 |  |  |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
| |
||
| |||
 |
          |
|
|
Conference Material
Before The Innovation Hits The Classroom: Altering teachers' self-image as an element of teacher enhancement.
Before The Innovation Hits The Classroom: Altering teachers self-image as an element of teacher enhancement.Presented at AERA April 1998Joni Falk and Brian Drayton TERC, Inc. 2067 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02140 Subject descriptors: teacher education/development, mentoring, high schools
AbstractData from a sample of 57 high school teachers participating in a year-long teacher enchancement program in ecology show that teachers who sustained collaborative research pursuing their own research questions report changes in their professional self-identity, including increased competence and confidence and a sense of authenticity as teachers of science inquiry. Teachers sustaining their own research project, as well as teachers who became involved in scientist-initiated research, report changes in their roles vis-á-vis their students. On the dimension of role, teachers involved in research (their own or ecologist-initiated) differ significantly from teachers who chose to focus primarily on classroom innovation. Teachers in all three groups (those conducting their own research, those involved in scientist initiated research and those focusing on classroom imlementation) report implementing classroom innovations, including changes in content, pedagogy, or classroom organization with similar frequency. This study offers support for a model of teacher enhancement that encourages teachers to re- engage with scientific research themselves, before or in tandem with experimenting with inquiry in the classroom.
IntroductionOur paper presents a study of the effects that teacher-ecologist research has on high-school teachers' perceived self-image and role vis-á-vis their students. It raises important questions about the need to affect teachers' perception of professional identity when attempting to alter science teaching. It offers support for a model of teacher enhancement that encourages teams of teachers to re-engage with scientific research themselves, before or in tandem with experimenting with inquiry in the classroom.While many teacher enhancement programs assume an immediate transition from workshop to implementation of innovations within the classroom, the project from which our data is drawn encouraged teachers to spend a length of time learning new science content and research techniques before designing classroom innovations. Thus they were given the freedom and time to work with a team of teachers in collaboration with a local ecologist to nurture their own scientific understandings. Although it is well known that teacher change "takes time" (Hall and Hord 1989), it is less clearly documented what is happening during this developmental period that may enable effective change to take place. Our research focuses on this intervening period, between the time when the workshop ends, and when teachers are held accountable for instituting new curriculum or pedagogy. After the workshop teachers selected three different methods of sustaining their work with their teacher teammates and team ecologist: to pursue their own research question, to collect data for their ecologist's research, or to focus on classroom implementation. Our research examines how these three groups of teachers describe the effects of their choice on their professional identity, over the course of the eight months following the initial workshop; we analyze shared benefits as well as differences between these groups.
ContextThe Teacher Enhancement in Pedagogy through Ecology (TEPE) project was a three year teacher-enhancement grant, awarded in 1993 by the National Science Foundation to TERC, Inc., of Cambridge Massachusetts.1 The focal population for this project was high- school science teachers, and the general subject domain was ecology and field biology.High-school science is a difficult environment in which to implement an inquiry oriented approach that includes open-ended projects or student research. At this level, the science content is increasingly sophisticated, which requires that teachers have a strong foundation of science knowledge. The addition of a research or project component to the classroom makes additional demands on a teacher, requiring skills akin to those of a director of research. In order to effectively coach student researchers, and relate student inquiry to the curriculum, a teacher must be able to shepherd students through the uncertainties that always arise as one tries to make new knowledge. A good grasp of techniques of measurement and observation is not enough. One needs to be ready to help shape researchable questions, design research plans, evaluate and implement data collection, analyze and present findings, and seek the resources needed to make all this happen. It was the project's hypothesis that a shift towards inquiry would be facilitated by teachers' experiencing and engaging in open-ended research as adult learners, and by teachers' acquiring a greater depth of understanding about a subject domain, in this case the domain of ecology. Thus, the emphasis was not on mastery of a predetermined body of knowledge, but of engagement in research, with the science learning growing out of the investigation. To this end high-school teachers were recruited in teams of four ("home teams"), and paired with a local ecologist ("team ecologist") for a year-long collaborative effort during which the teachers engaged in ecological research: the goal was for the teachers to have the opportunity to re-engage with science as adult learners, not to provide the teachers with material to use in the classroom. The teams were responsible for designing and implementing their learning experience. The project year fell into two phases. The first phase was a summer institute, conducted by TERC staff; the second phase ran through the academic year, and was conducted by each team individually. Teams reported to TERC periodically, and gathered twice during the year for weekend call-backs; in between, TERC staff were in touch with teams and individuals by telephone, mail, and electronic mail for trouble-shooting and consultation. TEPE had several features that, taken as a whole, are not common in teacher enhancement programs (NRC 1996):
Field techniques and research around three different habitats were emphasized in the first week. During the second week teams of teachers met with an ecologist that came from their geographical area and together they planned a sustained collaborative effort which they would continue throughout the year. While some of the plans included involving students in ongoing research, most were focused on continued learning for the team of teachers using the ecologist as a resource. The teams discussed their plans with TERC staff, and revised them so that all parties were satisfied with the plans. Phase II: Beyond the workshop. After the workshop came the implementation of the year-long programs. In each case, when learning goals and research tasks were specified, they were defined by the teachers in collaboration with their ecologists. All science content to be learned would be in the context of their research goals. Although they would be in communication with TERC staff during the year, quality control, completeness, and depth of learning were all in the hands of the teachers: the only "evaluation" of their work would come at the end of the year, when they were asked to present their work in poster form to each other and the team ecologists, who provided informal feedback on content, clarity, and presentation. TERC staff emphasized that the year following the initial workshop should be viewed by the teacher teams as a "gift" to nurture their own professional development. There was the explicit freedom not to feel pressured to immediately bring back innovations into the classroom, but rather to continue researching and learning science collaboratively with their ecologist. Even given this freedom, we were aware that some teachers wanted to use the ecologist to help them create new activities and curricula that they could use with their students. Some teacher teams chose to pursue a research plan based on their own questions while other teams became interested in ongoing research that their ecologist was conducting. The dynamics of the teamwork with the ecologists has been described elsewhere (Drayton and Falk 1997, Falk and Drayton 1997).
Data sourcesData used for this study was gathered from teacher questionnaires and from two transcribed focus groups. In the middle of the year 1995-6, teachers were asked to write about how they had sustained their work with their teacher team and with their ecologist over the course of the year. Teachers' reported that they had chosen to:
In the spring, we conducted focus groups to further explore the patterns noted earlier in the year. Focus group transcripts confirmed categories that were developed from reading open-ended questions, and also provided teacher narrative material that explored changes that the teachers made in their classroom practice which they felt to be a result of their research experience.
ResultsAs described above, participants in the project were committed to working with their teacher team in a collaborative relationship with their ecologist throughout the academic year. Teams' strategies for this collaborative project took one of three approaches. Some had decided that they would use the ecologist as a resource to pursue a research question generated by the team. Others decided to join an ongoing research project which their ecologist was involved in. Still others chose not to conduct research, choosing instead to focus on exploring new curriculum material and activities to bring into their classroom, using the ecologist as a resource for ideas and material. Mid-year, teachers were asked to reflect in writing on how they had continued to work with their team and ecologist and how their decision had affected them as a teacher. Fifty-seven of 90 (63%) replied to this open-ended questionnaire.Teachers doing their own research Of the 57 respondents, 34 (60%) replied that they were continuing to conduct research investigating a question generated by their team with consultation with an ecologist. These research questions were varied, for example: an inventory of plant species on a study site which they planned to use for both teaching and research in the future; a study of water quality indicators up-stream and down-stream from a fish hatchery; a study of vegetation response to a controlled fire on a prairie fragment; a census of airborne pathogenic microbes. Almost all of this group (32 of 34, or 94%) reported that they were experimenting with new activities with their classrooms. Teachers researching ecologist's question Eleven of the 57 (19%) reported that they were primarily involved in collecting data for ongoing research that their ecologist was involved in. Participation in these project included some large scale efforts such as Texas Watch and some smaller efforts such as wetlands restoration or monitoring populations of rare plant or bird species. The reasons for the decision to join an ecologists' research program varied. Some wanted to be "part of something bigger," and see their data put to direct use; some felt that they would learn the most if they undertook work that was under expert supervision, some just found the ecologist's work interesting enough to get invested in themselves. Ten of these eleven also reported experimenting with new activities in their classrooms. Teachers focusing exclusively on classroom innovation Twelve of the 57 (21%) respondents reported that they were not continuing their research efforts with their team. Instead they had chosen to work with their ecologist and with their team members on ways to incorporate the experiences that they had in the summer (exploring habitats, identifying and following up on a research question) with their students. The reasons for this group's choice also varied. Some had become frustrated with their research project, or found it too time-consuming given teacher responsibilities. Others found it more rewarding to spend their time with their team and ecologist working on applications to the classroom rather than conducting research themselves. We found that teachers' responses to the question "How has your choice affected you as a teacher?" patterned around the following four themes:
All three groups mentioned experimenting with new curricula and pedagogical techniques with similar frequency (own research 94%, ecologists' research 90%, classroom focus 100%), as well as benefiting from contact with a team of teachers and an ecologist (own research 55%, ecologist research 45%, classroom focus 50%). For these two dimensions there was no statistical difference between the three groups. Furthermore, we could identify no qualitative differences among the classroom innovations adopted by any of the three groups. The group of teachers that had continued to investigate their own question were significantly more likely to describe a change in their self-image, than were teachers who had decided to focus on classroom applications (p=0.01 by Fisher's exact test). Teachers in the group pursuing their own research were most likely to mention a change in self-image (61%). Teachers engaged in collecting data for their ecologists research were less likely to describe this (27%) and teachers who focused on classroom applications were least likely to mention changes in self-image (8%). Teachers conducting research (either pursuing their own questions or collecting data for their ecologist) were significantly more likely to discuss a change of role vis-á-vis their students, or an increased understanding of the student experience than were teachers who were focused on classroom application (p=0.01); 44% of teachers in the group pursuing their own research and 45% of teachers collecting data for their ecologist's research mentioned a change of role vis-á-vis their students in the classroom. None of the teachers in the group focusing on classroom applications discussed this theme.
DiscussionThis study provides insight into the process by which a group of high-school teachers move at their own pace into classroom innovation driven by the chance to extend their content knowledge and their skills as science practitioners. It provides evidence of the value of providing teachers with the opportunity to re-engage with science at their own intellectual level, rather than limiting teacher enhancement programs to learning activities for the classroom, or to the discussion of new pedagogical approaches. To explore these linkages, we will discuss the four themes that emerged in teacher writings and in a transcribed focus group where teachers reflected on how their sustained interaction with a team of teachers and with an ecologist affected them as teachers.Enlarged professional network Teachers in all three groups spoke of the benefits that they had received as a result of forging new connections and identifying an enriched array of resources. Teachers commented on how rare it was to be given the time to work and learn with their peers, as well as the multiple benefits that they had received from working in a sustained relationship with their ecologist. Teachers who previously had felt isolated now described feeling connected and supported. These new connections to other teachers provided a boost in morale, someone with whom to brainstorm, and intellectual and emotional support.
A critical feature of the teachers' enhanced sense of effectiveness or competence had to do with their connection, through their ecologist, with the science culture within which the ecologist moved. This provided the sense of increased security that comes from having deeper resources to call upon, but was coupled with the teachers' sense, provided in part by their own increased competence, that this was a culture to which they could connect, or even belong, something that came as a surprise to many who had not engaged in research before. In addition to tangible "resources," the relationships provided teachers with several forms of support including brainstorming, generating new ideas, helping with classroom applications, being a facilitator for the teacher teams to work together and negotiate decisions, and helping to validate teachers ideas. Others described new connections that they acquired through their ecologist to contacts in the community and an increased connection to the local landscape which they felt they could now use as a resource in their classroom. Some quotes address this theme:
While all three groups remarked on the benefits of having new connections to both peers and scientists, those that pursued their own research were most likely to comment on how the experience had altered their image of themselves as a teacher. These comments were most frequent in the group that was conducting their own research (61%), less frequent in the group conducting their ecologist's research (27%), and less frequent still in the group that focused on classroom application (8%). There is a significant difference between the group pursuing their own research questions and the group that focused on classroom application (p=0.001 by Fisher's exact test). Although the difference between those conducting their own research and those collecting data for their ecologist was not significant (p= 0.08 by Fisher's exact test), it is suggestive of a trend. It is interesting to conjecture whether ownership over the research question was a factor that influenced self-esteem. Teacher responses in this category describe a feeling of increased authenticity, confidence, competence or renewed energy toward teaching. This was more frequently mentioned by teachers who conducted their own research than by teachers who collected data for their ecologist's research project. This shift in self-image was not shared by the group who focused only on classroom changes and did not conduct a research project. Teachers described how doing science had now became integral to their job definition. Further, pursuing science, and learning new techniques made them feel more confident that they could introduce such innovations into their classroom.
Forty-four percent of those who carried out their own research and 45% of those who collected data for their ecologist's research mentioned changes in their relation to their students. None of those who focused on classroom innovation mentioned this. The difference on this dimension between those conducting research and those focusing on classroom innovation was striking. Comments in this category centered on teachers' assuming the role of mentor or role model to their students. They modeled what the doing of science looked like. Part of the role definition of a teacher now included sharing their doing of science. This is clearly related intimately with the sense of increased credibility described above. In fact, this connection suggests that students' attitudes towards their teachers may play a significant role in making teacher change possible, a linkage that deserves more study.
For some, the project brought a new awareness of ecology as a subject matter related to the evolutionary core of modern biology. For others, it provided a new sense of relevance and vitality for the classroom content; for others it provided a natural way to connect the classroom content to the local surroundings, with which their students were very familiar. Many teachers also found that the poster sessions in which they had presented their research findings to their peers to be a powerful learning tool, and tried to make use of that kind of peer discussion in their classes, both in biology and in other subjects.
Importance of the study and need for future researchWhile all teachers spoke of the value of new connections to teachers, scientists, and community resources, those conducting their own research were more likely to describe a sense of transformation by their experience. It was not only that they had more resources to call upon, but that they themselves were enlarged, they could play the role of scientist as well as teacher, they could engage in creating science as well as relating or recreating it. This enlarged role, in turn, influenced the way they chose to interact with their students. Both groups of teachers that sustained a research plan were significantly more likely to talk of a change of role vis-á-vis their students. They were now able to see themselves as role models, and their sense of increased competence bolstered them in that role. It was important for them that their students know about their research and that they make time to share with their students what it was like; some teams used the posters they had created during workshops to tell their story to their students as well as to their peers. They sensed that their students were interested in them and in their work, and the teachers felt that they had thereby gained credibility with their students. Of course, these encounters further enriched their sense of self-worth, competence, and confidence in themselves as teachers. While teachers in all three groups report bringing new activities to their classrooms, one is left to wonder how the increased self-esteem, increased appreciation of student experiences conducting research, and changes in role will shape the choice and use of new curricula and materials. Although there is a need for long-term study of such teachers, the data collected at this point in time gives some indications that they see important transferences from their own experiences to those of their students, with correlative changes in pedagogy and classroom practice. These indications suggest that the research- and adult-learning orientation provided by the TEPE project contains important ingredients for the kind of complex teacher change necessary to the realization of inquiry in the high-school science classroom.In describing what they learned from their experience, these teachers articulated that they had a better sense of what inquiry could look like for their students, and how they could scaffold this kind of experience in the classroom. In addition, their increased confidence in conducting science investigations and their increased credibility with their students supported a role change, as many increasingly saw themselves as role models in the practice and learning of science, rather than lecturers or sources of information. In addition, the sense of expanded opportunities, roles, and resources makes teachers more aware of how their own professional lives can be enriched by these wider connections, which are contextualized by including research expertise as part of the teacher's self- definition. This then provides a conceptual framework within which the teacher can manage her own professional development both as a science teacher and as a science practitioner, which are two sides of the same coin. Our project provided us a glimpse of some of the dynamics that may support teachers' making radical shifts in their classroom approach, which demand at the same time enhancement of the teachers' understanding of their role, and of their science knowledge, and of their facility with science research, beyond specific technical skills of measurement and calculation. Our sample is of course small, and further research would be required to test the long-term effects of the kinds of changes we report here on teachers' classroom practice, and on their habits of self-enhancement. We believe that the results to date are suggestive, however, of the power of teachers' reconception of their role and their resources to prepare them to experiment with challenging classroom innovation.
ReferencesBerkowitz, A. (1997). A simple framework for considering the benefits of student-scientist partnerships. In TERC and Concord Consortium, National Conference on Student & Scientist Partnerships: Conference Report. Cambridge, MA: TERC.Berkowitz, A. (1993). Ecology education in the United States. In Hale, Monica (Ed.), Ecology in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 45-59. Drayton, B. & Falk, J.K. (1997). What do the ecologists get from an innovative mentoring program with high school teachers? Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 78(4):256-60. Drayton, B. & Falk, J.K. (in prep). Dimensions that shape teacher-scientist collaborations for inquiry-based teacher enhancement. Falk, J.K. & Drayton, B. (1997). Dynamics of the relationships between teachers and scientists in an innovative mentorship collaboration. Paper presented to American Educational Research Assoc. March, 1997. Fedock, P.M., Zambo, R. & Cobern, W.W. (1996). The professional development of college science professors as science teacher educators. Science Education, 80(1): 5-19. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Gunstone, R.F. & Northfield, J. (1994). Metacognition and learning to teach. International Journal of Science Education, 16(5):523-37. Hargreaves, A. (1995). Development and desire: a post-modern perspective. In Guskey, T.R. and M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional Development in Education: New paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press. pp. 9-34. Herwitz, S.R. & Guerra, M. (1996). Perspectives, partnerships, and values in science education: A university and public elementary school collaboration. Science Education, 80(1): 21-34. Huberman, M. (1995). Professional careers and professional development: Some intersections. In Guskey, T.R. and M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional Development in Education: New paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press. pp. 193-224. Huberman, M. (1993). The model of the independent artisan in teachers' professional relations. in Little, Judith Warren, Milbrey Wallin McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers' work: Individuals, colleagues, contexts. New York: Teachers College Press. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). The role of scientists in the professional development of science teachers. Washington: National Academy Press. Norris, S.P. (1995). Learning to live with scientific expertise: Toward a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79(2):201-217. Pennypacker, C. (1997). Why do scientists want teachers and students to do real research? In TERC & Concord Consortium, National Conference on Student & Scientist Partnerships: Conference Report. Cambridge, MA: TERC. Ruopp, R., Gal, S., Drayton, B. & Pfister, M. (1993). Labnet: Toward a community of practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1):1-22. Simon, S. A. & A. T. Jones. (1992). Open work in science: A review of existing practice. Center for Educational Studies, King's College, University of London. TERC & Concord Consortium. (1997). National Conference on Student and Scientist Partnerships: Conference Report. Cambridge, MA: TERC.
Endnote
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
