St Mary’s College
A College of the University of Surrey
EARLI Conference Nicosia 2005
SIG Invited symposia
SIG 11 Teaching and Teacher
Education: ‘Demonstrating
accountability through our self-study practices as teacher educators’.
How
do I improve my practice as a lecturer working with a group of trainee primary
teachers to developing their science subject knowledge using a virtual learning
environment (vle)?
Jim
Moreland
Lecturer
in Primary Science
School
of Education
ST
Mary’s College
Waldegrave
Road
Twickenham
TW1
4sx
E-mail:
morelanj@smuc.ac.uk
How do I
improve my practice as a lecturer working with a group of trainee primary
teachers to developing their science subject knowledge using a virtual learning
environment (vle)?
Introduction
This paper is an expression of my
thoughts as I attempt to give an answer to the question above. I have engaged
in a process of reflection, planning and action in order to improve my
practice. I have chosen a form of enquiry that Whitehead described in 1989,
that is ‘How do I improve my practice?’ to gain an understanding of my
practice. A propositional enquiry into
the students’ use of a virtual learning environment could play only a small
part in my understanding of practice. The paper is structured into seven
sections that focus on my practice as a lecturer. Actions taken are described
and evidence of how those actions were received is provided.
What
‘practice’ am I trying to improve?
My practice as a lecturer and tutor in
a higher education college requires that I ‘teach science’ to groups of trainee
primary teachers enrolled on a BA ITT Primary Education Degree at St Mary’s
College Twickenham. I use the phrase
‘teach science’ as this is how I often would describe my role and is what I
believe the students expect me to do – ‘teach them science’. When I took up
post in 1999 there was a prescriptive curriculum ‘Initial teacher training
National Curriculum for Primary Science’, in which detailed science content
could be found. The introduction of subject specific professional knowledge in
ITT courses by the government in 1998 was to address a range of issues
including the standard of subject knowledge of newly qualified teachers. Baker
and Millar (1997) report a concern that entrants into primary teacher education
do not have successful science backgrounds. Annex E of the DfEE Circular 4/98
(along with other sections of the circular) had considerable influence on
programme design at St Mary’s College, as it has with many other higher
education institutions. 4/98 was subsequently developed into a handbook of
guidance ‘Qualify to Teach’ in 2002. Although the content was less prescriptive
in terms of subject knowledge, there was still an emphasis on trainees developing
subject knowledge.
Students at St Mary’s register for
compulsory and optional modules on the BA ITT Primary Programme. They choose to
specialise in specific areas with a view to becoming subject specialists when
they achieve qualified teacher status (QTS). Each module consists of between
ten and twenty sessions depending on the credit value of the module. Science
sessions include a variety of practical activities that are intended to give
students the opportunity to learn science concepts and develop an understanding
of how science may be taught and learnt. Students value the approach used in
sessions: evaluations support the use of practical activities to aid the
learning of science. The use of these practical activities has in part been
informed by my understanding of ‘constructivism’ as a learning theory.
Constructivism is considered by Ollerenshaw and Ritchie (1993) as a ‘perception
of the way learning takes place’. Constructivism is a learning theory widely
accepted by the science education community. As Bennett (2003) comments, there
is considerable research evidence to support the notion that children construct
their own explanations for scientific phenomena and that these differ from the
established explanation. Within higher education, Shallcross, Spink, Stephenson
and Warwick (2002) highlight that many students and indeed a proportion of
primary teachers hold scientific ideas, which are closer to those of children
than scientists. Trainee teachers are not only required to learn science, but
also develop an understanding of how children learn science. Secure subject
knowledge is needed to implement effective constructivist teaching (Porter,
Hall and Harwood 2003). Harlen (1996)
suggests the teacher has a pivotal role in the success of teaching and learning
especially when a constructivist approach to learning is used. As a learning
theory, constructivism is central to the part I play in my position as
teacher/lecturer.
What
has shaped my practice?
As a former practising teacher and now
as a lecturer I have always held constructivism as a learning theory that makes
sense. It informed my approach as a teacher; Millar (1989) believes that there
can be little doubt that science education research (into alternative
conceptions) has been put into contact with ‘teachers’ realities’. This
learning theory influences my teaching of science and how I believe students
should learn how to teach science. Fox (1983) provides a range of descriptors
that may be applied to teaching. Phrases such as ‘imparting principles’,
‘conveying knowledge’ or ‘putting over’ are loaded with meaning. As a
constructivist, I avoid any suggestion that understanding can be given, that
knowledge is a package, or as Adey (1998), explains, knowledge is not like
water, ‘it can not be poured from one place to another’, or that the learner is
an empty vessel ready to receive knowledge. The theories that Fox uses to
characterize teaching have a resonance with what I believed I should be doing
and how I believed I was doing it. Aspects of his ‘travelling’ theory fit with
notions of students making a journey, one which I had made before and could
therefore give guidance when they encountered difficulty. I also believed that
I placed the student at the heart of this journey and that the student had a
central part to play, as Fox (1983) explains this, a growing theory, one in
which the student is encouraged to grow, rather than to be directed on some
predetermined path.
My understanding of constructivism has
developed from various in-service courses and reflection on my practice. I have
placed an emphasis on the learner being active; I design activities that I
believe require the learner to engage with the concept and that sessions are
not to provide knowledge. These are claims I have made during my career with
little or no evidence to support them. I may be making claims that are at best
invalid and at worst undesirable! What if constructivism the learning theory
does not translate into constructivism the teaching theory? Elements of
constructivist theory have caused considerable debate. Millar (1989) suggests
that constructivism has incorrectly become associated with a particular model
of teaching. Watts and Bentley (1991) further clarify the debate by suggesting
that although constructivism has ‘kudos’ with pedagogy there is a need to close
the gap between a strong theoretical version and a weak version of
theory-in-practice. I may be practising a weak version of a theory-in-practice
that may be mis-guided. Although I design a module or an activity using a
‘constructivist’s eye’, Watts and Jofili (1998) question how is it possible for
the teacher to ‘construct’ knowledge for the learner. Watts and Jofili (1998)
support this comment, citing Millar (1989), who argues that there are no
classroom techniques exclusive to constructivism and Matthews (1994), who critiques constructivism at a deep-seated
level, concluding that epistemological and ontological positions have been
supported by weak argument.
How
do I improve my practice?
As stated earlier I use evaluation
forms to consider how I may change and develop the modules I am responsible for
with the BA ITT programme. It is a matter of professional practice that the
process takes place. A teacher or lecturer must reflect on his/her practice. This
is, I believe, an established expectation within this or any other institution.
The method used is open to individual or institutional preference. This year I
have had the opportunity to use action research as part of the method employed
to reflect and improve my practice.
Action research is a research form that
is carried out by practitioners (Kemmis 1993, Bassey 1990) and has the
fundamental aim of improving practice (Elliott 1991). Hitchcock and Hughes (1989) refer to research as systematic
inquiry. Powney and Watts (1987) include the word ‘critical’ in their
definition of educational research. It was my intention to be both critical and
systematic, and as McNiff and Whitehead
(in preparation) point out, as a practitioner your main aim is to improve
practice, as a researcher your main aim is to generate ideas, but as a
practitioner-researcher your aim is to show how you are connecting theory and
your practice to improve your practice. The relationship between research and
teaching (as practice) is explained in terms of the new scholarship by Boyer
(1990). He asserts that knowledge is not developed in a linear fashion, that
although theory may inform practice, practice may also inform theory. This is
developed further by Schön (1995), who argues that if teaching is to be
considered as scholarship, the knowledge produced must be testable and valid
according to criteria of appropriate rigor.
Although I believe that I have developed theories of practice during this
year, I feel that I am yet to reach the position where I may claim that the
theories are testable and valid according to rigorous criteria. I have yet to
understand what could count as rigorous criteria, and the development of this
understanding will provide a new focus in my future research.
As a lecturer researching my practice,
I have engaged in a process to develop theories of how I have worked this year
and how I believe I should continue to develop my practice in the future.
Kemmis (1993) places practice as the object of action research. McNiff and
Whitehead (in preparation) assert that research traditions differ in terms of
the ontological and social positioning of the researcher. Bassey (1990)
suggests three traditionally defined research groupings, the positivists, the
interpretivists and the action researchers. The ontological commitments of the
first two would place the researcher on the outside looking in; however the
third group, in terms of their inclusive and relational ontological
commitments, could be considered as actors taking part in the research (Bassey
1990). McNiff and Whitehead (in preparation) argue that positivist forms of
research are notionally value free; the researcher must stay outside to prevent
contamination, whereas the action researcher accepts that his/her research is
value laden and that the object of his/her research is his/her practice. As a
teacher/lecturer I am in a position where my practice can be researched by
myself, in order to improve my practice.
This approach has had its share of
criticism. Hammersley (1993) considers the integration of teaching and research
as detrimental to both. Tooley and Darby (1998), within an Ofsted critique of
educational research, comment on the belief that teachers given research
opportunities will not necessarily improve the quality or relevance of
research. The evidence they cite (and acknowledge) was only a sub-sample and
therefore no generalised comments can be made. It does however act as reminder
of Schön’s point, if teaching is to be considered as scholarship, knowledge
must be provided that is testable and valid according to criteria of
appropriate rigor. Monk and Osborne
(2000) argue for a more traditional approach to science education research, one
in which intellectual endeavour and focused study will result in a better
understanding of the predicaments faced by teacher and learner. Their text is
intended to show that research can inform the practice of science teaching and
the dissemination of findings to a wide group of professionals. I do not
disagree with their stance; they are acknowledged experts in the field, a field
that has informed my understanding of science education. I do agree that
teachers are busy professionals and research does require an understanding of
the methodology, but I do not believe that this puts research out of the reach
of the practitioner. My intention as a higher education lecturer is to develop
my understanding of the issues by researching my own understanding and my
practice, in order to learn how to encourage student teacher to regard
themselves as researchers who can and should generate their own theories of
practice.
White (1998) notes that teachers do not
reject research, they ignore it. The Evidence-based Practice in Science
Education (EPSE) research network including the Universities of Leeds,
Southampton, York and Kings College London have published a series of articles
relating to the interface between research and practice. The aim of the network
is to understand how education professionals recognise and use educational research
in their practice (Ratcliffe et al 2004). One finding in particular stood out:
research is implicit at the point of use. Research is a ‘background influence’
found in materials that sway practice. My practice has been informed by the
various in-service courses attended and the reflections I have made on the
success or otherwise of my actions. Waters-Adams and Nias (2003) help me to
understand this idea in their discussion of the dialectical nature of theory
influencing practice. They continue with the view that there is an interchange
between actions and ideas or theories when teaching and that actions and
theories may be in agreement or contradiction. Waters-Adams and Nias develop
this position from Whitehead’s (1989) idea that practice is driven by practitioners’
values. My values inform my planning of
sessions. I believe students learn science within a constructivist environment
and my practice promotes this environment. This is however a bold statement
with little evidence to support its inclusion within this paper. What is my understanding of constructivism?
Why do I believe that I have provided a constructivist learning
environment? It is these questions that
have shaped my thoughts and reflections during this academic year, and that
inspire my research. If I can begin to reflect on these questions then I
believe that I have been engaged in action research. Research that will inform
my practice, research that will help me to understand my practice and research
that will improve my practice. My practice has been influenced by a particular
learning theory that I have never really critiqued. Acceptance of literature
and informal reflection of practice have allowed the synthesis of theory and
practice that has controlled my day to day actions as a teacher and
lecturer. In order to improve my practice I needed to engage in a
process that allowed both the questioning of my beliefs on science learning and how I translate my beliefs
into a classroom environment.
What
did I do?
To improve my practice I considered the
evaluations provided by one particular group of students. As a ‘practising
constructivist’ I believed that students need time and opportunities to discuss
their understanding, to voice their opinions and as such clarify learning.
Activities used should allow students to engage in their learning, have a
substantial element of what Watts and Bentley (1991) term self-determination.
They consider the strong theoretical version of constructivism as having a
metacognitive position, where teachers allow for reflection and learners learn
about learning. This belief that students should learn about learning stressed
the importance of metacognition. Fisher (1990) explains metacognitive knowledge
simply as knowing how you know and the processes by which you think. As Watts
and Jofili (1998) assert, how can the teacher construct knowledge for the
learner. There is a need for the student to be an independent learner; there is
a need for the student to not only engage in learning activities, but also to take
more control of the process and direction of the learning.
In order to place the student at the
centre of the learning process I had to provide the opportunity for the student
to make real choices regarding his/her learning. A major change to the module
that I had believed was possible and perhaps even inevitable, was the
substantial increase in use of ICT. In their evaluations students had raised
the possibility of placing resource materials on the college intranet.
The drive within higher education to
promote effective teaching and learning by the adoption of new online
technologies (Richardson 2001) had been acknowledged at St Mary’s. WebCT, a
virtual learning environment (VLE) had been installed, a site licence purchased
and training offered by the appropriate department within college. The
opportunity to use this technology was there, but it is not the technology that
is important, rather, how it is used by the teacher (Richardson 2001). Although VLEs are designed with a
pedagogical model in mind, it is not always explicit (Britain and Liber 1999).
If effective teaching and learning is to be claimed by the School of Education,
successful use of WebCT is a key factor. This is not a straightforward task,
Konrad (2003) points out, VLEs need to provide learning opportunities not
available elsewhere and that good guidance and support will enable students to
respond to the potential of the VLE. Broad, Matthews and McDonald (2004)
consider the shift to new technology by higher education has yet to be pedagogically
proven. However, in the spirit of action research I would contend the use of
the word ‘proven’. It was not my aim to prove anything, rather to understand
how I could use this technology and then to act on this understanding.
It became clear to me during
discussions held with a college WebCT trainer that the virtual learning
environment should not be used as an ‘electronic dump site’ for module
resources. Williams (2002) warns that although the dissemination of materials
has improved through the use of electronic environments such as WebCT, we must
take care not to put the cost of printing onto students with the increased
quantity of background reading that may be made available. With this in mind,
plus advice given during the ‘training’ and the need to place the student at
the centre of the module, I concluded that a change in approach to module
sessions would be needed.
The WebCT module was planned and
developed over a three month period, the students registered for the module
were divided into two groups and session formats changed from one three hour
session each week to one a fortnight. This allowed the students one week
contact followed by one week optional non-contact where they could use the time
to engage in on-line activities. The non-contact was optional in that I did not
feel it appropriate to deny access to a session if a student felt it was
necessary to attend. The activities
included were chosen to supplement class sessions, rather than to be
alternatives. Activities were designed to offer the students the option of
engaging in a scientific enquiry or a scenario that allowed the student to
develop particular conceptual understanding as an individual or within a group.
The biggest modification was that of session structure. I no longer divided the
sessions into whole class, group and individual activities with my setting of
pace. The students were provided with between five and ten different activities
that could be completed in any order and no particular time limit associated
with either individual activities or the whole session. In essence students
could complete each task in a short time and leave, spend a considerable time
on one or more tasks, or spread their contact
over the two allotted weeks to each concept. Each week towards the end
of the session the students were encouraged individually or in small groups to
summarise learning that had taken place. This was then placed on the site for
future access by members of the group.
An area of the site was included with the specific purpose of
communication with individuals or discussion with the whole group.
What
evidence did I collect?
The changes made were in response to
the previous semester’s evaluation form. When asked about the most useful
parts, the least useful parts of the module and what changes the students would
make from semester one, three themes emerged. Students liked the practical
nature of the module, they did not like the group size (it was too large) and
they wanted on-line access to resources. I had taken action to address these
themes before the start of the semester and now had an opportunity to reflect
on how the changes had been received by the students. In effect I had engaged
in a reflect, plan, act, reflect, plan, act cycle suggested in the action research
literature (Burton and Bartlett 2005). Although this is a simplified model, as
noted by Burton and Bartlett (2005), it does imitate the core of the process I
had engaged with.
At the end of the eight weeks the
students were asked to complete an evaluation of the module. The evaluation
comprised two forms completed by thirty-one students and three recorded
interviews completed by five students. The first form included six sections:
what I found most useful; what I found least useful; ‘what I would change?’; my
own learning; specific comment on WebCT and any additional comment. The
following are summaries of the thirty one student responses.
What I found most useful…
The vast majority of the students (26)
had commented positively on the practical nature of the module, the group size
and WebCT as a resource. A proportion (seven) commented on the increased access
to lecturer time both in session and electronically via on-line communication
(as stated during recorded interviews at a later date) as a positive aspect of
the module.
What I found least useful…
One student made a negative comment
regarding WebCT (difficult to access at home), and one student raised the issue
of confidence when using the electronic resource. This was a surprise to me,
but made it no less important. Some students evidently still have issues of ICT
competence that need addressing during the introduction to the module. Two
students commented that there was insufficient help for the assignment. Two
students commented that lecturer input was too low for the activities set. One
student commented that the level of subject knowledge required was too much.
What would you change?
Two students mentioned weekly
attendance, two mentioned time and two mentioned the assignment. One student
commented that although the practical activities were good, the ‘usual
overheads’ were needed to give ‘solid knowledge’ rather than explore topics
independently!
My own learning…
Twenty students commented that their
knowledge and/or motivation had improved. An additional five students commented
on an increase or ‘re-building’ of confidence.
Four students noted that they had developed independence in their
learning.
WebCT specific comment…
Positive…
Twenty-three students made positive
comments regarding the content of the WebCT module. Eight students were
positive about the support and communication that it provided.
Negative…
Three students mentioned difficulty of
access at some point including no access at home. One commented on a preference
for books and one commented on the need for a focus on the tasks set.
In the second evaluation completed
fifteen questions were asked of the students. They could respond by indicating
on a scale of one to six an increase, a decrease or no change of opinion. A
selection of responses included the following: 64% said involvement in lecture
had increased (0% said decrease), 70% said there had been an increase in their
interest of science (3% said decrease), 61% said their independence had
increased (0% said decrease) and 70% said confidence of their science knowledge
had increased (0% said decrease). A full table can be found at the end of this
paper (Appendix A).
During three recorded interviews the
organisation of the module including the introduction of WebCT received favourable
comments. Four main questions (Appendix B) were asked and a discussion was
subsequently developed after each answer. These interviews were what Powney and
Watts (1987) describe as respondent interviews. Although loose in structure, I
the interviewer retained control throughout the process. In terms of validity
and rigor these interviews were open to further debate, not least that the
students were volunteers and those with more negative feelings may have opted
not to be involved.
Two themes that emerged were the
positive contribution WebCT had made and the option to be an independent
learner. The student in the first interview (3m30s) liked the opportunity to
become an independent learner. Such independence was not an experience that
this student considered common on their programme. A student in the second
interview (8m5s) appreciated being ‘allowed to be independent’. That
essentially (s)he was being taught in a classroom environment (9m40s) although
friends at other universities were in large lecture halls. A student in the
third interview commented that (s)he had been ‘subjected’ (18m20s) to
independent learning which was good, but had commented elsewhere in the
interview that (s)he did need a ‘kick’ to get started! The first two interviews
were positive about the need for independent learning as it was an essential
part of their future professional career.
What
did I learn?
Interpreting responses found in
questionnaires or considering student discussion that had been recorded during
an interview could be placed within what Bassey (1990) called the
interpretivist paradigm. However as Kemmis (1993) explains it is not technique
or tools that distinguish action research, but method. I used the evidence
collected from evaluations to inform my reflection which will change my
practice. This maintains my practice at the core of the research.
My learning has been considerable and
varied, yet far from complete. Student responses to changes made were positive.
I wanted to provide a learning environment that endorsed a constructivist
learning theory. As Millar (1989) declares no one style of teaching should be
associated with constructivism, I placed the emphasis onto the students. One or
two students did not feel comfortable with the new structure or perceived lack
of structure. Fox’s (1983) commentary on styles of teaching in higher education
notes, that difficulty may arise when the lecturer’s style of teaching differs
from the students’ expectations. Perhaps the theory I was using was not
appropriate for some of the students in this group. Two students commented that
the activities required them to be too independent and one even mentioned the
use of an overhead projector to provide content knowledge. This was in direct
conflict with all that I was attempting. This evidence is of no more or no less
importance as the evidence from recorded interviews with a self-selecting group
of students confirmed their desire to be independent learners. I do not see
this as a numbers game, one that gives favour to the majority. If I want to
improve my practice, I want to improve it for all not just the majority. Next
semester the majorities may even be reversed.
During the semester I maintained a
diary to record my thoughts as the new module developed. Two entries (26/4/05
& 6/5/05) in the diary alerted me to the idea that students may be task
orientated, rather than what I would term learning orientated. I noted that
most students were quick to settle into set tasks that were clearly structured.
Tasks that were more open-ended provided more of a challenge. At the start of
this paper I stated my role was to ‘teach science’. By reflecting on the work
of Millar and others I shifted the emphasis to student as learner of science.
Now I as I enter the next cycle of reflection, planning and action I question
my position further. To some students the emphasis on self–directed learning
comes with the almost abdication of responsibility by the lecturer. To some
students there may be the need for ‘someone’ to teach the science, to take a
more prominent role in the learning process.
A
summary of what is next.
This paper begins by stating that I
teach science to primary trainee undergraduate students. I have reflected on
the nature of this teaching and my understanding of the learning of science. As
a result of planning new actions informed by students’ evaluations and personal
reflection I believe that I have developed new insights into my practice and
have begun to theorise my practice. During the process questions have come to mind
that need continued consideration. Some questions have been prominent this year
(What is my understanding of constructivism? Do I provide an environment that
supports a constructivist learning theory?), others have started to emerge as I
wrote this paper. What is my position? Am I a teacher, a lecturer or another
learner within the classroom? In what ways should I involve the students in
this process? Do they purely act as evaluators? Do they have a more creative
role in the process, one where they are partners in the learning process? This
last question causes considerable conflict in my mind. As stated within the
paper, I noted diary entries where I question the orientation of the students
towards tasks rather than learning. Should I even questioning their
orientation, let alone try to challenge it?
Those students who want the ‘usual overheads’ for ‘solid knowledge’ have
particular needs that require further consideration.
The next phase of reflect, plan and act
will provide an opportunity to tackle these issues. I will continue to engage
in a process where I am attempting to access the dialectical nature of theory
and practice. It will provide the opportunity to improve practice, to generate
ideas and most importantly, as McNiff and Whitedhead (in preparation) point
out, show how I connect theory and practice to improve practice.
References
Adey,
P. (1998) Children’s thinking and science learning in Ratcliffe, M. (Ed) ASE
Guide to Secondary Science Education Hatfield: The Association for Science
Education
Baker,
D. & Millar, K. (1997) ‘Mathematics and science as social practices: an
investigation into primary student teacher responses to a critical
epistemology’ Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association
Annual Conference September 11-14 1997: University of York
Bassey,
M. (1990) ‘On the nature of research in education’. Nottingham Polytechnic
Faculty of Education PGDip and MEd Course Reader One
Bennett,
J. (2003) Teaching and Learning Science: a guide to recent research and its
applications. London: Continuum
Boyer,
E.L. (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered. Priorities of the Professoriate New York:
The Carnegie Foundation
Britain,
S. & Liber, O. (1999) ‘A framework for pedagogical evaluation of virtual
learning environments’ JISC Technology Applications Programme Report 41 October
1999
Broad,
M., Matthews, M. and McDonald, A. (2004) ‘Accounting education through an
on-line supported virtual learning environment.’ Active learning in Higher Education July Vol. 5 Issue 2 pp 137-154
Burton,
D. and Bartlett, S. (2005) Practitioner Research for Teachers London: Paul
Chapman Publishing
Fisher,
R. (1990) Teaching children to think. Hemel Hempsted: Simon and Schuster
Education
Fox,
D. (1983) ‘Personal theories of teaching.’ Studies in Higher Education Vol. 8
no. 2 pp 151-163
Harlen,
W. (1996) ‘Primary teachers' understanding in science and its impact in the
classroom’ Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association's
Annual Conference, Lancaster, September 1996
Hammersley
(1993) On the teacher as researcher in Hammersley (ed) Educational Research:
current issues Milton Keynes: The Open University
Hitchcock,
G. and Hughes, D. (1989) Research and the teacher. A qualitative introduction
to school-based research London: Routledge
Kemmis,
S. (1993) Action Research in Hammersley (ed) Educational Research: current
issues Milton Keynes: The Open University
Konrad,
J. (2003) ‘Review of educational research on virtual learning environments
(vle) – implications for the improvement of teaching and learning and access to
formal learning in Europe’ Paper
presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of
Hamburg, 17-20 September 2003
Matthews,
M. (1994) Science Teaching. The role of History and Philosophy of Science
London: Routledge
McNiff,
J. and Whitehead, J (in preparation 2006) Action Research in Education London:
Sage
Millar,
R. (1989) ‘Constructive criticisms.’
International Journal of Science Education Vol. 11 Special issue
pp587-596
Monk,
M. and Osborne, J. (eds) (2000) Good practice in science teaching Milton
Keynes: Open University Press
Powney,
J. and Watts, D. M. (1987) Interviewing in Educational Research London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul
Porter,
J., Hall, N. & Harwood, P. (2003)
‘Developing primary teachers’ confidence in using constructivist approaches in
science: the impact on children’s understanding and attainment’ Paper presented
at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt
University, Edinburgh, 11-13 September 2003
Ollerenshaw,
C. and Ritchie, R (1997) Primary Science: making it work. (2nd
Edition) London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd
Ratcliffe,
M., Bartholomew, H., Hames, V., Hind, A., Leach, J., Millar, R. and Osborne,
J. (2004) ‘Science education Practitioners’
Views of Research and its Influence on their Practice’ An EPSE Research Report:
Executive Summary Accessed at http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/projs/EPSE-Project4.html on 3rd August 2005
Richardson,
J. (2001) ‘Changes and challenges of academic lives through the introduction of
virtual learning environments’ A paper presented at SCUTREA 31st
Annual Conference, 3-5 July 2001 University of East London
Schön,
D. (1995) ‘Knowing-in-Action. The New Scholarship requires a New Epistemology’.
Change Nov/Dec 1995 pp 27-34
Tooley,
J. and Darby, D. (1998) Educational Research. A critique. London: Ofsted
Waters-Adams,
S. and Nias, J. (2003) ‘Using action research as methodological tool:
understanding teachers’ understanding of science,’ Educational Action Research
Vol. 11 no. 2 pp283-300
Watts,
M. and Bentley, D. (1991) ‘Constructivism in the curriculum. Can we close the
gap between the strong theoretical version and the weak version of
theory-in-practice?’ The Curriculum Journal Vol. 2 no. 2 pp 172-181
Watts,
M. and Jofili, Z. (1998) ‘Towards critical constructivist teaching.’
International Journal of Science Education Vol. 20 no. 2 pp173-185
White,
R. (1998) ‘Research, theories of learning, principles of teaching and classroom
practice: examples and issues.’ Studies in Science Education Vol. 31 pp 55-70
Whitehead,
J. (1989) ‘Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, How
do I improve my Practice?’ Cambridge Journal of Education Vol. 19 no.1 pp 41-52
Williams,
P. (2002) ‘The learning Web: The development, implementation and evaluation of
Internet-based undergraduate materials for the teaching of key skills.’ Active learning in Higher Education March
Vol. 3 Issue 1 pp 40-54