science teacher educationcidtff.web.ua.pt/cidtff_flashnews/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ste_6… ·...

No 68 � October 2013

Science TeacherEducation

An ASE publication for all concerned with the pre-service education,induction and professional development of science teachers

The Association for Science Education

fifty years of the ASE

Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

News from ATSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Science Teacher Education (STE): a brief historyMartin Braund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Science teacher educationBuilding instruments to learn in scienceLúcia Pombo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

In the classroomScientific ideas I wish I had understood much earlier – Part III: ‘Chemical equilibrium and reaction rates’Alan Goodwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Research in science teacher educationReflections on a research journeySally Hardman and Sue Luke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

News RoundupResources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43Funding opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Research RoundupDigests of articles from leading science teacher education periodical publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Resource Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

E-mails from the Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

ContentsScience Teacher EducationNo 68 � October 2013

Editor:Martin Braund, University of [email protected]

Executive Editor:Jane [email protected]

Published by:The Association for ScienceEducation, College Lane,Hatfield, Herts AL10 9AA.

Tel: 01707 283000Fax: 01707 266532Website: www.ase.org.uk

ISSN: 175 -915X

©ASE 2013

Editorial Board:

Paul Denley, University of Bath;[email protected] reviews

Linda ScottSenior Lecturer, University of Worcester;[email protected] Roundup

Morag Findlay, University of Strathclyde; [email protected], Wales and N. Ireland issues

Caro Garrett, PGCE Lead Science TutorUniversity of [email protected] Conferences

Helen ClarkeUniversity of [email protected] Roundup

The Association for Science Education

Es

Cover credit: Thanks to Lúcia Pombo. See article on page 11

Special International issue

STE

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.ase.org.uk






For some time I have been disappointed by the quality and content of speeches andkeynote addresses given at conferences. Recently, I attended the biennial conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) in Nicosia, Cyprus. It was hot, very hot, and the keynotes took place at 7.00 or 8.00 in the evening, when itwas supposedly cooler but following a full day of ‘conferencing’. It seemed to me that the‘keynotes’ were nothing of the sort, more personal diatribes or summaries of alreadypublished work by the speakers. There were no messages or ideas that made us sit up and take notice or think in new ways. I drifted off to sleep, or went off to eat in the town’srestaurants with fellow ATSE members.

Then, out of the blue (or should I say the Internet ether) came an intriguing invitation to a debate on ‘C.P Snow and the Two Cultures’ at the Town Hall in the (Royal) Borough ofKensington and Chelsea. Now, those of you who know anything of my political allegianceswill agree that this was like venturing into a political ‘lion’s den’. Remember that this is‘high Tory country’: the former constituency of Alan Clark, Michael Portillo and MalcolmRifkind. The three-hour ‘conference’ was part of a week of public debates on science. Thisone was to consider to what extent the contention of novelist and physicist C.P Snow of acultural divide between the ‘Arts’ and the ‘Sciences’ still exists, and what harm this mightdo to science and the public understanding of science. After speeches by Lord (William)Waldegrave (currently Provost at Eton and formerly a minister in John Major’sgovernments) and Lord May (formerly the government’s chief scientist), I seriouslywondered what I was doing there, dozing dangerously in the lion’s den. Then, a stoopedfigure took a seat at the table – with no PowerPoint and just a scrap of paper. This wasGeorge Steiner, described in the programme as polyglot, polymath and intellectual. I havealways wondered what such people are supposed to be to deserve these epithets, placingthem above mere mortals who are just ‘plain intelligent’. Now I know.

Editorial

Page 2 � Editorial � Science Teacher Education � No 68 � October 2013 � Return to Contents Page

�

For forty minutes, Steiner delivered the most profound yet coherently urbane set of ideas,which surely must have made everyone in that room think. I will not dare to rehearsewhat Steiner said in any depth, but it made me think how damaging the drab educationwe dish out in this country really is and how we end up denigrating both the intellect andinternational culture. For Steiner, ‘his’ curriculum is made up of just three domains: ‘LifeSciences’, ‘Music’ and ‘Architecture’. I cannot go into how he justified these choices but, ifI can get hold of a script of his lecture, I will send a link. A keynote speech? – well, yes, itsurely was a key moment in my year!

Perhaps the articles in this issue also have capacity, like Steiner, to make you think in new ways. I hope so. I have placed a piece about the history of STE that I recently wrotefor the ASE’s 50 years celebration in this issue so that you can see the importantcontribution that our journal makes. I encourage all our readers to carry on supporting thejournal by sending in articles or suggesting people you know who may be interested inpublishing in STE.

Our first main article is from Portugal. Lúcia Pombo analyses the value of collaborativework making periscopes with primary teacher education students. Her article reminds ushow collaborative projects help integrate a number of areas in student teacher learning:students’ understanding of skills and processes, their conceptual understanding and, notleast, their self-esteem and self-efficacy. Continuing on a theme of ‘understanding’(science), Alan Goodwin presents the third in his wonderful series on Science ideas I wish I had understood before … This time it is ‘chemical equilibrium and reaction rates’.Alan, where were you 30 years ago when I was asked to teach this?

Editorial


�

Our final article is a beautifully crafted addition to the debate started in our first specialedition of STE in October 2010 on ‘Science Teacher Education - Inside the Black Box’.Sally Hardman and Sue Luke tell the story of how they entered the new world ofresearch when joining a university, having previously been primary teachers. They showhow analysis of one’s own practice can be a very worthwhile and liberating enterprise,both as high quality and rigorous research and as personal reflection to improve practice.Even George Steiner suffered great doubts and some persecution when first entering theworld of academia in post-war Britain. These accommodations to new ways of workingand thinking should not be taken lightly. As ever, STE seeks to make our professionaljourneys smoother. Bon voyages!

Martin Braund, [email protected]

Editorial


�


Editorial


Future issues of STE

Articles, letters for publication, research ideas and reviews of published material are welcomed.

Deadline for all items for the February 2014 issue is Friday 20th December 2013Deadline for the May 2014 issue is Friday 28th March 2013Deadline for the October 2014 issue is Friday 29th August 2014

All correspondence and enquiries about journal content should be sent to the Editor,Martin Braund, at the University of York. E-mail: [email protected]

Please make sure that full contact details including your position, affiliation, job titleand e-mail address are included on all material submitted, thank you.

Science Teacher Education, the ASE’s first electronic journal, is available onsubscription. ATSE and NAIGS members receive STE as a benefit of membership, ASE members for £13.00 per annum for three issues. The cost to non-members is £30.00 per annum.

If you would like to subscribe, or need to amend the e-mail address to which your access details are sent, please contact Barbara Hansell, quoting your membership number (if appropriate), at ASE Headquarters, College Lane, Hatfield, Herts., AL10 9AA or E-mail: [email protected]



News from ATSE

Page 6 � ATSE � Science Teacher Education � No 68 � October 2013 � Return to Contents Page

�

As the deadline for the next edition of STE looms (actually has already passed!), we are allin the midst of the start of the new academic year. School Direct teachers are already inschools, experiencing a huge variety of induction programmes varying from a well-organised week of talks, followed by a gentle introduction via observing their classes, to taking over the teaching, all the way to starting teaching a nearly 100% timetableunsupervised from day 1 (that one needed some difficult and diplomatic conversations).Lead schools are beginning to understand what ‘leading’ actually means and are havingnew conversations with their alliance partners. Some partnerships are consideringalternative models that require less training in school, while some lead schools areheading with enthusiasm towards SCITTs. Word on the block is that significantly moreschools have applied for School Direct places in the recently-closed round of requests forplaces for 2014-15. Meanwhile, we read this on the DfE website:

‘School Direct... is a way of ensuring that newly qualified teachers deliver great lessons in your school.’

But where, in all this, do the ITE science tutors find themselves? I guess it is likely that wewill still be allocated Core PGCE places for physics and chemistry, but we are allconcerned about the significant reduction in biology places. Anecdotal evidence suggeststhat many institutions are offering their Core PGCE programme to School Direct trainees,so there is some element of continuity and sustainability. The enormity of theinefficiencies in the current system, particularly in recruitment however, makes thissustainability somewhat fragile, and we are beginning to hear that some well-knowninstitutions might withdraw from the ITE sector altogether.

A considerable number of ITE tutors were at the ESERA conference in early September,during which there were many robust conversations, mainly centred around survival both

News from ATSE

Page 7 � ATSE � Science Teacher Education � No 68 � October 2013 � Return to Contents Page

in personal and institutional terms – not the most constructive climate in which to findourselves. But this does also present an opportunity to rethink our own practices and, asmost trainees are still attached to an HEI, to consider how our model of training SchoolDirect teachers can support them in becoming the best teachers they can be. We havecertainly had some much more focused discussions with our partnership than in the past.

ATSE had a small presence at the ASE Summer Celebration Conference, but it was badlytimed for most universities, and so attendance was low. We are now planning a dayconference on a Monday in March (postponed from November), in London, and a call forpapers will be going out soon. We are particularly keen, as always, to attract new tutors to this event. We will be organising a summer conference for 2014, possibly moving toearly July.

The next UCET Secondary Committee morning discussion on 19th November will befocused on the unique contribution, and added value, offered by HE-based ITE programmes,so that will be worth your representative attending. You may also like to read ChrisHusband’s latest blog post, based on his address to BERA in September, at:http://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/the-riddle-of-autonomous-schools-how-will-researchers-crack-the-code/

Wishing you all a happy and successful 2013-14, and I hope to see many of you in March.

Caro Garrett, Chair, ATSEE-mail: [email protected]

http://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/the-riddle-of-autonomous-schools-how-will-researchers-crack-the-code/




�

As part of the celebration of ASE’s 50 years, I was asked to submit a piece about STE for aSchool Science Review article, compiled by Jane Hanrott, on the contribution of ASE’spublications to science education in the UK and beyond (ASE, 2013). Here I reproduce thefuller version of my contribution to that article.

STE is the ASE’s online journal communicating to all involved in the preparation andtraining of science teachers. It was the first electronic publication in the ASE suite andbegan life in 1991 as the journal of the newly established Association of Tutors of Science Education (ATSE). Colin Johnson, STE’s first Editor, saw the journal very much as‘a forum for discussion which will shape the decisions which science educators make …’In those first issues, articles covered a wide range of topics, including some we wouldrecognise as relevant today, such as: student teachers’ subject knowledge, assessingstudent ‘competence’ and the effectiveness of what was then called INSET (in-servicetraining for teachers). Other discussions were rooted in educational debates of the times:‘balanced science’, and the role of CATE (Committee for the Accreditation of TEachers – a forerunner of the TTA). By the time the second Editor of STE, Mick Nott, was in place in 1995, the focus of discussions had turned to development of school partnership work,as the balance of teacher education effort work shifted from the universities and collegesto schools.

ATSE and STE have been active over a time of quite unprecedented change in the teachereducation sector. A theme that has never gone from STE is the willingness of the scienceteacher education community to positively critique its own practice in the face of whatoften seemed professionally threatening, politically driven change. By the time ChrisHarrison took over as Editor in 2000, the science teacher education community hadwidened to embrace new roles in schools, such as mentoring of student teachers andinvolvement in professional development. Chris made a plea for more articles from the

Science Teacher Education (STE): a brief history� Martin Braund


�

classroom to reflect these changes but, over the years, there continued to be far too few of these. The number of contributions to STE has always been more limited thanthose to other ASE journals, but there has been no lack of quality. As Neil Burton, the STE Editor taking over in 2004, remarked, ‘I was clearly combining calling in a few favourswith outright begging to get sufficient copy for each issue as the deadline loomed – althoughthis only comes across through the pleading nature of my editorials rather than in the qualityof the articles!’

A source of high quality articles has been ATSE’s annual summer conferences. In mystewardship as Editor since 2008, I have encouraged, as Neil did, new authors to submitarticles using the Editorial Board and myself to give guidance and support on writing. STEwas one of the first journals to accept an article that I wrote and it continues to be abirthplace of new authorship.

The new publications platform for STE has provided new opportunities. Neil Burton saidthat ‘a major benefit of e-publication has been the greater flexibility of design (STE was nolonger limited to 16 sides of A4) and the ability to hyperlink both to authors’ e-mail addressesand to websites mentioned in articles.’ This has allowed us to expand the remit and contentof STE, so that it now includes a round-up of research, reviews of websites and books,updates and news sections, pieces on recent debates and discussions and a range ofarticles that include descriptions of practice, evaluations and research.

At a time when the very fabric of teacher education in the UK is under threat, from oftendraconian and unreasoned political change, STE remains a most important organ forcommunication and debate in science teacher education.



ReferenceASE (2013) ‘The changing faces of ASE journals’, School Science Review, 94, (348), 79–92

Martin BraundE-mail: [email protected]




STEBuilding instruments to learn in science� Lúcia Pombo

Page 11 � Science Teacher Education � Science Teacher Education � No 68 � October 2013 � Return to Contents Page

�

Lúcia reports on how the University of Aveiro is looking tochange the way student teachers teach science – better…

In recent years, many studies have highlighted a decrease in young people’s interest inkey science studies and mathematics. Despite numerous projects and actions that arebeing implemented to reverse this trend, the signs of improvement are still modest(Rocard et al, 2007). Furthermore, among the population in general, the acquisition ofskills that are becoming essential in all walks of life is also at risk. There are still somedisagreements on how to develop and improve science education, by what methods, andthe specific objectives to be developed at each school level. What is important is toconduct science education according to major themes around real and current problems,and select science concepts that are crucial to the development of an explanation andinterpretation of a problem.

The role of teachers and that of students are quite different. The role of teachers is toorganise activities that support students’ learning, so they can build their knowledge in achallenging environment. This in turn motivates them for the exploration of and reflectionon relevant problem-solving issues, promoting also the understanding of science and howit develops (Webb, 2005). The role of the students is to undertake some changes in theircritical thinking, their capacity for analysis and synthesis and also their autonomy.Students should be able to use new technologies efficiently and should be builders of theirown knowledge and real problem solvers.



�

How building instruments can be helpful – the case of ‘Natural Integrated Sciences’

One of our curricular units, ‘Natural Integrated Sciences’, part of our ElementaryEducation course at Aveiro, is based on a ‘real-life context’ approach, as championed bythe Science, Technology and Society (STS) movement. The term ‘integrated’ refers to theconvergence of knowledge traditionally belonging to different scientific areas, such asphysics, chemistry, biology and geology, while developing the skills that are intrinsic to allof them: skills such as judging about social and scientific issues, using communicationtechnologies, communicating ideas, expressing autonomous learning and working incollaborative ways.

To introduce the students to these skills and an integrated knowledge approach, they wereinvited to build, in groups, instruments such as meteorological devices to measureatmospheric pressure, or periscopes to apply in practice the optical laws of reflection,using simple and recycled materials.

What to learn and how to teach (better)

This curricular unit is conducted using a holistic approach, where articulated scienceissues are addressed, namely those that are considered important in a general educationin natural and physical sciences, such as Sun, Earth and Life. Those content elementsinclude the solar system (dynamics, structure and composition), particularly the light andoptical phenomena followed by the theme of the atmosphere and hydrosphere, whichfocus on aspects such as the greenhouse effect, global warming, acid rain, the lithosphere(rocks and the rock cycle, etc.) and the biosphere (biodiversity and organisms’ adaptations).



�

Lessons are addressed in an interactive way and students’ participation is alwayspromoted, in particular, by exploring their previous ideas, requesting their involvementduring the sessions, and encouraging questioning and critical thinking.

Different types of practical work are also encouraged, including laboratory andexperimental activities (where students are faced with real problem situations), fromclassroom to science laboratory, from classroom to outdoors (field work, study visits),Internet searching and discussion of documentaries, among others.

Here, we are going to focus on students building instruments such as periscopes!

Construct your own instrument – looking at examples

The aim of constructing a periscope in a group is to consolidate the law of reflection. So, what is proposed is that students build a periscope and prepare a functioning schemeof the instrument. The criteria that are assessed are its functionality, originality, durabilityand its handling and finishing. Students are expected to build an instrument that theirfuture pupils can use in primary schools. It is very important to use recycled materials and to make portable instruments. Of course, their functionality is the most importantcharacteristic. Those assessed as best were selected to be permanently in exhibition in the Department’s corridors (see Figure 1).



�

Students’ points of viewA questionnaire was provided forstudents to collect their opinions aboutthe implemented strategies in classrooms.The questionnaire was divided into twoparts: the first focused on the curricularunit, including their interest, theirlearning and the proposed activities, andthe second part addressed their attitudestowards collaborative work.

The data wereanalysed usingquantitativetechniques,namely descriptivestatistics, using‘Paws Statistics18’ and ‘MicrosoftExcel’.

Figure 1: Selected periscopes for exhibition

Figure 2: Examples of original periscopes made by students



�

Opposite are some results(Figure 4) related to buildinginstruments for the improvement of thestudents’ knowledge:

Seventy-one students (out of90) involved in the curricularunit (79%) answered thewhole questionnaire.

Figure 3: Building periscopes...

Figure 4: Students’ opinions about building instruments as a strategy to improve pupils’learning in science education. A 1-5 scale was used, where 1 means minimum and 5 meansmaximum accordance.

Allowed animportant

relationshipbetween theory

and practice

Helped to clarifycontents aboutoptical issues

Developedcollaborativecompetences

Improved hand-made

building skills

Was an activityvery useful for my

future job

Awakened toexperimental

activities

Was a verydifficult activity



�

Most students (69 respondents, 94%) felt interest for the curricular unit contents from thestart and 68 respondents (93%) mentioned its academic and professional importance.Although 87 respondents felt that they understood the concepts, 46 respondents (63%)experienced some difficulties in understanding, which may be due to the fact that nearlyhalf (49%) of students came previously from such backgrounds as humanities, socialsciences or literature courses, with little background in science concepts.

Analysing the graph (Figure 4), and considering the respondents who marked with grades4 and 5, 72% of students remarked that building instruments developed collaborative skillsand 77% mentioned the development of hand-made skills, while 54% of students felt thatthe use of that strategy helped to clarify optical contents and 70% considered that usingthat strategy allowed an important relationship between theory and practice. Moreover,72% of students concluded that building instruments was a strategy that awakenedparticipants to experimental activities, and 55% considered it an activity very useful fortheir future job. However, 42% mentioned its difficulty.

In conclusion

It is not the intention of this article to be ‘outstanding’ in the use of innovative strategies,but to be firmly grounded in the realities of life in the primary classroom since, asAnderson, Imdieke and Standerford (2011) mentioned, it is known that teachers tend toteach as they were taught, noting that the experiences of teachers influence their viewswhich, in turn, affect what they teach and the way they teach.

With the shared experience of using innovative ongoing initiatives, we hope that thispaper will be useful for teachers concerned with good teaching practices as a way to bring about a radical change in young people’s interest in science studies.



�

In this experience, it is considered that the integrated approach to science is of greatimportance in developing in future teachers the specific knowledge of science domainsthat will be very useful for the construction of knowledge for science teaching in primaryeducation. This importance is confirmed by the opinions expressed in the questionnaireresponses given by the students of this curricular unit and, also, in a more subjective butequally valid way, through the observation of their attitudes and behaviours recorded bythe teachers who were involved in the implementation of this approach.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the students of the 1st cycle of Basic Education of theDepartment of Education at the University of Aveiro who kindly participated in this study.Thanks are given too to the teachers involved in this curricular unit, who belong to theResearch Centre for Didactics and Technology in Teacher Education of the University ofAveiro (Portugal), especially Mário Talaia, Ana Rodrigues and Rui Vieira.

References

Anderson, D., Imdieke, S. & Standerford, N.S. (2011) ‘Feedback please: studying self in theonline classroom’, International Journal of Instruction, 4, (1), 3–15

Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walber-Henriksson, H. & Hemmo, V. (2007)Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission

Webb, M.E. (2005) ‘Affordances of ICT in science learning: implications for an integratedpedagogy’, International Journal of Science Education, 27, (6), 705–735



Lúcia Pombo is an Auxiliary Researcher of the Research Centre for Didactics andTechnology in Teacher Education and also a Natural Science Lecturer for the Degree inBasic Education at the Department of Education of the University of Aveiro, Portugal.

E-mail: [email protected]


This is the third in Alan’s series. Please see STE 64 (May 2012)for the first article, ‘Floating and sinking’, and STE 65 (October2012) for the second article on ‘Light travels in straight lines’.

Abstract

Chemistry learners – and many chemists – tend to confuse equilibrium with stability andassume that, if a system appears to be stable for long periods, then it must have reachedchemical equilibrium. However, when there is a substantial energy barrier, even a highlyexothermic reaction may fail to take place at a noticeable rate at moderate temperatures.(Reactions that can occur do not necessarily do so.) This article describes the nature ofchemical equilibrium and its distinction from similar concepts in physics and biology. Two particular examples are explored in some detail: (a) the boiling of liquids, e.g. water(is this a chemical reaction? – it certainly is a dynamic system attempting to reachequilibrium); and (b) the energy produced when fuels burn quietly with oxygen and whenexplosions occur. Evidence is available to show that learners and even experiencedchemists have difficulty with these concepts – the author certainly does.

Introduction

There are two major considerations when trying to understand and explain chemicalreactions at a molecular level. These are thermodynamics and kinetics – the formerexplores the energy (and entropy) changes as the products are formed from the reactants,and the latter the ‘pathway(s)’ that are available for the change to take place. Thethermodynamics defines how far a reaction can proceed until it reaches a state of

Scientific ideas I wish I had understood much earlier – Part III: Chemical equilibrium and reaction rates

� Alan Goodwin

Page 19 � In the Classroom � Science Teacher Education � No 68 � October 2013 � Return to Contents Page

�

chemical equilibrium. It must be stressed that this is a dynamic state and results from theforward and reverse reactions proceeding at exactly the same rate, so there is no netchange in the chemical composition of the system. In very simple terms, a reaction isexpected to go in the direction that gives out energy (more accurately ‘free energy’) until,at equilibrium, further infinitesimal change in either direction would give rise to nochange in free energy. To all intents and purposes, a reaction that is highly exothermicgoes (almost) to completion at equilibrium.

This paper first explores the idea of ‘equilibrium’ in relatively simple reactions andsystems and applies these ideas to the physical equilibrium between molecules in a liquidand in the vapour state. The fuzzy nature of the author’s current understanding ofreversibility and equilibrium in the context of complex chemical systems is apparent in thediscussion (perhaps they really are most usefully considered to be irreversible?). A secondexample relates the speed with which reactions occur and the energy given out. It seemsthat we readily interpret a small amount of reaction happening quickly as giving out moreenergy than a much larger amount of reaction taking place slowly. We seem to havedifficulty differentiating between energy and power.

The final section attempts to draw out some tentative generalisations and conclusions.

Equilibrium – the potential for confusion

The first article in this series (STE 64) discussed the situation of stationary objects when all the forces acting on the object are counteracted by equal forces acting in opposition. This ‘balanced’ system exemplifies the physics view of equilibrium – essentially a staticsituation. In chemistry, the equilibrium concept is of a dynamic system in which there


� Alan Goodwin


�

is no change in the concentrations of substances present, because the reaction isproceeding at the same rate in the forward direction as it is in the reverse direction. I have not been particularly aware, either in my own learning or that of my students, of significant confusion between these, although Johnstone (1999) highlights this as thesource of many alternative conceptions regarding chemical equilibrium. Some commonlyused examples of reversible systems in an elementary chemistry/science course include(i) and (ii) below:

i. CaCO3(s) CaO(s) + CO2(g)

ii. 3Fe(s) + 4H2O(g) Fe3O4(s) + 4H2(g)

iii. H2O(l) H2O(g)

iv. 2H2(g) + O2(g) 2H2O(g)

In addition, in biology, there is another ‘equilibrium-like’ concept – homeostasis. Thisprovides an active feedback mechanism whereby biological systems attempt to maintaincertain parameters constant. These parameters include body temperature (in mammalsand birds), and levels of carbon dioxide and glucose in the blood. Again, there may bepotential for confusion, but I am not aware that this is an issue for biologylearners/teachers.


� Alan Goodwin


�

There are a number of aspects relating specifically to chemical equilibrium of which I wasinitially unaware, or to which I gave insufficient weight:

a. ‘Reversible reactions’ are not really a separate class of chemical reactions. I used tothink that reactions such as (i) and (ii) above were special in that they were reversibleand, when kept in a closed container at constant temperature, came to an equilibrium. Inow believe that it is more useful to consider reversibility as the norm for simplestoichiometric reactions although, for complicated reactions such as burning glucose, thechances of the reverse reaction taking place seem to be vanishingly small. (The discussionin Box 1 explores some of the author’s current problems in applying the idea ofequilibrium to such very complex reactions).

For reactions where there is a large difference in energy between the reactants andproducts, the reaction seems to occur only in one direction. One example is provided as(iv) above. In this case, the equilibrium concentrations of hydrogen and oxygen are verysmall indeed at temperatures around 100°C. (They do, however, increase as thetemperature rises and can be significant at very high temperatures.)

b. Initially, I would not have included the equilibrium between liquid water and water vapour ((iii) above) as an example since I did not consider it to be a chemical reaction (just a physical change). I am now not so sure and, if hydrogen bonds are considered as chemical bonds, then there is a case for it being classed as a chemical change, andliquid water and water vapour will be different substances. However, whether classed as chemical or physical, the equilibrium behaviour in terms of the pressures of watervapour and carbon dioxide as the temperature increases are exactly equivalent inreactions (i) and (iii) and the equilibrium pressure of the gas in each case is dependentonly on the temperature and increases with it.


� Alan Goodwin


�


� Alan Goodwin


�

BOX 1. Irreversible Reactions:This note represents some re-thinking / learning taking place during the drafting ofthis paper. It still seems legitimate and important to consider each individual step ofany reaction as reversible and able to be represented, in principle, by an energydiagram such as that shown in Figure 1. However, in cases where a reactionproceeds via a number of different possible pathways, or leads to a range of differentintermediates and/or products, the chances that particles will have the appropriatecollision energies and be present in sufficient quantities to collide effectively becomevery slight indeed and in such cases the reaction is effectively irreversible. In the caseof complete burning of glucose for example:

C6H12O6 + 6O2 6CO2 + 12H2O

– the eventual products will be water and carbon dioxide although there is a hugerange of possible intermediate organic compounds possible and the chances that anymeasurable quantity of glucose could ever be formed by heating carbon dioxide withwater in a closed container are remote. (The process of photosynthesis in green plantcells is able to reverse the process by a complex series of reactions under very particularcircumstances – but it does not ‘simply’ reach a ‘thermodynamic equilibrium’between carbon dioxide and water on one hand and glucose on the other.)

If the equation above is considered to represent a reversible reaction it would bepossible to write down an equilibrium constant for the reaction at the equilibriumconstant temperature:

Kc = [CO2]6 [H2O]12

[C6H12O6] [O2]6

This does not seem useful or sensible to me, but I cannot explain why, beyond saying that this is not a reversible reaction and no equilibrium can be reached at any temperature!

c. The position of an equilibrium is determined only by the energy of the reaction(strictly ΔG = ΔH –TΔS, where ΔG is the Gibbs Free Energy, ΔH is the Heat of Reaction, T the Absolute Temperature and ΔS the Entropy Change.) Insufficient consideration tendsto be given to the kinetic aspects of the chemical change and we forget that there may be

significant barriers to the changesuch that the achievement ofequilibrium may be slow.

A simple representation of theenergy changes involved in acollision between reactantmolecules to form productmolecules is shown in Figure 1.

This represents an exothermicreaction so the equilibrium liestowards the products. However, a high ‘activation energy barrier’may make the reaction very slowin either direction.


� Alan Goodwin


�

ENERGY

Reaction Co-ordinate

Activation energy Barrier (Activated complex)

Figure 1: An Energy Profile for a typical (exothermic) reaction representing the collision between two reactingparticles. In principle – and in fact – the reaction is reversible however large is ∆H. (See text)

(In reaction (iv) above, the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is fairly stable at roomtemperature unless a flame or a high temperature spark is applied to start the reaction!)

d. It is easy to assume that ‘thermodynamic equilibrium’ is the normal state of affairs;however, while this may be true for much of the universe, it is certainly not the casewithin the biosphere on Earth. Our oxygen atmosphere and the vast array of potentiallycombustible carbon compounds that are in and around the Earth’s surface have beenformed by the processes of life – and most of these depend ultimately on the absorption ofenergy from sunlight. Fortunately for us there are a number of barriers, both physical andchemical, which prevent the achievement of chemical equilibrium, since this would betotally incompatible with human, or any other form, of life.

I shall attempt to exemplify particular insights using two examples, both of which inter-relate thermodynamics and kinetics. The first will focus on the boiling of liquids and thesecond on the reaction between fuels and oxygen:

A. Boiling of liquids (water):

The distinction between evaporation and boiling of a liquid is not always clear andinitially I found it difficult to articulate a simple explanation for my students. The twocommonly found in elementary textbooks are:

1.At all temperatures, a liquid can evaporate from its surface when those molecules in the surface that have sufficient energy (much more than the average) and which aretravelling in an appropriate direction are able to leave the surface and enter the gasphase. When a liquid boils, evaporation can take place throughout the liquid, not only


� Alan Goodwin


�

at the surface. (If the liquid and its vapour are in a closed container at constanttemperature then, eventually, the rate at which the vapour molecules re-enter theliquid becomes equal to the rate of evaporation. At this equilibrium, the liquid isexerting its saturated vapour pressure [SVP]). As a challenge, try to explain why theliquid and the vapour can be at the same temperature even though only moleculeswith much greater energy than the average in the liquid are able to evaporate.

2.A liquid boils when its SVP is equal to the external pressure on its surface.

These are both essentially correct and certainly better than the answer to an interviewquestion from many science graduates (in desperation?):

‘Evaporation occurs when some ofthe molecules in a liquid havesufficient energy to leave the surface.Boiling occurs when all of them do.’

A key idea that often seems to bemissing is that of the formation ofbubbles of vapour within the liquid.As indicated on this diagram, if the SVP of the liquid is equal to (or greater than) the pressureexerted on the surface of the liquid, then a bubble of vapour canform within the liquid and, if theSVP is even slightly larger, thebubble will expand.


� Alan Goodwin


�

External Atmospheric Pressure

SVP

Once formed, this bubble has an internal surface from which evaporation can occur andthe bubble increases in volume – and, since it is less dense (!) than the liquid in which it isformed, it floats to the surface and the vapour from within the liquid is free to escape. Itshould be noted that a liquid boiling in a beaker is not a closed system so, although thevapour in the bubble can be close to equilibrium, the system is not at equilibrium andmaterial constantly escapes into the atmosphere. This ‘bubble model’ of boiling links thetwo ‘partial’ textbook explanations mentioned above. It clarifies how the boiling point of aliquid depends on the SVP and the pressure on the surface and makes more sense of theidea that evaporation can take place from all parts of the liquid since rising bubbles maybe anywhere.

Further, it becomes clear how the temperature of the boiling liquid remains constantdespite the continued addition of heat. Bubbles continue to form and the vapour toescape, thus removing the latent heat of vaporisation from the system as quickly as heatenergy is added.

The formation of bubbles also provides a kinetic barrier to boiling – simply becausebubbles can form does not mean that they will. The formation of a bubble requires an‘excess pressure’ over the external pressure in order to overcome the surface tension ofthe liquid. For a bubble of reasonable size, this excess pressure can usually be discounted;however, counter-intuitively, the excess pressure is inversely proportional to the radius ofa bubble – the smaller the bubble the higher is the excess pressure required to sustain it.Bubbles in a pure liquid must necessarily start small and the large excess pressurerequired will act as a significant barrier towards the onset of boiling. A liquid can readilybecome superheated – a familiar experience when small volumes are being heated in test-tubes or flasks in the laboratory – bubbles do not form immediately and the temperaturerises well above the boiling point. ‘Bump boiling’ then occurs, since, when a small bubble


� Alan Goodwin


�

eventually forms, it grows almost explosively, often ejecting most of the liquid from thetube/flask. Scientists usually shake, stir or add pieces of broken pot or grains with sharppoints, which provide small bubbles or nuclei that help (catalyse?) bubble production.(Conversely, manufacturers of carbonated drinks go to great lengths to remove all dustparticles from their products and to ensure that the internal surfaces of their containersare as smooth as possible to inhibit the formation of bubbles and the escape of ‘fizz’ (CO2)from their product.) Are fizzing drinks actually boiling? I believe so, since the bubbles canform when the sum of the vapour pressures of water and the dissolved carbon dioxidereach atmospheric pressure. As the bubbles are much richer in carbon dioxide than is thesolution from which they form, this is effectively ‘fractional distillation’ (Goodwin, 2001,2003). These ideas are explored in considerably more detail in a recent article in SchoolScience Review (Goodwin, 2012).

B. Explosive Reactions:

A few years back, I was planning to demonstrate the increasing violence of the reactionusing the quantities of fuel and oxygen required for complete combustion, but usingrespectively ethane, ethane and ethyne as the fuels. The demonstrations were effectiveand my explanation in terms of the increasing amounts of energy available as the level ofunsaturation increased were convincing to me. However, since the demonstration was tobe done in another university chemistry department, I felt I should present the numericalvalues (Table 1). The shock for me came when the numbers came in the wrong order!

As can be seen, the most energy comes from complete combustion of a mole of ethaneand the least from one of ethyne. I had been convinced by my explanation, forgetting – if I had realised before – that the violence of an explosion is much more a function of therate at which energy is released rather than the absolute amount.


� Alan Goodwin


�

Molecular (C-C) Bond (C-C) Bond Enthalpy of Formula length (A) Energy (kJmol-1) Combustion (kJmol-1)

Hydrogen H2 - - 285.8

Ethane C2H6 1.54 346 1560.7

Ethene (Ethylene) C2H4 1.34 611 1411.2

Ethyne (Acetylene) C2H2 1.20 837 1301.1

This shows my difficulty – conceptually and practically – of distinguishing between theamount of energy evolved and the power of that energy (energy per unit time). Effectively,this is the same as the difference between Joules (of energy) and Watts (of power) that westruggle with when learning physics or dealing with electricity usage in our homes.(Reading the New Scientist recently, I was still shocked to read of the largest laser pulsethat carries more power than the entire power output of the USA – although only for aminute period of time (see report at Fox News [2012]).

Evidence that I am not alone with this energy/power confusion is presented below. For the past five years, I have had the opportunity to demonstrate some explosions togroups of students as part of the annual Royal Society of Chemistry ‘Chemquiz’ inManchester (Chemquiz, 2012). One of the demonstrations at each event has shown a fuelgas burning quietly in air as it issues from a disposable syringe and followed by theexplosion of a much smaller volume of the gas mixed with the appropriate volume ofoxygen. The volume of fuel gas burned quietly is much more than that used in theexplosion, but well over 80% of students’ answers indicate that more energy is given out


� Alan Goodwin


�

Table 1: Energy of combustion of C2 fuels (Hydrogen added for comparison)

in the explosion. The ‘bang’ is very seductive as a ‘measure’ of energy given out.(Informally, it seemed that many of the teachers were also surprised by the ‘right’answer!). Table 2, above, provides a summary of this aspect of ‘Chemquiz data’ and thepercentage of the teams getting the ‘right answer’ is given in the bottom row. Copies ofthe full reports are available on the Chemquiz website.

Incidentally, the first row of results shows that students are much more adept atrecognising a correct explanation as to why the pre-mixed fuel/oxygen reacts morerapidly, than in providing one by themselves. In 2008 and 2012, the question waspresented in multiple-choice format. This raises the issue as to whether the multiple-choice question probes understanding? (Maybe it is just that we could not find sufficientlymeaningful alternative explanations to compete with the expected one).

Conclusions

The examples cited may seem to be trivial, complex, devious, wrong, or useful andenlightening, depending on your previous experience with the subjects. Critically exploringevidence, models, concepts, explanations and applications is an essential dimension of


� Alan Goodwin


�

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fuel Hydrogen Ethyne Butane Propane Hydrogen

Explain which is faster. 97% 40% 10% 7% 90%Which gives more energy? 8% 20% 14% 17% 13%

Table 2: % ‘correct’ answers to the fuel question

learning science, developing meaning and making progress. It is ‘how science works’.This dimension is seriously undervalued when students are merely asked to learn andapply terminology that they cannot be expected to understand fully – even if their teacherdoes – as often seems to be the case when gaining marks in examinations is seen as moreimportant than understanding. This is unfortunate since, if students’ intellects and interestcan be engaged in understanding the subject, their achievement in examinations willalmost certainly be greatly enhanced.

Among the key issues raised by this article are:

� Science understanding is problematic and requires persistence and critical negotiationof meaning on the part of individual learners, even when the scientific communityseems to have reached consensus. The correct use of specialist terminology may benecessary but is not sufficient to signify understanding.

� Attaining coherent meanings and interconnections across ideas is satisfying, motivatingand useful. This is a key part of developing pedagogical as well as scientific contentknowledge. It can also be fun.

� Developing subject (pedagogical) knowledge needs to be high – much higher – on theagenda for initial science teacher training and, especially, for CPD. Except in veryrestricted specialist areas, science degrees and even research experience do notguarantee consistent personal understandings and – even less – the ability to exploreand contend them with others at an appropriate intellectual level.

� Learning – even of fairly basic science – is a lifelong process. Meanings develop – as doscience and technology. Often what was impossible becomes possible! (And what wasthought to be simple turns out to be much more complex.)


� Alan Goodwin


�

References

Chemquiz (2012) http://www.chemquiz.org.uk/demoreports (accessed Dec 2012)

Fox News (2012) http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/12/worlds-most-powerful-laser-fires-most-powerful-laser-blast-ever/ (accessed Dec 2012)

Goodwin, A. (2001) ‘Fizzing drinks, are they boiling?’, Journal of Chemical Education, 78,(3), 385–387

Goodwin, A. (2003) ‘Evaporation and boiling – trainee science teachers’ understandings’,School Science Review, 84, (309), 131–141

Goodwin, A. (2012) ‘Evaporation, boiling and bubbles’, School Science Review, 93, (344),90–98

Johnstone, A. (1999) ‘Chemed research – where do we go from here?’http://www.rsc.org/images/1999AJohnstone_tcm18-49173.pdf (accessed Dec 2012)

Alan [email protected]


� Alan Goodwin


http://www.chemquiz.org.uk/demoreports

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/12/worlds-most-powerful-laser-fires-most-powerful-laser-blast-ever/



http://www.rsc.org/images/1999AJohnstone_tcm18-49173.pdf


EsReflections on a research journey� Sally Hardman � Sue Luke

Page 33 � Research in science teacher education � Science Teacher Education � No 68 � October 2013 � Return to Contents Page

�

When entering Higher Education (HE), there is a need to develop a research identitythrough which tutors are expected to spend significant amounts of time undertakingresearch and disseminating their findings through conferences and publications. Indeed,Braund (2010:9) states that ‘as tutors working in Higher Education, we enter a culture inwhich research becomes increasingly important to our professional lives’. However, althoughtutors new to the role may have an awareness of this research element, they may notnecessarily have a great deal of understanding of it.

As two primary school teachers moving directly from school to a university setting, thiswas the situation in which we found ourselves. Our previous research was very much thatof the reflective practitioner, as described by Schön (1983), where developing our teachingand learning within the classroom was addressed by reflecting on and making changes toour day-to-day practice. While we recognised that this would remain a key part of ourteaching as primary science tutors, we also acknowledged that we needed to undertakeadditional research that would not only fulfil expectations, but also enable us to embarkon this new and exciting aspect of our role.

‘We both have some experience of research in action through our Mastersqualifications, but the step up to doing “serious” research seems, on entering theUniversity, fairly insurmountable. In line with most academics I feel that our first

priority is to the students and our delivery of the sessions.’

Journal Extract: Sally Hardman, September 2011



�

Without the discipline of a doctorate, the initiative is very much down to the individual;we had a strong desire to undertake some research, but we were unsure as to where tostart. As two new tutors talking together, it became apparent that we were both keen tobecome involved in a research project and so joined forces. We wanted to learn about theprocess as well as undertake research.

This article explores aspects of our research journey. We will describe and analyse eventsfrom our project and, finally, in our conclusion outline key ideas that we will take fromthis experience to support future research. Through reflection of this process, we will gaina better understanding of research at HE level and begin to develop a research identity.Through sharing our experience, we hope that it may be of use to others.

Embarking on the journey

Having made the decision to undertake research together, our first challenge was toidentify our focus. We were still very much in the mindset of the reflective teacher anddiscussions at these very early stages provided the opportunity to examine and exploreour teaching and the students’ learning. Seeds of ideas began to develop through thesharing of common experiences and observations. Student feedback through end ofmodule evaluations caught our attention, especially comments relating to subjectknowledge in science. We felt that this was particularly relevant in light of the recentpublication of Principles and big ideas of science education (Harlen, 2010), which hadalready generated some discussion within our team. In this way the theme for the projectemerged from informal conversations about current thoughts in science education andobservations from our teaching sessions. We decided to explore students’ perceived lackof subject knowledge in science.



�

Colleagues confirmed our viewpoint that researching our own practice and beginning withour day-to-day contact with students would provide a useful starting point. Similarly,Johnson (2012: 158) states that practitioner research ‘is valuable for the learner researcheras an improvement tool for developing personal capacity in carrying out research, in raisingthe level of critical thinking about teaching and learning and, in its publication, in sharingvaluable outcomes with others’.

This casual starting point was followed by an aspiration to formalise the project. Afterseeking support from the Faculty Research Officer, we decided to apply for an internallearning and teaching bid. This process of bidding for funding was a new experience forboth of us. The paperwork for the funding highlighted that a science focus might onlyappeal to a limited audience within the University and therefore it would be beneficial tobroaden our project. At this point, it became apparent that our journey could be of interestto professionals at a similar stage to us. We began to recognise that, to build a researchprofile, we needed to produce research that was relevant to others and not just ourselves.We therefore decided to use science as the vehicle for our research, but also to record ourresearch journey since this may have a wider appeal.

‘While we have had many valuable discussions about teaching primary scienceat HE level, I’m beginning to see that our project is more about the process of

what we are going through as well as the science.’

Journal Extract: Sue Luke, September 2011



�

The journey

Armed with our two-fold focus and four research questions, we considered ways to gatherdata. We chose to explore student confidence in their own science subject knowledge byasking our teaching groups to complete a simple questionnaire. Our research journey wasdocumented through the use of learning journals.

We decided to use a questionnaire to gather data for the science element because werequired information from large groups of students and we wanted to incorporate the datagathering into our taught sessions. While this generated lots of data, there werechallenges. Presenting the questionnaire to the students became tricky, especially whenthey asked for support on the questions. We did not want to influence the outcomes andwith two of us presenting the same questionnaire to different groups of students concernsabout equality of experience were raised. In this way, what we thought was a relativelysimple data gathering method proved not to be so straightforward. On reflection, whilstwe thought our choice of method was suitable and supported our research approach,piloting the questions and using further methods may have strengthened our data.

‘Quite a few of the students asked me about the final question, in particularwhat I meant by it – my natural response was to talk to them about it, but for

the purposes of this project I felt I shouldn’t respond’




�

‘I feel that I should have got less involved – not sure if I led the students and found this quite difficult.’


We felt that learning journals provided a useful way to chart our progress and reflect onsignificant incidents. Our students are encouraged to keep a reflective journal and, byundertaking our own, we hoped that we could engage in more purposeful dialogue aboutexperiences of journal writing with our groups. Popp (1997:71) argues that ‘when teachersplan to introduce learning journals to their students, the most helpful preparation they canmake is to create a journal for themselves.’

Writing the journals was demanding and, in many cases, we found that we just narratedwhat had happened. It was difficult to start but, once we did, we enjoyed the experienceand it became quite liberating. It provided the opportunity to stop and engage with ourthoughts and ideas at a time when everything was new and we were adapting to differentchallenges. During the project, our writing became more focused and reflective; however,it was the discussion and sharing of our journals that proved to be most valuable. Therewas a natural trust between us through which we openly shared our reflections.

The journals provided a useful focus at our regular meetings where we shared andexplored values and underlying beliefs about primary science education. Co-constructingknowledge helped us to gain a greater understanding and awareness of teaching andlearning at HE level. As Holly (1985:8) states, ‘the journal holds experiences as a puzzleframe holds its integral pieces. The writer begins to recognise the pieces that fit together and,like a detective, sees the picture evolve.’ In addition, making time to talk gave us a chance to examine our own concerns and helped to build our confidence.



�

‘We sometimes bring different perspectives – I feel I have tended to focus verymuch on the subject knowledge concerns while Sally has prompted me to widen

my thoughts about action research and our research journey.’


Passengers along the way

Having gathered substantial amounts of raw data, we embarked on the next phase of ourjourney and, for a brief time, picked up another ‘passenger’, a research assistant, fundedby our successful bid. Whilst this seemed to raise the profile of the project, managinganother person brought a different dimension and gave us an additional responsibility. Weneeded to consider how this new member of our team could best support the project.Having a research assistant motivated us and prompted us to clarify our ideas, as weneeded to communicate our intentions to someone else. Equally, the research assistantshared ideas from the data analysis and brought another point of view. The researchassistant was not alone in this, as a developing feature of our journey was input fromcolleagues keen to support us. We readily accepted advice, but trying to incorporateeveryone’s ideas was challenging and we started to recognise that we had to be selective.Having the confidence to follow our own ideas and beliefs became important.

Signposts and stopping points

Analysis of the data provided us with something to share with others. Dissemination ofour findings began within the Primary Science Team, continued with a Faculty seminar



�

and culminated in two conference presentations. Having events along the way energisedus and kept the journey going. Stopping to meet different groups of people provided theopportunity to refocus, clarify our thoughts and take a look at the scenery. Each eventprovided a variety of challenges, but presenting to a range of audiences led us to considerourselves and our research in different ways.

Starting with a familiar audience, our Primary Science Team, it became apparent that ourconcerns about science teacher education were not new and that they had been voicedmany times before. It was evident that, whilst we were by no means breaking newground, we were beginning to generate much discussion and debate. This gave usconfidence that our research was starting to highlight issues about the teaching andlearning of primary science within our modules and could have impact on practice.

Equally, presenting within our Faculty to a non-specialist science audience confirmed tous that our research journey was of interest to other colleagues.

‘The discussion generated was animated, the science team were interested in theattitudes students brought to the seminars. This led us to reflect on how we

address this in the sessions.’




�

Speaking at conferences was quite challenging, since a public forum can place you, as anew researcher, in an exposed position, which can be quite daunting but, at the sametime, can be rewarding and confidence-building. Participants from a range of settings tookgreat interest in what we had to say and the process involved. While some expressedenthusiasm for now embarking on their own research, others were keen to share ourexperiences of the research process with their own students. The realisation that a wider,unknown audience could empathise with us and benefit from our findings brought abouta turning point in the journey. We began to think of ourselves as researchers who hadsomething to say and who were possibly worth listening to. Having reached a destination,we took time to enjoy this place and reflect on the journey.

Presentation of �ndingsto Science Team

Stimulus for project Student module

evaluations

Learning journals set up

Application for Learning and Teaching bid

Questionnaire presented to

students

Research assistant appointed for

data processing

Analysis of data

Presentation of Faculty Seminar

Presentation at external conferences

Re!ection ofthe journey

Ongoing discussion ofLearning journals

University of WinchesterSally Hardman and Sue Luke, 2013

Our research journey

?Our research journey



�

Key points from our journey

Joining a Higher Education institution has been an exciting experience in which manyopportunities have arisen, as well as new expectations and challenges. Allocated researchhours on paper have become a stimulating aspect of our teacher educator role and wehave recognised that the end of this journey marks the start of many new researchjourneys. Our view of research is beginning to change; while reflective practice is still atthe heart of what we do, we are more aware of the role of research, the recognition itbrings and the value of sharing our findings with others. Major (2011:39), describing ajourney, refers to the homecoming and argues how the ‘traveller’s perception andunderstanding of that home has shifted in accordance with the wider world through whichthey have travelled.’ In the short journey that we have travelled, our research identity iscontinuing to evolve from primary school teachers to researchers.

As learners and researchers, there are some key ideas that we will take from thisexperience to support future projects:

� Balancing the roles of teacher educator and researcher is possible; they do not need tobe separate and can support and enrich each other.

� Collaborating together can build confidence and enhance motivation. Different ideascan be explored and the workload shared.

� Beginning research with your own practice can be a productive and relevant starting point.

� It is useful to consider the wider appeal of the research and the potential audience.

� Support from colleagues can help to clarify thoughts and can bring alternative ideasand perspectives, but being selective about what to incorporate is important.

� Having events along the way gives short-term goals and energises the research journey.



References

Braund, M. (2010) ‘Once I taught science… and that was hard enough!’, Science TeacherEducation, (59), 7–18

Harlen, W. (Ed.) (2010) Principles and big ideas of science education.http://www.ase.org.uk/home/ (Accessed 4 June 2011)

Holly, M. (1985) Keeping a personal-professional journal. Victoria: Deakin University Press

Johnston, J. (2012) ‘Planning for research’ in J. Oversby (Ed.) ASE Guide to Research inScience Education. Hatfield: Association for Science Education

Major, B. (2011) ‘Geography as journey and homecoming’, Geography, 96, (1), 39–43

Popp, M.S. (1997) Learning journals in the K-8 classroom: exploring ideas and information inthe content areas. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates

Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action. London:Temple Smith

Sally Hardman and Sue Luke, University of WinchesterE-mail: [email protected]

http://www.ase.org.uk/home/


News Roundup

Page 43 � News Roundup � Science Teacher Education � No 68 � October 2013 � Return to Contents Page

As usual we include a mix of recent announcements and hotlinks on several topics, whichyou might find interesting to pass on to your colleagues and students. Don’t forget thatreaders can send items they think would be of interest to the Editor, Martin Braund([email protected]).

In this issue there are some excellent teaching resources to pass on.

Resources:

Science and plants for schools (SAPS)

See the first in a new video series showing quick, cheap and easy biology practicals.There is a brand new post-16 resource, free posters for your classroom, and the chance towin an amazing experience at a world-class genetics laboratory, at www.saps.org.uk

Find free teaching resources without any registration!

Resources4schools is a free teaching resource portal full of free teaching plans,presentations, games, apps, posters, revision guides and much, much more.Thousands of free resources are available, across the entire curriculum and across all ageranges. Visit http://www.resources4schools.co.uk

Spider app

If, like me, you find that your bathroom has been plagued by spiders this summer andautumn – here is a lovely free app from the Society of Biology that you can get yourstudents to download to identify that spider! https://www.societyofbiology.org/ get-involved/biologyweek/house-spider-survey

�


http://www.saps.org.uk

http://www.resources4schools.co.uk

https://www.societyofbiology.org/

News Roundup

Page 44 � News Roundup � Science Teacher Education � No 68 � October 2013 � Return to Contents Page

Royal Institution videos

These short video clips in the ‘Tales from the Prep Room’ series are an absolute must for all science departments. They are available through the National STEM Centre at:http://www.nationalstemcentre.org.uk/elibrary/collection/1334/the-royal-institution

I’m a scientist – get me out of here

Also available through the National STEM Centre is the highly rated resource that providesteachers with materials with which to run debates on context-related and contemporaryscience. Visit: http://www.nationalstemcentre.org.uk/elibrary/collection/1770/i-m-a-scientist-get-me-out-of-here

Funding Opportunities

The Nuffield Foundation has announced new opportunities for funding in scienceeducation. Please go to the new section of their website to see more details:http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/science-education-0

http://www.nationalstemcentre.org.uk/elibrary/collection/1334/the-royal-institution

http://www.nationalstemcentre.org.uk/elibrary/collection/1770/

http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/science-education-0

Research Roundup

Page 45 � Research Roundup � Science Teacher Education � No 68 � October 2013 � Return to Contents Page

The aim of Research Roundup is to keep readers of STE in touch with recently publishedresearch and articles in teacher education. The articles might be of interest to readers’own research and/or scholarly activity or to their students. In each issue, members of theEditorial Board of STE and other readers choose articles from recent issues of prominentjournals in the fields of teacher education, INSET/CPD and science education. Of courseour selections are subjective, but we have tried to choose articles that we think havegeneral relevance in teacher education, that resonate with some of the current issuesfaced by the readership or that might be useful to your students and colleagues. Thebibliographic details are provided so that you can trace the full versions if you areinterested in them.

The Editorial Board of STE would like to encourage and invite readers to submit their ownselections of recently published articles that might be of interest for the next issue(deadline for our next issue is Friday 20th December 2013).

A new approach to questioning? Provided by Morag Findlay [email protected]

Kawalkar, A. & Vijapurkar, J. (2011) ‘Scaffolding Science Talk: The role of teachers’questions in the inquiry classroom’, International Journal of Science Education, 35, (12),2004–2027

A major part of a teachers’ job is asking questions. Learning to ask questions is an art thatcan take years to develop. Moves towards more constructivist approaches to learningmean that it is important for teachers to develop the use of more open questions in their

�


Research Roundup


teaching to help students to develop their cognitive skills. Kawalkar and Vijapurkar (2013)have identified the importance of using questions to scaffold a class’s conceptualdevelopment, particularly in the final stages of learning about a topic.

Writers like Christine Chin (2006) have discussed ways in which teachers can developquestioning skills and help pupils develop their questioning skills. Kawalkar andVijapurkar have further developed this line of thought by looking at how experiencedteachers use questioning to help pupils to develop science concepts during inquiry-basedlearning. Although this work was carried out with Grade 7 students, the five-stageprogression of questioning in inquiry teaching that they identified could be used to helpteachers develop their questioning by increasing the number of higher order questions.

Inquiry-based learning fits with social constructivist approaches to science learning andteaching. Kawalkar and Vijapurkar’s research is based on observations in two Grade 7science groups in an after-school science club in Mumbai. They explored the types ofquestions that teachers asked during either inquiry-based or traditional science teachingof the same material. Analysis of the types of questions asked showed that teachers usinginquiry-based approaches asked many more open questions designed to encourage higherorder thinking among pupils. Overall, there was a move from traditional classroominitiation-response-feedback sequences to more productive initiation-response-feedback-response-feedback chains, where responses were used to actively guide the direction of the lesson. The inquiry-based teachers found this type of teaching challenging andrewarding. Developing the students’ conceptual understanding in this way was rewarding for the teachers, as it allowed them to develop their understanding of students’thinking as they uncovered the students’ ideas and guided them to design ways toinvestigate them.

�

Research Roundup


In my opinion, the work of Kawalkar and Vijapurkar raises two interesting challenges forscience teachers and science teacher educators. Adopting inquiry-based learning requiresflexible lesson planning, which places more demands on resources and teachers in theclassroom as they devise open questions to guide the students’ investigations. The mostchallenging stage for teachers is the final stage of a sequence of teaching, when it isnecessary to improvise questions to guide the students from the ideas they havegenerated over the course of their investigations to the scientific consensus view.

Chin, C. (2006) ‘Using self-questioning to promote pupils’ process skills thinking’, SchoolScience Review, 87, (321), 113–122

Student teacher recruitment Provided by Linda Scott [email protected]

Hillier, J., de Winter, J. & Twidle, J. (2013) ‘I could enjoy teaching: The case of physics’,Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13, (3), 287–302.DOI: 10.1080/14926156.2013.816392To link to this article, please visit: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2013.816392

I found the content of this article to be curiously familiar yet, at the same time, veryilluminating and thought provoking. In common with the authors and many of the readersof STE, I have been concerned about the levels of recruitment to physics ITE courses andalso the rates of retention both during the courses and once new physics teachers enterthe profession. The sense of familiarity is purely because the subject of the article isreflected so much in the ‘professional soul searching’ that I have experienced whenassessing the potential of interviewees to successfully cope with demands of the initial

�


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2013.816392

Research Roundup


training course and, subsequently, to life as a teacher of physics. It also provides somenew perspectives for my examination of the experiences of any student physics teacherwho elects to leave the course prior to completion.

The authors include a useful synopsis of the evidence about the recruitment and retentionof physics teachers in the UK and worldwide, which I am sure will prove useful to helpcontextualise my own course’s statistics. They then describe a survey and follow-upinterviews with their past students who completed pre-service training courses in physicsbetween 2005 and 2011 and who were still in the teaching profession. The authorsattempted to identify key factors that contributed to physicists’ continued commitment tothe teaching profession. The online questionnaire asked the students to outline theircareers since completing their pre-service training and to summarise the reasons for theirchoices, without giving personal or sensitive information. Of the eighty respondents to thequestionnaire, a sample of 24 was selected for follow-up telephone interviews, withquestions exploring the graduates’ reasons for entering teaching, their choice of trainingroute, and whether they would change this in hindsight. The final questions asked themwhether and how more physics teachers might be recruited into the profession.

I agree with the authors’ claim that the ‘subject-specific research design enabled us todiscern particularities for the case of physics teaching’. The paper complements the articlepublished in STE 66 (February 2013), in which Victoria Swinerd discussed teacherrecruitment in the physical sciences. In particular, the common strands emerging in the‘personal stories’ elicited through the telephone interviews go some way to explaining theheadlines derived from the statistics collected by UK government agencies and by theInstitute of Physics.

Research Roundup


Key findings from the qualitative research indicate four features impacting theirrecruitment and development as teachers, with implications for their retention:

� An initial motivation to teach, often arising from positive experiences of teaching;

� High-quality pre-service teacher education;

� Integration into the physics teaching profession alongside another experienced physics�teacher; and

� A supportive school environment.

The accompanying analysis of the specific case of physics revealed the particularimportance of the first and third factors for the recruitment and probable retention ofphysics teachers. These conclusions were of particular interest and some concern giventhat, traditionally, teacher educators in the UK have had little responsibility for working inthese areas as they fall outside the core period of the ITT course itself.

Given the relatively small numbers of ex-students participating in the research, theauthors caution that care must be taken when extrapolating these findings to the UK pre-service physics teacher population as a whole. While I accept their caution, the degreeof concurrence I have with their findings makes me welcome this paper as a valuable toolin my own future professional practice. I shall certainly be re-examining information onour recent cohorts of physics ITT students in the light of the findings and I plan to look atthe paper’s recommendations carefully to consider possible adjustments to ourrecruitment practices.

Resource Review

Page 50 � Resource Reviews � Science Teacher Education � No 68 � October 2013 � Return to Contents Page

�

Teaching the Nature of Science: Perspectives and resources

Author: Douglas AllchinSHiPS Education PressISBN: 978-0-9892524-0-9RRP: $40.00

It is hard to know where to start with this book. There is certainly a lot in it but, in manyways, it raises more questions than answers and I am not sure it really does provide a lotof direct guidance to teachers and teacher educators about ‘Teaching the Nature ofScience’. It is written from a North American perspective and thus requires someinterpretation to make the most of it in a UK context. Nonetheless, it is a fascinating readand is both entertaining and thought provoking.

The author stresses the importance for everyone, whether citizens or scientists, to knowsomething of the nature of science. He relates this to the development of critical thinkingskills, which equip the learner to engage with scientific issues and debates with someappreciation of the way in which these have developed. He does recognise thatunderstanding of the Nature of Science (NOS) can be developed in at least three differentways – through experience of direct investigation and enquiry; through consideration ofcontemporary scientific issues; and through taking a historical perspective. Of these three,the focus is clearly on the last – the history of science provides numerous examples and casestudies of the development of scientific knowledge, which set this process in not only ahistorical but a socio-cultural context, the appreciation of which is seen to be very important.

Those of us old enough to (fondly) remember the first version of the English NationalCurriculum for Science will recall ‘AT17’. This was a discrete area (an ‘Attainment Target’

Resource Review


as they were called in those days) about ‘The Nature of Science’, and represented adogged attempt by people like Joan Solomon to make sure that something was included,at least in Key Stages 3 and 4 (ages 11-16), that would attempt to get pupils to appreciatesomething about the way in which the scientific concepts they were studying had beenaccepted into the scientific canon. It was sometimes (mis)interpreted as being about the‘History of Science’, but there was always more to it than that. In subsequent versions ofNC Science, this Attainment Target was absorbed into ‘Scientific Enquiry’, only to re-emerge in transmuted form at a much later point in ‘How Science Works’ and now‘Working Scientifically’.

However this appears in the curriculum, there is always going to be a fundamentalproblem for many teachers to appreciate what it is about, as most science graduates havelittle experience of studying the nature of the subject they are learning and then teaching.The distillation of received wisdom about NOS is there in various specifications of‘scientific literacy’ but, as Allchin persuasively argues, it can be superficial and present anew orthodoxy perpetuating some myths and misunderstandings. This book certainlyaddresses in some detail the complexity of understanding (or perhaps understandings) ofNOS, and the discussion is illustrated with many examples from the past to developthemes forming what Allchin refers to as a ‘Whole Science’ (qv ‘Whole Food’) approach tolooking at not only the development of conceptual and procedural knowledge, but alsothe socio-cultural setting in which this happened. The problem is to see how to translatethe insights gained into activities for the classroom, particularly for younger students andwithin a context of a crowded and still content-laden curriculum. The examples given inthe later chapters include a role play on Galileo’s Dialogue and a debate on RachelCarson’s Silent Spring. Interesting though these might be, it is hard to see many teachersbeing able to find the time for such activities, which really seem more suited forcollege/university students, although I am not sure into what courses they would fit. �

Resource Reviews


There are a few idiosyncratic aspects to the presentation of the book that are perhaps todo with the nature of its publication. SHiPS Education Press seems to be the author’s ownimprint and this may explain why normal publishing conventions are differentlyinterpreted. I love footnotes, but this book uses endnotes that are gathered together at theend of the book. Most of the endnotes are just reference citations, but the full list ofreferences is in a ‘normal’ Harvard-type list at the end of the book. This means that, inreading the book, one needs to have one finger in the endnote section and then anotherto follow up a reference in the list. For me, this detracts from the reading experiencecompared to the usual [author, date] citation system (or indeed even using numberedreferences). This may not be a serious weakness, but there are other ways in which a little more editorial input might have improved the book and enhanced its readability, ifnot its value.

Having said all that, I do think that this book should be read by prospective and practisingscience teachers (and teacher educators), but it will be for their personal enlightenmentrather than providing much in the way of clear guidance for what to do in the UKcurricular context. It will perhaps give teachers a more critical perspective on curriculumprescriptions that claim to be giving young people an insight into how science andscientists work.

It is worth noting that there is an accompanying website http://ships.umn.edu, whichcontains the work of more than twenty years of engagement with NOS and is a significantresource in its own right.

The enthusiasm with which one might recommend a book should relate to its intrinsicqualities rather than its cost, but I was slightly reluctant to strongly recommend this book

http://ships.umn.edu

Resource Reviews


at $40 when it does have some limitations for UK use. However, a search on a popularonline book supplier (you know which one!) reveals that the volume can be obtained forless than £20, including postage, in the UK. At this price, it is certainly worth getting (andreading!). It would certainly be of value to those running MA/MSc Science Educationprogrammes in which the ‘Nature of Science’ is often an important component. I fear thatthose trying to fit something about NOS into a PGCE/PGDE programme would probablyneed to use something more locally relevant and not as challenging as this book.

Paul DenleyE-mail: [email protected]


� E-mails from the Edge � Science Teacher Education � No 68 � October 2013 � Return to Contents Page

To: Professor Herdwicke (Pro-VC for Research)CC: Head of Department of Education

Subject: ‘PURE’ or ‘IMPURE’

Dear Professor Herdwicke,

I was very pleased to note that the University has established the ‘PURE’ database of research by all members of staff.

You will know my previous thoughts on research in teacher education and my disgust that some of my colleagues seem to regard research in education and social sciences as some sort of lesserenterprise (than ‘real’ research in science and psychology, etc.).

It was therefore to my dismay that I logged onto the PURE database for my own profile, only to findthat someone has tampered with my page, adding adverse comments to my publications suggestingthat most of what I have written is, and I quote, ‘meaningless twaddle, making no valid contributionto scholarship’.

I was under the impression that only the author of pages in PURE were allowed to make editorialchanges or enter comments. I advise you therefore that PURE is by default a misnomer, as thesystem is so clearly ‘IMPURE’. I do not wish to subscribe to yet another vacuous University blog on so-called ‘scholarship’.

Yours, etc.

Dr. BrownHead of Initial Teacher Education

E-mails from the Edge

science teacher educationcidtff.web.ua.pt/cidtff_flashnews/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ste_6… ·...

Documents