o f structure that existed compared with other subjects undertaken by the students. For example:

Ray: Would you prefer to have more class time where there is a bit more structure?

Mary: You know where you stand a bit better, you know what you have to learn but then you have to have exams and stuff.


This type o f thinking would appear to indicate a reliance on previous methods o f science teaching, that is, the concept o f taking notes and reciting them back at exam time, rather than acceptance o f the concept o f the individual 's involvement in their own learning.

Recognition of application of pedagogical approaches and skills

During this semester the authors modelled a number o f different skills for the students, including discussion involved in small and whole class group work, and questioning skills. The students began to appreciate and have an understanding o f the role o f discussion in the process o f learning. They were able to articulate for themselves the benefits to be gained. For example,

Joanne: With our group some people knew stuff that I didn't know and I knew stuff that they didn't know and we can bounce it off each other and its working o u t . . , like you come up with some ideas and why do I do this better than the other one and there are some ideas I would have never thought of. It helps with your learning.

Anne: Someone may have more information on it [the concept under review] and it can change your idea. [This helps because] I can take what I think and then mix it in with what they say, mix it together and come up with another idea.

During first semester the emphasis had been on students questioning their own understandings o f the topic they had to explore. This emphasis was continued in second semester during the work on buoyancy and then as a skill to be learnt as part o f the pedagogy section. Not all students were totally comfortable with the concept o f having a range o f questions to answer. For example,

Brian: You say you enjoyed the challenge and I purposely structured the sessions to have lots of questions. Did that concern you, did it confuse you or did it help you?

Peter: A lot of people have said that it confuses them because there are so many questions running at one time and they don't find out the answer to one question before they are on to the next. These are different and it presents that challenge and it's not that you don't find out the one answer before you are onto the next, the next question is related to the last question so they are all one big thing where you've just got to sit down and think about it yourself and really put your own knowledge to it and see what you can come up with.

Dianne: Sometimes, like Peter said, it is really confusing sometimes when there are questions going around everywhere and they are not getting answered or they have come to a standstill or something but apart from that it's good.

As a component o f the first year course the students were required to complete a two week teaching practicum during which they are expected to teach one lesson per day. Given the number o f other subject areas they were involved with (e.g., language, art, mathematics) the students only had the oppommity to teach one or two science lessons during this period. Of interest to the authors, was the ability o f the students to transfer into the classroom the application o f questioning in prompting their own learning as a means o f determining children's conceptual understandings and encouraging their learning. Although the students

CONSTRUCITVIST TEACHING AND LEARNING 85

had only a very limited exposure to teaching within a classroom there was a beginning realisation of the need to use questioning carefully. As Christine noted in her response to the questionnaire:

Questioning is very important in the development of children's understanding. By producing questions the teacher can gain information on the present knowledge that the class has in relation to the topic. The teachers can therefore produce work that suits their needs. Questions allow the children to participate in discussion. By new responses and answers being given the class can learn through others' responses and it can arouse group discussion.

These comments indicate that the student was aware of the benefits that can be gained from using questioning to explore knowledge, in particular where the focus is on ensuring that children are active in the learning process.

Student Dissatisfaction

A problem which the students identified and was the cause of some angst was the lack of notes that were given during the semester. In modelling constructivist approaches the authors were keen for the students to focus on the conceptual knowledge being addressed, both in terms of buoyancy and pedagogy. For each teaching session only one or two major concepts were addressed, for example, how to implement a POE (predict, observe, explain) or creating shapes with plasticine to determine criteria for predicting why objects made of material with a density greater than 1 can float in water. On completion of each session a summary of the concepts addressed within the session would be generated for the students to record. This was generally the only note-taking work done by the students. Although they were asked to examine their concept maps and add to them where necessary, there was still a feeling of no notes means no work and no learning. Peter summarised this view when he said " I think a lot of people think they don't feel satisfied if they don't come out of a class with notes".

Issues to be addressed

For the authors there were a number of important issues which arose during the year that need to be considered when repeating the program. These included the length of time the students spent in exploring a science topic, the focus on the learning process and the development of pedagogic skills.

The length of time on a science topic

The authors' thinking in creating such a period of time for exploring a topic was that for most students it would be the fh'st time they had engaged in indepth research of the topic. In secondary schooling they are not normally given the opportunity to investigate a topic from their perspective for such a period of time. Thus we felt that this would provide them the chance to become involved and gain confidence in investigating a topic. Upon reflection the evidence would indicate that a large number of students were uncomfortable with this time period. Although there were students who became very enthusiastic and enjoyed the oppommity to explore, there were some who became lost. They were uncertain of the role


that was being asked of them, and thus found that they wasted much of the time. In planning to overcome this problem, the authors believe much more value would be gained by asking the students to explore two topics in the semester. The reason for changing to two topics is to enable students better to review the whole learning process. Prior to beginning the second topic, students would need to be provided time to review the investigation processes adopted, reflect on their own roles in the investigations, and examine the learning conditions they require in order to gain confidence in their ability to understand science knowledge. The time spent on reviewing the first topic of study would enable support to be given to students as they endeavour to understand the reconstructed learning environment within which they are now required to operate.

Focus of the learning process

As indicated above some of the students became lost in the process of exploring a topic. Some of this uncertainty can be attributed to the fact that they were unsure of their role in the process. They became uncomfortable that the focus of the learning was on them rather than the teacher. No longer were they able to adopt strategies to fulfil the requirements of the teacher but rather they had to initiate the direction of their own learning. This situation could have been overcome by more teacher direction during the initial stages of the semester. In planning to implement the process again, the authors believe that time should be spent on giving the students more confidence to explore the topic using their initial concept maps. That is, better use of questioning by the authors during the decision stages of choosing the direction to explore would provide confidence for the students. In particular, students would gain confidence to explore concepts even though they may believe them not to be as "scientific" as the lecturer may want. This may address the continual question of "is it okay for us to have a look at this?".

Development of pedagogic skills

The final assignment for the course asked students to link their understanding of the student-centred teaching approaches which had been modelled for them, to classroom applications. Many of the students although having implemented a POE (predict-observe- explain) were unable to use the information they obtained for further planning. Much time had been spent on promoting the need for the learner to control the learning pathways with the teacher responding to the chosen pathways. However, there did not appear to be a strong connection between the two. In recognising that the students are generally flesh from high school and had been exposed to more traditional didactic approaches, and that one semester was a short period of time in terms of developing pedagogy, more could have been done. One strategy that the authors believe may be useful is for the students to examine more closely the procedures they had undertaken in first semester. By promoting a greater examination by the students of their own learning processes as they explore a science topic, a greater awareness of the role of the learner could be developed. This awareness could then be more productively used in a second semester.


Conclusion

This study has shown that students in a preservice science teacher education program can develop a broader view of science than the representations that they acquire through traditional didactic approaches, through a constructivist teaching and learning approach. The students were able to shift from seeing science as a body of knowledge to a situation where they viewed science as exploring, investigating and answering their own research questions and in turn developing their own knowledge in science. For some students, using group work and having to make decisions about what needed to be learnt was a significant shift from their prior experiences. These students found the constructivist approach more difficult to adapt to when learning science. The initial exploration of children's ideas as a focal point for planning a teaching unit was a valuable exercise for the fin'st year students. However, a longer term study is required to explore whether these students will develop pedagogical skills and knowledge which are reflective of constructivist teaching/learning approaches.

Correspondence: Dr Brian Hand, School of Education, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia, 3550. Internet email: [email protected]

Latrobe University, Box 199,

References

Appleton, K. (1992). Discipline knowledge and confidence to teach science: Self perceptions of primary teacher education students. Research in Science Education, 22, 11-19.

Baird, J. R., & Mitchell, I. J. (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study - the PEEL project. Melbourne: Monash University Printery.

Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne: Monash University Printing Services.

Blais, D. M. (1988). Constructivism: A theoretical revolution in teaching. Journal of Developmental Education, 11(3), 2-7.

Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 873-878.

Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 107-112.

Gunstone, R. F., Slattery, M., Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. F. (1993). A case study exploration of development in pre-service science teachers. Science Education, 77(1), 47-73.

Hand, B., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). Teachers' thoughts about changing to constructivist teaching/learning approaches within junior secondary science classrooms. Journal of Education for Teaching, 20(1), 97-I t2.

Hardy, T., & Kirkwood, V. (1994). Towards creating effective learning environments for science teachers: The role of the tertiary educator. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 231-251.

Jeans, B., & Famsworth, I. (1992). Primary science education: Views from three Australian states. Research in Science Education, 22, 214-223.


Kirkwood, V., Bearlin, M., & Hardy, T. (1989). New approaches to the inservice education in science and technology of primary and early childhood teachers (or Mum is not so dumb after all!). Research in Science Education, 19, 174-186.

Knafl, K., & Breitmayer, B. (1989). Triangulation in qualitative research: Issues of conceptual clarity and purpose. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue. Maryland: Aspen Publishers.

Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education - A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-17. Parson, S. (1991). Pre-service secondary science teachers making sense of constructivism.

Research in Science Education, 21, 271-280. Skamp, K. (1989). General science knowledge and attitudes towards science teaching ofpre-

service primary teachers: Implications for pre-service units. Research in Science Education, 19, 257-267.

Speedy, G. (Ed.) (1989). Discipline review of teacher training in mathematics and science. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Stofflett, R. T. (1994). The accommodation of science pedagogical knowledge: The application of conceptual constructs to teacher education. Journal o f Research in Science Teaching, 31(8), 787-810.

Stofflett, R. T., & Stoddart, T. (1994). The ability to understand and use conceptual change pedagogy as a function of prior content learning experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 31-51.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). The reluctance to change a way of thinking. The lrish Journal o f Psychology, 9(1), 83-90.

yon Glasersfeld, E. (1989a). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Virginia: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1989b). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1989c). Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and reflexivity: Toward a cybernetic/social constructivist way of knowing. London: Sage.

white, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press. Yates, S., & Goodrum, D. (1990). How confident are primary science teachers in teaching

science? Research in Science Education, 20, 300-305.

the development, trial and evaluation of a constructivist teaching and learning approach in a...

Documents