Bridging the gap between research and teaching of science inquiry - a research approach

1. Bridging the gap between research and teaching of science inquiry - a research approach Birgitte Bjønness and Gerd Johansen birgitte.bjonness@umb.no gerd.johansen@umb.no

2. We are.. • PhD students • In a Norwegian action research project called ”Students as researchers” • We have both been working in upper secondary school as science teachers for many years • We are now working as teacher educators

3. Overview of the presentation • Short presentation of the research projects • The challenge of bridging the gap between theory and practice in practice based research • Presentation of one possible solution with examples

4. The research projects • Research topic: science inquiry in upper secondary school • Field work: 2 and 3 year • Collaborated with one experienced science teacher each • Planning, implementing and evaluating science inquiry • When we started the collaboration with the teachers we had no fixed research design, giving us unique possibility to make a design that fitted the situated practice

5. The main aims for both projects were to: • Develop educational theory • Develop the practice of school science inquiry

6. Complex practice A teacher has many possible choices when implementing an inquiry. Choices are made in regard to: • Students (motivation, previous knowledge, social relations etc.) • Subject matter (curriculum, inquiry methods, theory input etc.) • School (equipment, traditions, collaboration other teachers etc.) Teachers have to make decisions in regard to many different interests – these are often conflicting Barnett & Hodson, 2001 Hodson & Bencze, 1998

7. Complex practice: Consequences for research design • The object of research aiming to develop practice is a moving target (Engeström, 2001) • We see collaboration between teacher and researcher as a mean to develop practice and educational theory in the ‘real world’ (Anderson & Helms, 2001) • Some important aspects of collaboration: • Multivoice and historicity (Cole & Engeström, 1993; Engeström & Sannino, 2010) • Trust and respect (Grant et al., 2008) • Time and resources as constraining factors

8. The challenge How can we bridge the gap between teaching and research in science inquiry? • How can we use previous research to inform practice? • How can we generate new theoretical insights based on practice?

9. The gap between practice and theory Theory: De-contextualized descriptions and explanations (van Oers, 1998) Generalization gives different interpretation (Hodge & Kress, 1993) Practice: Situated and context dependent descriptions and explanations (Flyvbjerg, 2001) ?

10. Our answer to ? is Tools • Tools might be artifacts or conceptual • In our collaboration these tools were external representations which concretized and supported the critical moments of science inquiry DETTE ER TITTELEN PÅ PRESENTASJONEN

11. Tools that we could have used in our projects • What tools; used to identify and describe science inquiry • How tools; used to guide and direct processes within science inquiry • Why tools; used to diagnose and explain the properties of and behavior during science inquiry • Where to tools; used to envision the future state or potential development of science inquiry (Engeström, 1999)

12. Theory meets practice in development of tools Theory Practice General Didactics of science Grand ideas Reflection-on-action Reflection-in-action HOW TOOLS for teaching

13. Theory meets practice in development of tools Theory Practice • The model should be seen as dynamic • HOW TOOLS represents a meeting point between practice and theory • Contribution from practice and theory vary between different tools HOW TOOLS for teaching

14. Theory meets practice in development of tools Theory Practice • Joint responsibility to develop practice • Bring in both worlds - tools can mediate talk and common understanding • It is meaningful for the teacher to emphasis on the familiar task of designing classroom activities • Less time consuming and resource dependent for the teacher and school HOW TOOLS for teaching

15. Example 1 Ellen and Gerd worked together to make tools to support students learning of science inquiries. In an interview Ellen said: “What kind of tools you make to improve students learning – I think it is very interesting … and we tried to be very systematic about it” “If I’m presented with ready made things (lesson plans) I find it hard to use them, but when we are sitting together in a creative process – then I make it my own.” “We made the lesson plans together – but I did not always manage to follow this up during the lesson”

16. Example 2 1. Reflection-on-action: little scientific talk amoungst students during the inquiry (R….+ T) Theory: Vygotsky; Driver et al., 2000; Mortimer and Scott, 2003; Duschl and Grandy, 2008 (R) 2. Made a tool called Research Meeting (R + T) 3. Reflection-in-action (adjustments of tool) (T) 4. Reflection-on-action (adjustment of tool) (T + R) 5. Theory development (students learning outcome from the intervention) (R)

17. Litterature Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The Ideal of Standards and the Reality of Schools: Needed Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3-16. Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical Context Knowledge: Toward a Fuller Understanding of What Good Science Teachers Know. Science Education, 85(4), 426-453. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations. (pp. 1-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2008). Reconcidering the Character and Role of Inquiry in School Science: Framing the debates. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: recommendations for research and implementation. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization. . Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. Engestrom, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of Expansive Learning: Foundations, Findings and Future Challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1-24. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grant, J., Nelson, G., & Mitchell, T. (2008). Negotiating the challenges of participatory action research: relationships, power, participation, change and credibility. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. London: Sage. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology (2 ed.). London: Routledge. Hodson, D., & Bencze, L. (1998). Becoming Critical about Practical Work: Changing Views and Changing Practice through Action Research. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 683-694. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press. Van Oers, B. (1998). From context to contexualizing. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 473-488. Vygotskij, L. S., & Kozulin, A. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

18. For discussion • Can concrete tools be one possible strategy to bridge the gap: theory – practice? • How important is it that these tools are developed jointly by teacher and researcher? Theory Practice TOOLS for teaching