ABSTRACT:In this paper, we report work undertaken with a group of 11 UK teachers over a period of a year to teach aspects of the nature of science, its process, and its practices. The teachers, who taught science in a mix of elementary, junior high, and high schools, were asked to teach a set of "ideas-about-science" for which consensual support had been established using a Delphi study in the first phase of the project. Data were collected through field notes, videos of the teachers' lessons, teachers' reflective diaries, and instruments that measured their understanding of the nature of science and their views on the role and value of discussion in the classroom. In this paper, drawing on a sample of the data we explore the factors that afforded or inhibited the teachers' pedagogic performance in this domain. Using these data, we argue that there are five critical dimensions that distinguish and determine a teacher's ability to teach effectively about science. Whilst these dimensions are neither mutually independent nor equally important, they serve as a valuable analytical tool for evaluating and explaining the success, or otherwise, that individual teachers of science have when confronted with teaching aspects about science. In addition, we argue that they are an important means of identifying salient aspects of pedagogy for initial and in-service training of science teachers for curricula that incorporate elements of "ideas-about-science." C

The mathematics achievement of a cohort of 955 students in 42 classes in six schools in London was followed over a 4-year period, until they took their General Certificate of Secondary Education examinations (GCSEs) in the summer of 2000. All six schools were regarded by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) as providing a good standard of education, and all were involved in teacher training partnerships with universities. Matched data on Key Stage 3 test scores and GCSE grades were available for 709 students, and these data were analysed in terms of the progress from Key Stage 3 test scores to GCSE grades. Although there were wide differences between schools in terms of overall GCSE grades, the average progress made by students was similar in all six schools. However, within each school, the progress made during Key Stage 4 varied greatly from set to set. Comparing students with the same Key Stage 3 scores, students placed in top sets averaged nearly half a GCSE grade higher than those in the other upper sets, who in turn averaged a third of a grade higher than those in lower sets, who in turn averaged around a third of a grade higher than those students placed in bottom sets. In the four schools that used formal whole-class teaching, the difference in GCSE grades between top and bottom sets, taking Key Stage 3 scores into account, ranged from just over one grade at GCSE to nearly three grades. At the schools using small-group and individualized teaching, the differences in value-added between sets were not significant. In two of the schools, a significant proportion of working-class students were placed into lower sets than would be indicated by their Key Stage 3 test scores.

No abstract

One aim of the Evidence-based Practice in Science Education (EPSE) Network was to obtain a better understanding of the extent to which practitioners in science education recognise and make use of research findings in the course of their normal practice. The aim was realised through an interview and focus-group study of views of practitioners on the research-practice interface. The sample included primary and secondary science teachers (including a subset with direct experience of research), curriculum policy-makers, in-service trainers and authors of science textbooks and teaching materials. Questions explored perceptions of the nature, actual use and potential of research in science education. At a general level, teachers and other practitioners characterised educational research, variously, as: purposeful; carried out in a systematic manner; useful in informing action; and large scale. To be viewed as convincing, research evidence had to be seen as transferable, to have resonance with teachers' experience and beliefs, and to have a rigorous methodology. Widespread use of research evidence in the classroom seems to depend on at least two factors: translation of research findings into tangible and useful outcomes, such as teaching materials resulting from research projects; and the presence of a professional culture which encourages both exploration of research and changes to practice. Increasing use of research evidence requires researchers to translate outcomes of research into practical actions and practitioners to be skilled in using evidence systematically in evaluation of their own practice. Networks of researchers and practitioners may further the aims of evidence-based practice.

No abstract