Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Secondary Science Teachers’ and Students’ Involvement in a Primary School Community of Science Practice: How It Changed Their Practices and Interest in Science

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

MyScience is a primary science education initiative in which being in a community of practice is integral to the learning process. In this initiative, stakeholder groups—primary teachers, primary students and mentors—interact around the ‘domain’ of ‘investigating scientifically’. This paper builds on three earlier publications and interprets the findings of the views of four secondary science teachers and five year 9 secondary science students who were first-timer participants—as mentors—in MyScience. Perceptions of these mentors’ interactions with primary students were analysed using attributes associated with both ‘communities of practice’ and the ‘nature of science’. Findings reveal that participation in MyScience changed secondary science teachers’ views and practices about how to approach the teaching of science in secondary school and fostered primary–secondary links. Year 9 students positively changed their views about secondary school science and confidence in science through participation as mentors. Implications for secondary science teaching and learning through participation in primary school community of science practice settings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. At the time of data collection, the Sydney metropolitan area comprised four regions in the government-run public education system.

  2. ‘Cows Moo Softly’ is an acronym for controlling variables in scientific fair tests: ‘Change one thing, Measure something and keep everything else the Same’, developed by Hackling (2005).

  3. Secondary science teachers did not refer to ‘science’ per se in their interview responses.

References

  • Anfara, V., Brown, K., & Mangione, T. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. doi:10.3102/0013189X031007028.

  • Borg, T. (2009). The tenacity of teachers: the evolution of a teacher community of practice. Bathurst: Unpublished doctoral thesis. Charles Sturt University, Australia.

  • Carlone, H., Haun-Frank, J., & Kimmel, S. (2010). Tempered radicals: elementary teachers’ narratives of teaching science within and against prevailing meanings of schooling. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(4), 941–965. doi:10.1007/s11422-010-9282-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby, L. (2005). Science students’ perceptions of engaging pedagogy. Research in Science Education, 35(4), 425–445. doi:10.1007/s11165-005-4488-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feasey, R. (2012). Thinking and working scientifically. In K. Skamp (Ed.), Teaching primary science constructively (4th ed., pp. 55–98). Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. (2008). Science education policy-making: eleven emerging issues: UNESCO. Retrieved December 10, 2013 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001567/156700e.pdf.

  • Forbes, A., & McCloughan, G. (2010). Increasing student participation in science investigations in primary schools: the MyScience initiative. Teaching Science, 56(2), 24–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, A., & Skamp, K. (2013). Knowing and learning about science in primary school ‘communities of science practice’: the views of participating scientists in the MyScience initiative. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 1005–1028. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9295-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, A., & Skamp, K. (2014). “Because we weren’t actually teaching them, we thought they weren’t learning”: primary teacher perspectives from the MyScience initiative. Research in Science Education, 44(1), 1–25. doi:10.1007/s11165-013-9367-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girod, M., & Twyman, T. (2009). Comparing the added value of blended science and literacy curricula to inquiry-based science curricula in two 2nd-grade classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 13–32. doi:10.1007/BF03174720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodrum, D. & Rennie, L. (2007). Australian school science education: national action plan 2008–2012, Volume 1, The National Action Plan. Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://www.academia.edu/1157498/Australian_School_Science_Education_National_Action_Plan_2008-2012_Volume_1_The_national_action_plan.

  • Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X015005005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackling, M. (2005). Working scientifically: implementing and assessing in science. Perth: Education Department of Western Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackling, M. (2014). The status of STEM education in Australia: challenges and opportunities. Paper presented at the Australasian Science Education Conference, Melbourne.

  • Hanrahan, M. (1998). The effect of learning environment factors on students’ motivation and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 737–753. doi:10.1080/0950069980200609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume, A. (2009). Authentic scientific inquiry and school science. Teaching Science, 55(2), 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeans, B., & Farnsworth, I. (1993). Post-primary science teachers’ perceptions of primary science education. Research in Science Education, 23(1), 118–125. doi:10.1007/02357052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. (2008). Learning science: discursive practices. In A.-M. de Mejia & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Vol. 3: discourse and education (pp. 329–340). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koliba, C., & Gajda, R. (2009). “Communities of practice” as an analytical construct: implications for theory and practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 32(2), 97–135. doi:10.1080/01900690802385192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. London: Cambridge University. doi:10.1017/9780511815355.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359. doi:10.1002/3660290404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, K. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86(1), 1–22. doi:10.1002/sce.1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, M., & Skamp, K. (2008). Engaging students in science across the primary secondary interface: listening to the students’ voice. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 501–527. doi:10.1007/11165-007-9063-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, M., & Skamp, K. (2013). The impact of teachers and their science teaching on students’ ‘science interest’: a four-year study. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2879–2904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613. doi:10.1080/09500690500339621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). PISA 2015. Draft Science Framework. Retrieved June 20, 2014 from: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Science%20Framework%20.pdf.

  • Office of the Chief Scientist. (2012). Mathematics, engineering and science in the national interest. Retrieved January 17, 2014 from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Office-of-the-Chief-Scientist-MES-Report-8-May-2012.pdf.

  • Opfer, D. V., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. doi:10.3102/0034654311413609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. (2005). Science awareness and scientific literacy. Teaching Science, 51(1), 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning science outside of school. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 125–167). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. J. (2010). Evaluation of the science by doing stage one professional learning approach. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31–56). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Skamp, K. (2007). Conceptual learning in the primary and middle years. The interplay of heads, hearts and hand-on science: more than just a mantra. Teaching Science, 53(3), 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skamp, K. (2012). Teaching primary science: trial teacher feedback on the implementation of primary connections and the 5E model. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stringer, E. (2013). Action research (4th ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: how teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, E., & Barton, A. (2007). From peripheral to central, the story of Melanie’s metamorphosis in an urban middle school science class. Science Education, 92(4), 567–590. doi:10.1002/Fsce.20253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved January 17, 2014 from www.acer.edu.au/documents/AER51_ReimaginingSciEdu.pdf.

  • Van Manen, M. (1997). Researching lived experience (2nd ed.). Canada: The Althouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wals, A., Brody, M., Dillon, J., & Stevenson, R. (2014). Convergence between science and environmental education. Science, 344, 583–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, R. (2010). Primary-secondary transfer: a science perspective. Primary Science, 111, 33–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice—learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University. doi:10.1017/O9780511803932.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger-Trayner, E. (2013). What is a community of practice? Retrieved January 17, 2014 from http://wenger-trayner.com/resources/what-is-a-community-of-practice/.

  • Zoller, U., & Nahum, T. (2012). From teaching to KNOW to learning to THINK in science education. In B. J. Fraser et al. (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 209–229). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_16.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Forbes.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

ᅟ The interview questions and the purpose for asking them

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Forbes, A., Skamp, K. Secondary Science Teachers’ and Students’ Involvement in a Primary School Community of Science Practice: How It Changed Their Practices and Interest in Science. Res Sci Educ 46, 91–112 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9457-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9457-3

Keywords

Navigation