In-service support for a technological approach to science education - Education Research Paper No. 16, 1995, 48 p.

[Previous Page] [Table of Contents] [Next Page]

7. Other outcomes

The research project was directed at in-service strategies for introducing teachers to science teaching materials with a technological approach, and at the learning effects of students who have used learning materials for science with such an approach. However, the research required a first phase during which such learning and teaching materials were constructed. From the outset, the project intended to support the generation of materials by teachers with a wide range of experience and training. The materials development phase has been used as a research opportunity to monitor critical aspects of the materials development process contributing to the professional growth of the teachers involved. Professional growth is seen here as: (i) the change in teachers' self perception as curriculum designers; (ii) the change in professional self confidence; (iii) the growth in the teachers' science knowledge and understanding and; (iv) the extent of the acceptance of the three characteristics of the innovation. A detailed report is provided in Lubben et al. (1995a).

Our evidence supports the view of Naidoo and Samuels (1993) that given appropriate opportunities, teachers in Southern Africa can be active and creative participants in curriculum development, although the vast majority do not initially see themselves as materials producers. Furthermore, the production and presentation of lesson materials by the teachers, their behaviour over the workshops, their dialogue with workshop facilitators, their written feedback and their behaviour during the pilot stage all support the notion that considerable professional growth took place through their involvement with curriculum development. We consider that this growth was an indication of curriculum empowerment.

Successful strategies to increase teachers' self-perception as curriculum creators include the following: * Invitations to materials writing workshops need to be made to individuals who have a loyalty to the facilitators for other reasons; * In contrast to the lesson content, a general structure and a format for recording the lessons may be suggested by the facilitators for adoption; * Brainstorming at the workshop beginning is unproductive unless contributions are solicited as light-hearted anecdotes or stories; * Participants work productively in pairs on different lessons with frequent plenary reporting to a whole group of a maximum of 12 colleagues; * Opportunities to develop a 'group terminology or language' need to be exploited in order to foster group identity; * After drafting workshops for several of these groups, participating teachers need to be given some weeks of ordinary classroom teaching before an induction workshop to combine the work of these teacher groups; * The induction workshop should use the collated draft lessons with limited expert-editing but with attractive and professional lay-out; * During the induction workshop peer-teaching of teachers' own and others' draft lessons needs to be included; * Trialling provides many suggestions for improvement of the materials. These ideas can not be collected through asking teachers to keep diaries or make notes. It is more effective to arrange and record regular discussion sessions for colleagues who have taught with the same materials.

There are indications that professional development will only result from participation in materials writing if a teacher accepts the role of creating, in addition to absorbing. If not, no materials will be produced, but also any ready-made innovations are less likely to be implemented. Pre-service teacher training programmes should, therefore, emphasise and practice the role of the teacher as curriculum constructor.

Our experience in this project is that the objectives of a curriculum innovation are readily accepted by teachers if they are perceived as helping students to understand science concepts more easily. Because the idea of starting from local contexts was seen to do this, it was incorporated into lesson materials and used in teaching. The objectives relating to the application of science knowledge beyond the classroom, while accepted in principle, was not seen as a priority for inclusion in the taught curriculum. Objectives related to the development of investigative strategies were less readily accepted initially but after class trials accepted with great enthusiasm by a few of the teacher-developers.

Thus far we have described the process for the whole group of 12 teacher-developers. It would be useful, however, to identify clusters of teachers within the sample showing similar patterns of adoption of the objectives of the curriculum innovation and, if possible, relate these to the development of their self-perception as curriculum developers during the materials writing process. Because of the small number of teachers, the identification of any patterns can only be speculative but will be useful as hypotheses for further research.

Three clusters may be distinguished. Firstly, a 'no-ignition' group of teachers have from the start a very low perception of themselves as materials developers, and persistently do not see a role for themselves in the process. They require the curriculum to be delivered to them. Participation in a materials development process was irrelevant to them. They show very little adoption of curriculum innovations, and when adopted do so uncritically. They are (here) male diploma holders at schools with limited resources and poor results, with both short and medium teaching experience. They radiate a feeling of stagnation in the teaching profession.

A second group of teachers, the 'perpetuators', perceive themselves more as materials designers from the start. They develop their creative and reflective abilities in this area during the process of lesson materials writing, paying a lot of attention to detail of usage of appropriate language and sequence. When asked, they attempt the new context-led teaching strategy successfully. They do not, however, adopt the innovative teaching strategies, and even explicitly argue against inviting students' opinions, insisting on the teacher's role as an authoritative expert. During pilot teaching they reluctantly refrain from immediately judging student speculations. They are (here) very experienced female diploma holders at well-managed schools with usually excellent examination results. These teachers are self-confident active professionals.

A last group of teachers, the 'adopters', have slightly more intuitive affinity with the objectives of the innovation. At the start they have a lower self-perception as curriculum designer than the 'perpetuators'. They develop and accept a view on teachers as curriculum developers and, subsequently, adopt the objectives of the curriculum innovation. Their implementation of the new teaching approach is close to the intended curriculum. They are (here) a mixture of male and female degree holders and diploma holders with and without professional training. All have taught between 2 and 4 years. They are assertive and willing to debate their opinions with peers.

The data suggest that further research is needed into the possibility of facilitating adoption of specific new curriculum objectives through training teachers in the skills of creating and evaluating teaching materials. This has implications for pre- service teacher training and curriculum induction programmes in centralised education systems where teachers are familiarised with new national curricula and the accompanying ready-made materials. The strategy of practising the creation of any part of the new lesson materials may well facilitate the adoption of (usually) externally created prescribed innovations.

[Previous Page] [Top of Page] [Next Page]