Gatsby Teacher Fellowships

2007-08 Final projects
Click here for more details

you are here: home> projects > 2007-2008: Science> project 99 final report

How can Foundation Stage Principles and CASE Principles be combined to create
a more dynamic and inspiring Science Curriculum at KSI?

	School: Grouville School
	Fellow: Maria Stegenwalner
	Email: stegenwooton@jerseymail.co.uk

Final report:

Introduction

Prior to this project our Foundation Stage and KSI had been reviewing aspects of teaching and learning. They had identified active learning as an area for exploration, as it allowed for developmentally appropriate learning activities for those children who weren't ready for more formal education. A concern they identified was the perception amongst parents and other teaching professionals that active learning was 'just playing' and that the 'learning' that took place there was not as valid or as deep as the more formal learning that takes place sitting behind a desk. This project was devised to develop active learning in Science and to investigate the rigorous accountability to be found in using the structure of CASE activities. There were 2 distinct phases to this project: designing a model of CPD; working with colleagues to develop active learning and CASE style activities.

Continuing Professional Development

There is a huge range of models of CPD, but having decided that I was looking to develop a ‘Community of Practice’ which was able to transform practice, I adapted the model below to reflect a cyclical programme CPD. Although it’s not reflected in the drawing below, the idea is that it is follows a spiral of revisiting, refining and improving that could go on indefinitely.

Spiral of Staff Development in Science diagram

This was a very appealing model for a number of reasons, but the most convincing was the fact that ‘plan, do, review’ is a fundamental principle of Foundation Practice. I was keen to find a model with which teachers were familiar, but which they also respected.

Our principles of active learning:

	Provide a safe environment which will encourage risk taking.
	Consider a child’s emotional needs (Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) and needs as an individual.
	Develop learning skills such a perseverance and intrinsic motivation.
	Provide learning activities and opportunities that are exciting, engaging and motivating.
	Value the skills acquired throughout the learning process.
	Value the skills acquired throughout the learning process.

The Nature of Science:

The next part of the meeting focused on the Science Curriculum and the problem over-reliance on schemes of work including QCA. Having agreed that children in Foundation and KSI need to be actively involved in their own learning, the discussion centred on what the Science Curriculum would be.
We decided that although we would not use the activities suggested in QCA we would refer to their learning objectives, the QCA formative assessment level descriptors and the National curriculum level descriptors when devising our own learning activities.
We felt it was important that there be a balance between knowledge acquisition, concept development and skills development. We decided that all of these could be developed through active learning, although we would need to use a range of strategies.
With that in mind, we decided that a part of this project should be to try out different planning formats that focuses on Science development, rather than our existing generic medium and short planning formats.

Teachers and Teaching

In our next meeting we looked at the 5 pillars of cognitive acceleration as used by the CASE programme:

	Concrete preparation.
	Cognitive conflict.
	Social construction.
	Metacognition.
	Bridging.

The key differences we were proposing were:

CASE intention

Our intention

To develop thinking through engagement with Science concepts.

To develop Science concepts using thinking skills.

To use concrete preparation to familiarise the children with the thinking they will need in the coming task.

To use concrete preparation to find out what the children already know about the key concept.

To use the metacognitive aspect to develop thinking about how thinking has been used in an exercise.

To use metacognition to get the children to think about how their understanding of key ideas and concepts has changed, and to be able to articulate this change of view.

To use the bridging aspect to think about other situations in which similar thinking would be effective

To get the children to reinforce their understanding by thinking about real life situations in which we can observe the Science concepts in action.

This represented a change which took us a long way from the fundamental intentions of CASE, but we felt that this might well be a format that ensured a certain rigour in our Science teaching.

Student Learning and Data

One of the key concerns we wanted to address was the engagement of pupils throughout KSI. We identified aspects of the scheme we’ve been using that we felt did not encourage child engagement.
Of concern:

The possibility of boys losing interest in their learning because the work was not active enough; girls failing to engage with their learning because of a desire to please with well presented work. This is, of course, a gross simplification, but nonetheless represents genuine concerns.
Difficulties in assessing children whose writing skills cannot do justice to their understanding of Science concepts.
Accountability to the parents and the rest of the school: if children learn in a more active way, how can we be sure that there is sufficient rigour to challenge the children and enable them to develop their understanding of concepts.

Setting Goals

These were our goals:

To engage children in Science by providing Active Learning opportunities.
To challenge children by using a CASE style format when planning, delivering and reviewing their learning opportunities.
To observe the children through the activities and assess them - are they engaged, are they achieving, are they being challenged/ extended by the work?
To evaluate the assessment - is your knowledge of the individual child clearer because of this style of working?

Implementing this in the classroom:

Staff worked in teams to adapt Long and Medium term planning, identifying key concepts, skills and knowledge for each unit, and devised new short term planning formats that incorporated the CASE pillars.
Each staff member implemented their plans and reviewed their outcomes. This led them to identify the need for a recording format, and the introduction of a Science journal for each child, into which was put evidence from class brainstorms, observations, photographs and written work. (Active learning doesn’t mean NO written work!) Also the parents were sent a leaflet explaining our project and its aims.
The review also highlighted the need to provide a forum for TAs to discuss active learning and their role in promoting thinking through questioning, and in using observations for focused assessments, this remains a target for development.
The second cycle of the CPD involved not only peer observations, but peer involvement in planning, observation and feedback. This was extremely successful and created a very positive sense of collaboration and team.
Assessment of the children and their learning was ongoing using questioning, observations and listening to dialogue, also used were Assessment for Learning materials and techniques already available in the school.
The children in both cycles, were involved in the process of designing their learning activities based on their starting concepts and also the materials from the topic that they mostly bought in from home.

Outcomes for Grouville School:

Results of a questionnaire for teachers.

+ve outcomes (Staff)

+ve outcomes for children

The development of a community of practice.
A positive feeling about observations – trusting peers to be rigorous and professional.
CASE format followed very logical process and fitted well with teaching and learning.
Teachers explicitly promoted thinking and making connections.
Drawing attention to children’s thinking (metacognition) extended the quality of the learning.
This way of working provides better evidence as to children’s thinking and their understanding of key concepts.
A stronger idea of progression from Foundation to the end of KSI.
Higher expectations for the children.
More confident that assessment is accurate. (I.e. children who are not writers could demonstrate higher order thinking and a sound understanding of concepts.)
Knowing the children better.

All children engaged with active science.
Boys were more motivated.
Children who were not confident writers were able to shine.
Bridging activities allowed children to make connections very effectively.
Children were more independent in their learning.
Improved collaborative skills and team-work.
Bringing in resources from home and setting up scenarios focused the children on problem solving in a ‘real life’ way.

Challenging issues

Resources – this approach can be time-consuming and adult intensive.
Challenging for teachers and TAs not confident with Active Learning.
Implications for recording – who are we recording for? (Accountability)

The Way Forward:

Continue with collaborative cycle of peer planning, observation and review in Science teaching.
Incorporate a focus into the collaborative cycle, e.g. questioning, peer and self-assessment, child initiated learning, dialogic learning, socially constructed learning.
Prioritise and run TA training sessions to develop an understanding of active learning and effective intervention.

Dissemination:

Throughout school.
Primary colleagues in Jersey.
Possibly CASE convention 2009.
Possibly an article for Primary Science Review.

Personal Development:

I have enjoyed the opportunity to engage with aspects of Science teaching and with CPD design. I have always considered the development of Thinking Skills as a fundamental part of teaching and learning, and this project has given me the opportunity to consider what Active Learning, Thinking Skills and Science teaching look like when they meet. It’s been very exciting working with colleagues to develop Science teaching which starts with the needs of the learner, rather than the demands of the curriculum.

Lastly, I would like to thank the Gatsby for the time and funding they have invested in the project: they have enabled me to develop the teaching of Science in my school in a way that would not have otherwise been possible. This has been a great opportunity and I have really enjoyed it.