|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
Using
CASE in Foundation science at KS1 |
|
|
| |
 |
School: Grouville
School |
|
Fellow: Maria Stegenwalner |
|
Email: stegenwooton@jerseymail.co.uk |
|
|
|
|
Interim report: |
| |
|
| |
Introduction |
|
|
| |
This project has two aims.
The first is to work with colleagues in Foundation
and KSI to develop learning opportunities for
all children in those phases to enjoy an active
Science Curriculum that challenges them, engages
them and makes them think when forming their
knowledge and understanding of the world around
us. This is the main aim of my Fellowship project.
However, the challenge for me is my second
aim, which is to enable staff development by
reading and researching effective models of
CPD, and working alongside staff to devise
and develop a new programme that will facilitate
lasting change in the way Science is taught
at KS1. |
| |
|
| |
Science at Primary school ought to be fun
and children should have a chance to be active
and engage with the world around them - and
yet so many commercial schemes would have the
children filling in endless worksheets! Also,
not all teachers have the confidence to allow
the children to explore and be active in Science
- and this also can lead to an over reliance
on worksheets, or watching the teacher demonstrate
concepts - and consequently the children rarely
have a chance to get their hands on the equipment
and form concepts for themselves! If we are
thinking of the scientists of the future we
are not getting them off to a very inspiring
start!
There is a debate in our school at the moment about the best way to raise our
standards in KS1: there seems to be an inordinately large jump from the child
centred learning of the Foundation Stage and the content and style of teaching
in KS1. Not all children are ready for this change and this can lead to disaffection
and delayed development. The perception further up the schools is often that
children in Foundation ‘play all day’ and therefore any attempt to
extend the style of Foundation teaching into KS1 will run the risk of the same
perception. And yet the Foundation and KS1 teams believe that providing structured
play and active learning opportunities up to the end of KS1 (and beyond if possible)
should lead to better learning and better learners who are developing skills,
attitudes and dispositions that will equip them to be learners for life.
Structured play (as opposed to unstructured play) is given shape and direction
in a number of ways, but probably the most significant is through quality teacher
intervention which provides a thinking structure for the learner through questioning.
The CASE materials for KS1 - Lets think in KS1 Science - provide activities which
are based on what they describe as the five pillars of cognitive development:
concrete preparation, cognitive conflict, social construction, metacognition
and bridging. This could provide a structure that could ensure that active learning
opportunities in KS1 have both rigour and depth.
The aim of the project is therefore to ensure that the children have opportunities
to engage with Science physically and actively, and that this provision will
be given rigour through the structure provided by Let’s Think! As Rome
was not built in a day, I have decided to ask the staff to target three out of
six units for ‘renovation’ during this academic year. |
| |
|
| |
How to achieve this |
| |
|
| |
The effectiveness of CPD (continuous professional
development) provision is often hit and miss.
Obviously there are different types of CPD
and these aim to accomplish different things,
but the sort of CPD that transforms practice
is hard to codify into a perfect recipe. However,
researchers such as Joyce and Showers point
to the success of projects that take place
in schools that come about because of an identified
need. They record the success of a cycle of
focused classroom research, input, review and
evaluation. This requires contact analysis
and modification, in order that the project
is adapted to meet the needs of the learner,
and also so that the teacher continues to buy
into the value of the work. Projects that respond
to a need, rather than an imposed interest,
are more likely to secure the interest of school
professionals as the input should have a direct
and measurable impact on the school community.
Bell and Gilbert have reported on a project
in Science Education in New Zealand where they
derived the following model for teacher development. |
| |
|
| |
 |
| |
|
| |
Although more recent researchers, such as
Gary Hoban have suggested that this two dimensional
image is not sufficient (and would suggest
a spiral on the lines of Vygotsky’s Spiral
of Proximal Development incorporating much
of the above), the Bell and Gilbert model has
been effective in helping design effective
CPD.
Although the vehicle for the development in my
Gatsby Teaching Project is Science Education
in Foundation and KS1, a part of the benefit
for me as a school leader is to try to develop
an effective CPD programme for staff that will
transform an aspect of their practice.
My role in this is to create the conditions in
which the teachers reflect on their practice,
create strong social links with the other teachers
who are going through the same experience, and
develop both personally and professionally. This
is a tall order, and according to researchers
such as Thomas Guskey, evaluating the effectiveness
of CPD in transforming practice is very tricky
as teachers may sustain changes in their practices
for a year or so after the project, but true
changes in practice begin to be seen in the second
and third year after the CPD input - that is
when the temptation to fall back into old, comfortable
behaviours starts to creep in! |
| |
|
| |
What we have done so far: |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Where next: |
| |
|
| |
January: |
Reflection and sharing
practice: teachers have gone off and experimented
with their practice with some interesting
and exciting results. These need to be
shared before we plan again, as it will
increase the sense of community and provide
some new stimulation. It will also give
us an opportunity to refine and restructure
our work.
Planning units two and three.
Identifying children to track over next units |
January/
March: |
Delivery of unit two.
Peer observations and feedback.
Reflection and Evaluation.
Compilation of evidence so far. |
April/
May: |
Sharing practice from unit two.
How to build in assessment.
Delivery on unit three.
Reflection and Evaluation |
| May: |
Compiling and sorting evidence
Report writing
Conclusions. |
|
| |
|
| |
Finance: |
| |
|
| |
So far most of the money we have spent has
been to provide release and research time for
the staff members involved. This will be where
the overwhelming majority of the funding will
go, and although it would be lovely to have a ‘nice’ products,
such as a bound book or CD-ROM, this would be
an extra rather than an aim. The remainder of
the money has been used to buy resources. |
| |
|
| |
N.b. Whereas most staff wanted
active learning resources, one staff member
who has a background in Foundation ordered
books - she reasoned that she was already proficient
at providing active learning opportunities,
what she wanted was a clear idea of age appropriate
content. |
| |
|
| |
Conclusion: |
| |
|
| |
Although we have done a fair amount of work
the project is only really starting to get going.
The real learning for the teachers is likely
to be in what we learn from each other in our
peer observations. I am delighted with the way
each teacher has done something different, and
also in the confidence they have shown thus far
in understanding that assessment and evidence
does not depend on a child’s written outcome! |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
