Developing the teaching of argumentation in school

science

Shirley Simon, Jonathan Osborne, Shirley Simon, Jonathan Osborne, Katherine Richardson, Christina Katherine Richardson, Christina

Howell-RichardsonHowell-Richardson

1

Aims

The Talking to Learn project (TTL) is concerned with enhancing and sustaining the use of small group discussion and argumentation in the teaching of science by working with four school science departments over a two-year period.

To develop a teaching approach that incorporates peer group discussion within argumentation activities, in scientific or socio-scientific contexts.

The challenge for teachers

A pedagogy where students and teachers address learning tasks together, listen to each other and consider alternative viewpoints, can be unfamiliar for many teachers.

Transformations in pedagogy require teachers to rethink their values and be prepared to take risks.

Teacher learning: two perspectives

Cognitive – in terms of individual knowledge growth, e.g pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman 1986,87)

Situated – in terms of teacher growth as practiced within the social system (Borko 2004).

Social development

Professional development

Personal development

Bell, B. & Gilbert, J. ( 1996) Teacher Development: A Model from Science Education

A Model for Achieving Teacher Development

change is seen to occur through the mediating processes of ‘reflection’ and ‘enactment’ in four distinct domains:

the personal domain (teacher knowledge, beliefs and attitudes),

the domain of practice (professional experimentation),

the domain of consequence (salient outcomes), and

the external domain (sources of information, stimulus or support).

A further consideration is the change environment.

Mapping change using the Interconnected Model

Clarke & Hollingsworth (2002) model

a conception of teaching as a dynamic relationship with students and with other teachers where there is uncertainty and ambiguity in changing teaching practice,

room for reflection in order to understand the emerging patterns of change,

a sense of purpose that fosters the desire to change,

a community to share experiences,

opportunities for action to test what works or does not work in classrooms,

conceptual inputs to extend knowledge and experience,

feedback from students in response to ideas being tried, and

sufficient time to adjust to the changes made.

Professional Learning System (Hoban 2002)

We conceptualise teacher learning as a complex combination of:

the individual teacher’s knowledge growth,

the professional teacher practicing in a particular setting and

the social teacher working collaboratively with others in that setting.

Teacher learning

Distributed LeadershipSpillane 2006 – a framework for thinking about and

analysing leadership:

Routines – what routines contribute to leadership practice? Tools – what tools are used to shape practice?

Who takes responsibility for leadership work?

How are these responsibilities arranged? (co-performance, parallel performance)

How do these arrangements come to pass? (design/default)

How do individuals get constructed as influential leaders? 11

Research Questions

How does argumentation become embedded within the practice of school science departments?

What role does leadership play in how such practice is initiated and sustained?

12

A collaborative partnership between researchers and teachers working in four school science departments for a period of two years (inner city/suburban). Making changes in whole science departments requires leadership and collaboration.

Two lead teachers, attended 5 workshops, one every three months. Reflective meetings with colleagues in school to discuss argumentation activities, strategies for discussion, classroom experiences.

Case study using multiple data sources.

Research Design

Data sources

Recorded interviews with 8 lead teachers (3 each)

Filmed observations of 8 lead teachers (4-6 each)

Filmed observations of others (6 per school)

Notes/recordings of teacher reflective meetings (3-5)

Notes/recordings at workshop meetings (5)

School log – a researcher narrative of development

School

Dept-ment size

Leadership

Involvement

Refl. Meet

A 18 Year 1: two junior staff with experience of arg.Year 2: One junior teacher,New 11-14 co-ordinator

4 leaders3 engaged5 involved7 less visible, 1 uninvolved

3

School A

Teacher Leaders: School AHead of Science has ‘open’ leadership style where

he is keen for others to lead projects.TTL integrated with other initiatives. Lead by design and default.

TTL was written into Department plans. Resources were placed on a shared drive, activities written into schemes of work (routines and tools)

The first teacher leaders were pleased to find people engaged (co-operative). Two new lead teachers were enthusiastic and had an informal style (parallel), one engaged with others via informal networks.

Limited evidence of regular routines.16

School

Department size

Leader-ship

Involvement

Refl. Meet

B 15 – split site

14-16 junior teacher

11-14 mature teacher

leader and one other

11-14 leader3 involved2 interested2 passive

3

School B

Teacher Leaders: School BTeacher Leaders: School B

Lead teachers (by design) planned activities and Lead teachers (by design) planned activities and included these activities in the school included these activities in the school curriculum plan (routines and tools).curriculum plan (routines and tools).

They modeled the teaching of argument, They modeled the teaching of argument, discussed group work strategies such as discussed group work strategies such as listening triads and envoys, and negotiated listening triads and envoys, and negotiated targets with all teachers to try some activities targets with all teachers to try some activities before the first reflective meeting. (co-operative before the first reflective meeting. (co-operative and parallel – due to the situation)and parallel – due to the situation)

They themselves taught the activities first. All They themselves taught the activities first. All other teachers then planned to use the activities other teachers then planned to use the activities as appropriate to the age groups they taught. as appropriate to the age groups they taught.

Routines did not really become establishedRoutines did not really become established

School

Department size

Leader-ship

Involvement

Refl. Meet

C 13 Head of Science

Second in Dept

2 leaders2 co-leaders4 involved4 less involved

4

School C

Teacher Leaders: school C

Two leaders were Head of Science and second in department. Two other ‘leaders’ co-opted in, an Advanced Skills Teacher and an enthusiastic early career teacher (by design)

These four adopted/developed resources and shared with each other and more widely once taught (co-operative), then written into Scheme of Work (routines and tools).

Change of Head, changing priorities, loss of PD time, competing initiatives, pressure for results (change of situation). Routines altered.

20

School

Deptment size

Leader-ship

Involvement

Refl. Meet

D 6 Head of Science

14-16 co-ordinator

2 leaders

2 involved

2 less involved

7

School D

Teacher Leaders: School D

Head of Science and 11-14 co-ordinator (by design, co-operative and parallel)

Activities written into all SoW from the beginning, with resources (routines and tools).

Reflective meetings timetabled in regularly, less frequent when Head of Science left (routines were altered).

Though lead teachers keen, others in department had low feelings of ownership (leadership not distributed).

22

Results summary

Key issues for sustainability were:

enthusiastic and distributed leadership;

department scheme of work and development plan with resources and activities for all to use;

lead teachers modelling argumentation activities and sharing practice with colleagues;

peer observation and informal networking;

integrating argumentation with other initiatives and wider school policy.

23

Leadership (co-operative/parallel, design/default) influences who engages and how they engage

Inserting activities into Schemes of Work is important for wider engagement and sustaining practice (tools)

Formal reflective meetings were difficult to arrange, varied in terms of critical analysis, but did provide opportunities for wider engagement (routines)

Informal networks had an impact but were difficult to evaluate as part of the research (contribution of followers)

Conclusions TTL