Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mapping and comparing school practice in early years science and mathematics across the EU:
Results of a questionnaire survey addressed to teachers
Fani Stylianidou and Dimitris Rossis
Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece.
Presentation based on Creative Little Scientists Work Package 3: Mapping and comparative assessment of existing practice http://www.creative-little-scientists.eu
Coordinator Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece: Dr. Fani Stylianidou
Survey Processes
D2.2 Conceptual Framework
Research Questions
D3.1 List of Mapping and Comparison
Factors
D3.2 Report on
Mapping and Comparing Recorded Practices
D3.3 Report on First
Survey of School Practice
D3.4 Comparative
Report
Presentation Outline
• Research Questions
• Methodological issues and processes
• Selection of findings – Aims and objectives, Learning activities, Pedagogy, Assessment
• Issues and tensions
Research Questions
• How are the teaching, learning and assessment of science and mathematics in Early Years conceptualised by teachers? What role if any does creativity play in these?
• What approaches are used in the teaching, learning and assessment of science and mathematics in Early Years? What role if any does creativity play in these?
• What are Early Years teachers’ knowledge, skills and confidence in the teaching, learning and assessment of science and mathematics? What constitutes their relevant experiences in teacher education (ITE and CPD)?
• What are the main similarities and differences:
–across partner countries?
–between preschool and early primary school phases?
Methodological issues and processes
Research Instrument
• Questionnaire to reveal whether and how often teachers use approaches to early years science and mathematics education which have a strong potential to foster the development of creative skills in children
• 44 questions in 7 sections: Factual & 4-point Likert-type questions
Informed by previous large-scale research reports and/or international surveys, e.g.: • Teacher beliefs about creativity (Diakidoy and Kanari, 1999); • Science teaching practice in primary schools (e.g. Murphy and
Beggs, 2005); • Creativity in schools in Europe: Teacher survey (Cachia et al., 2009) • Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS): Teacher
questionnaire (OECD, 2010).
Methodological issues and processes
Data Collection
• Online Survey in 9 languages (Greek, Dutch, English, Romanian, German, French, Finnish, Portuguese and Welsh)
• Preschool and primary school teachers of 3 to 8-year olds in 13 educational systems
• 2011-12 school year
• Convenience or opportunity sampling
Methodological issues and processes
Data Analysis
Production of National Reports from the teacher survey and commentary according to common specifications.
Production of Report on First Survey of School Practice – Quantitative analysis of data gathered from all the partner
countries
– Statistical comparisons to identify similarities and differences between perceived practices in partner countries (one-way ANOVA) and between preschool and early primary school phases (independent t-test);
– Commentary in the National Reports to interpret these similarities and differences.
Conceptual Framework Strands
Dimensions linked to Curriculum Components ‘The vulnerable spider web’ van den Akker (2010)
Aims/Purpose/Priorities
Rationale or vision: Why are children learning?
Aims and Objectives: Toward which goals are children learning?
Teaching, Learning and Assessment
Learning activities: How are children learning?
Pedagogy: How is the teacher facilitating learning?
Assessment: How to measure how far children’s learning has progressed?
Methodological issues and processes
Strands and Dimensions
Findings
Total Sample
Preschool Primary school Total
Schools Teachers Schools Teachers Schools Teachers
BE(Fl) 44 51 3 3 47 54
BE(Wa) 2 2 2 3 4 5
FI 13 13 57 57 70 70
FR 23 23 23 23 46 46
GE 16 19 25 30 41 49
GR 41 56 23 40 64 96
MA 8 35 9 44 17 79
PT 21 33 33 40 54 73
RO 56 101 105 140 161 241
UK(EN) 8 8 68 68 76 76
UK(NI) 2 2 10 10 12 12
UK(Sco) 2 2 6 6 8 8
UK(WA) 2 3 3 3 5 6
238 348 367 467 605 815
Findings
Limitations
• Not ‘representative’
• Possible bias towards respondents
– familiar with ICT
– with a positive attitude towards the issues being explored in the survey
Findings
Rationale or Vision
How important are the following purposes of school SCIENCE in COMPULSORY EDUCATION (5 to 16-year-olds)?
Findings
Rationale or Vision Differences between partner countries
How important are the following purposes of school SCIENCE in COMPULSORY EDUCATION (5 to 16-year-olds)?
Findings
Aims and Objectives
How often you foster the development of the following SCIENCE learning outcomes?
Findings
Aims and Objectives Differences between partner countries
Findings
Aims and Objectives Differences between preschool
and early primary
Findings
Learning Activities
How often do you encourage children to undertake the following activities in SCIENCE?
Findings
Creativity-enabling Inquiry Activities
Which of the SCIENCE activities mentioned in question 29 do you consider as MOST LIKELY to contribute to the development of children’s CREATIVITY?
Findings
Pedagogy
How often do you do you use the following learning/teaching contexts and approaches in your SCIENCE teaching??
Findings
Pedagogy Similarities between partner countries
No difference amongst partner countries in frequency of:
• Using outdoor learning activities
• Fostering collaboration
• Encouraging different ways of recording and expressing ideas – oral, visual, digital, practical
• Fostering imagination
• Encouraging problem finding – e.g. children asking questions
• Encouraging problem solving – e.g. children solving practical tasks
• Encouraging children to try out their own ideas in investigations
Scale: 1: Never to 4: Very often Scale: 1: Never to 4: Very often
Findings
Pedagogy Differences between partner countries
Preschool staff seem to make more frequent use of:
– Open/unstructured play
– Role/Pretend play
– Drama
– Teaching science from stories
– Physical exploration of materials
– Using outdoor learning activities
Primary school staff seem to make more frequent use of:
– Fostering classroom discussion and evaluation of alternative ideas
– Relating science to everyday life
Findings
Pedagogy Differences between preschool
and early primary
Findings
Creativity-enabling Contexts
Findings
Creativity-enabling Approaches
Issues and Tensions
IBSE and CA Synergies
• Dialogue and collaboration – High in use, Low in creativity
• Motivation and affect – ‘drama’ and ‘using history to teach science’
Low in use, Low in creativity
– ‘building on children’s prior experiences’, ‘relating science to everyday life’ and ‘integrating science with other curricular areas’
High in use, Low in creativity
Issues and Tensions
IBSE and CA Synergies • Play and exploration
– ‘open/unstructured play’ and ‘role/pretend play’ High in use, high in creativity by preschool Ts – ‘physical exploration of materials’ High in use, high in creativity by all Ts – ‘using outdoor learning activities’
High in use by preschool Ts, high in creativity by primary Ts
• Problem solving and agency High in use, high in creativity by all Ts
– ‘fostering autonomy in learning’ Low in use, low in creativity by all Ts
• Questioning and curiosity – ‘encouraging children to ask questions’ and ‘fostering their imagination’
High in use, high in creativity by all Ts – ‘use of questioning by teachers’, ‘encouraging different ways of recording and expressing
ideas’ High in use, Low in creativity by all Ts
Acknowledgements
Presentation based on Work Package 3: http://www.creative-little-scientists.eu
Coordinator Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece: Dr. Fani Stylianidou
Lead partners for this Work Package
D 3.1 University of Eastern Finland, Sari Havu-Nuutinen
D 3.2 Institute of Education, Esmé Glauert and Andrew Manches
D 3.3 Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece, Fani Stulianidou, Dimitris Rossis
Contributing partners
Open University, UK: Anna Craft, Teresa Cremin, Jim Clack; Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln, UK: Ashley Compton, Jane Johnston, Alison Riley; University College Aarteveldehogesschool, Belgium: Hilde Van Houte, Kirsten Devlieger, Marike De Smet; Goethe University Frankfurt: Annette Scheersoi; University of Minho, Portugal, Manuel F.M. Costa, Paulo Varela; National Institute for Laser, Plasma and Radiation Physics: Dan Sporea, Adelina Sporea: Université de Picardie Jules Verne, France: Olga Megalakaki; University of Malta: Suzanne Gatt.
This publication/presentation reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.