Edith Cowan University Edith Cowan Institute for Education Reseach

Edith Cowan University Edith Cowan Institute for Education Reseach Engaging Aboriginal Children and their Teachers with Science Final Research Repor...
Author: Rosamond Short
2 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size
Edith Cowan University Edith Cowan Institute for Education Reseach

Engaging Aboriginal Children and their Teachers with Science

Final Research Report

Mark Hackling1, Matt Byrne1, Graeme Gower2 and Karen Anderson1

Edith Cowan Institute for Education Research1 Kurongkurl Katitjin2

August 2012

Acknowledgements This research would not have been possible without the research funding provided by Scitech and Edith Cowan University. We would like to express our deep appreciation of the support and cooperation of the Scitech presenters, and the school principals, teachers, AIEOs, students and communities associated with the Mid-West schools who participated in the research. We thank Professor Colleen Hayward for reviewing the final report and Barbara Bowra for coordinating aspects of the research and data collections. We acknowledge that some of the research instruments used in the study were based on those developed for the evaluations of the Australian Academy of Science Primary Connections program with funding from the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. We would like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the lands on which this research was conducted and pay our respects to Elders past and present.

Disclaimer The views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the views of Scitech. The authors accept responsibility for the views expressed and all errors and omissions in this report.

© 2012 Edith Cowan Institute for Education Ressearch Faculty of Education and Arts Edith Cowan University 270 Joondalup Drive Joondalup Western Australia 6027

Executive Summary Introduction Most of the rural and remote primary schools in the Mid-West education district have high (70-96%) Indigenous student enrolments and low (52-84%) school attendance rates compared with Perth schools (91-93%) in low socio-economic status suburbs (ACARA, n.d.). Low attendance rates reduce students’ educational opportunities. These Mid-West schools have relatively poor performance on national literacy and numeracy tests compared with larger schools in regional and metropolitan areas of WA. The NAPLAN (literacy and numeracy) and NAPSL (scientific literacy) tests reveal that the achievement of Indigenous students in significantly lower than that of non-Indigenous students and achievement levels decline with increased remoteness (MCEETYA, 2007). Negotiating the meaning of science concepts where there are no equivalent concepts in students’ first languages and cultures provides an additional barrier to learning science (Chigeza, 2008). Science provides opportunities for students to be engaged through hands-on activities and for intellectual engagement leading to learning. Primary students enjoy science and have positive attitudes towards science (Hackling & Prain, 2008), however, in many Australian primary schools students get little opportunity to do science because of the crowded curriculum (Angus, Olney & Ainley, 2007) and teachers’ low confidence for teaching science (Hackling, Peers & Prain, 2007). Scitech’s Aboriginal Education Program (AEP) was developed to increase interest and participation by Aboriginal Western Australians in science and technology. The AEP provides accessible and culturally relevant science programs for Aboriginal students, their teachers and Aboriginal and Islander Education Officers (AIEOs) who work with schools and Indigenous communities (Scitech, 2009). Given the high transience of teachers in these remote schools, support and training for the AIEOs who are based in the communities is particularly important for the sustainability of these interventions. The AEP is an outreach to rural and remote schools with high Indigenous enrolments and provides activities for students, professional learning workshops for teachers and AIEOs, and resources for teachers. The AEP has attracted support and funding from the Australian and WA Governments, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Woodside. It is the most significant initiative addressing the science education needs of Indigenous students in WA remote schools and has the potential to offer a model that can be implemented throughout Australia and beyond, however, there is a need to conduct research to explore the extent to which the program provides rich opportunities for engagement in schooling and learning and generate the evidence needed to refine the model and enhance its effectiveness. A preliminary study of the program’s effectiveness (Byrne, Galloway, Gower & Weissofner, 2008) revealed that the program has the potential to increase interest in science and the amount of science taught in the surveyed schools. Further research is required to investigate the impacts of the program on students’ school attendance and attitudes towards science; teachers’ confidence and i

self-efficacy for teaching science and the amount of science they teach; and to investigate opportunities for engaging learning experiences that stimulate students’ curiosity. Very little research has been conducted on the opportunities for learning created by outreach programs for Indigenous students in remote schools and their effectiveness. Given the large gap between the science achievement of Indigenous and non-Indigenous students and the importance of scientific literacy for future health and employment outcomes, research is needed to better understand how these programs increase opportunities for science learning and to maximise their effectiveness. This research contributes to the current body of knowledge in this area.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the opportunities provided by the AEP for engagement in learning and its impact on students, and the teachers and AIEOs. As the study progressed important data also emerged relating to the professional learning of the presenters themselves. As the data were analysed and interpreted drawing on relevant literature, a number of key findings were identified and used to develop the conclusions to the study.

Methods The study adopted a mixed-methods approach to gather data relating to the experience of the AEP at five remote schools. Each school was considered a case. Data were collected before, during and after the presentation of workshops to students and to the teachers at each school. Most of the student and teacher questionnaire items were rating scale items. Mean item ratings before and after workshops provided measures of the impact of the program. All of the presenters wore sensitive digital audio recorders during the workshops which enabled the classroom discourse to be recorded. These data were complemented by field notes that documented the activities and behaviours of participants in the workshops. Interviews with teachers and AIEOs and focus group discussions with students provided rich data regarding the impact of the program on these key participants. Daily debriefing sessions of the presenters performed by the researchers also generated valuable audio recordings that provided insights into the professional growth of the presenters during the tour. A form of ethnographic microanalysis (Erickson, 1992) was used to analyse the transcripts from the workshop audio recordings and open coding of interview transcripts allowed themes to emerge from the data.

Conclusions The conclusions are presented here as responses to the research questions. What opportunities are provided by the AEP for engaging students in science learning and stimulating their curiosity, and how are these opportunities created? Relationship building through cultural competency; a collaborative, active and inclusive approach; and, student ownership and agency in learning ensured that students were connected with the presenter, the other children and played a key role in directing the activities which enhanced engagement (KF 5.1). Direct access to materials, the use of concise and multimodal instructions, and using low key behaviour management techniques ensured a high level of engagement through hands-on science activities (KF 5.2). A combination of an interactive-dialogic communicative ii

approach, a high proportion of open questions, scientific vocabulary building and the incorporation of gestural and sound cues for science terms generated productive classroom discourse that supported learning (KF 5.3). Actively seeking connections between the science activities and the contexts and experiences familiar to the children would facilitate transfer of learning beyond the classroom to the lives and culture of the children and their community (KF 5.4).

What impact does the AEP have on students’ interest in and understanding of science? The Scitech visit had a statistically significant impact on students’ rating of their enjoyment of science, that they learn interesting things in science, curiosity about science phenomena and their rating of science as a favourite subject (KF 3.1). The student interview data from all schools corroborated the questionnaire data indicating that the students enjoyed the workshop sessions, were enthusiastic about the presenters’ visits and were keen for the presenters to return to the school for future workshops. Students in the fifth school were also cognisant of the potential impact that Scitech could have upon their future education and employment, as well as the possibility of ‘bringing Science back to the community’ (KF 3.2). Students from all of the schools on the tour remembered the activities they had participated in and remembered the key content messages that were conveyed through the activities. There is clear evidence of students developing quite sophisticated understandings about air and air pressure. There was a notable evolution in the students’ use of process language as the tour progressed. Students in schools early in the tour mentioned very little, if any, in their interviews about the scientific process. By the fourth school of the tour, students had begun to use process words referring to prediction and experimentation. By the fifth school of the tour, students had remembered and readily used process words referring to prediction and experimentation, as well as recognising the need for safety procedures in science activities (KF 3.3). The teachers’ questionnaire ratings of the Scitech visit indicated that they believed that the visit had strong positive impacts on students’ interest in science and curiosity about science things. These observations were supported by the teacher and AIEO interview data. The teachers in all schools reported that student focus and engagement was very high during the activities, student attendance and behaviour was better than normal, and that the visit by the Scitech presenters had been beneficial for all students (KF 3.4).

What impact does the AEP have on teachers and AIEOs’ confidence and self-efficacy for teaching science and on the amount of science they teach? The teachers’ questionnaire data indicated that they had gained increased confidence for teaching science. The teachers reported in the interviews that they found the modelled lessons and the professional development provided to be highly valuable and had helped to improve their confidence to teach science. The Scitech experience exposed the teachers to a range of hands-on activities and resources, correct use of scientific language, and ideas for using spaces outside of the iii

classroom for science work. The teachers were also shown how lessons could be conducted based largely on oral language rather than relying on worksheets (KF 3.5). With many of the schools involved in the tour being staffed by a large number of fresh graduates, and the schools not being able to provide science professional learning of their own for teachers, the Scitech visit provided a much needed source of professional development (KF 3.6).

What factors enhance or constrain the effectiveness of the AEP in different schools? The success of the Scitech visits partly depended on the development of suitable activities that would be age-appropriate and would be highly engaging for the students. Greater levels of engagement were achieved in schools where the visit was of two days duration than in schools where the visit was limited to one day; and, where the students had completed the pre-visit activities sent to the school. Failure of teachers to attend and participate in the activities in some schools limited the impact of the visit on the teachers themselves (KF 2.1). In schools where the visit spanned two days, the effectiveness of the visit was significantly enhanced through increased opportunities for relationship building, reviewing and extending learning and provision of positive role models for the children (KF 4.5).

How did the experience of presenting sessions and the feedback from the researchers impact on the professional growth of the Scitech presenters? Daily professional learning conversations with the researchers supported the presenters to develop a capacity for reflection on and reconstructing their practice. This real-time coaching supported strong growth in their practice (KF 4.1). The program of activities was revised and continually shaped to meet the needs of the students based on their experience with presenting them and their reflections on their effectiveness (KF 4.2). Coherent systems of culturally appropriate behaviour management were developed based on student grouping, moving quickly into activity, the incorporation of movement and the use of low key responses for maintaining attention (KF 4.3). Ongoing monitoring of the learning demand of sessions led to tailoring the conceptual demand of sessions to the learning needs of the children and to a shift from a sole focus on conceptual understanding to a blend of concepts, process and developing students’ identity as scientists (KF 4.4).

Recommendations There is strong evidence from the data gathered in this study (KF 5.1 and 5.4), that cultural competency training enabled the presenters to work with the Aboriginal children in culturally appropriate ways, build relationships with the children and help them relate the activities to their community context. It is therefore recommended that:

iv



all Scitech presenters complete cultural competency training as preparation for tours of remote schools.

There is a long established maxim that the amount of learning is related to time on task. In schools where the visit spanned two days, the effectiveness of the visit was significantly enhanced through increased opportunities for relationship building, reviewing and extending learning and provision of positive role models for the children (KF 4.5). The AIEOs were unanimous in their view that Scitech should visit the schools more frequently (KF 3.7). There is evidence from this study that the impact of the Scitech visits will be affected by the duration and frequency of visits. It is therefore recommended that: 

Scitech visits to schools should be at least of two-days duration and the frequency of visits should be increased subject to the availability of resources.

The Scitech presenters experienced considerable professional growth as they reflected on their experiences in the schools and were provided with constructive and informed feedback about their pedagogy (KFs 4.1 and 4.2). It is therefore recommended that: 

any new presenters be in-serviced in relation to the pedagogical principles that emerged from the research in this study and be mentored by experienced presenters who have been on previous tours;



prior to a tour, the intended learning activities be piloted at Roseworth Primary School where sessions can be video recorded and feedback provided to presenters by a teacher educator and an Indigenous academic who can provide feedback on pedagogy and working in culturally appropriate ways; and



the presenters should be inducted into daily reflections on practice based on the 5Rs model.

Evidence gathered through this study indicates that visits were more effective where classes completed the pre-visit activities and the teachers attended the student workshops (KF 2.1). It is therefore recommended that: 

communication with schools prior to the visit be strengthened to ensure that the principal and teachers understand the importance and value of completing the pre-visit activities and attending the sessions with the students. It is also suggested that post-visit follow-up activities may also have benefits for extending the students’ learning and also engaging the teachers in science teaching using the models exemplified by the Scitech presenters.

v

Table of Contents Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................. i Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: The Tour ................................................................................................................................ 6 Chapter 3: Impacts on Students, Teachers and AIEOs ......................................................................... 10 Impacts on Students ......................................................................................................................... 10 Impacts on Teachers and AIEOs ........................................................................................................ 21 Chapter 4: Impact on Presenters .......................................................................................................... 28 Chapter 5: Pedagogical Principles for Engaging Aboriginal Students in Science Learning ................... 41 Vignette 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 42 Vignette 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 50 Vignette 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 58 Vignette 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 64 Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 72 References ........................................................................................................................................... 76 Appendices............................................................................................................................................ 79 Appendix 1: Initial Student Questionnaire........................................................................................ 79 Appendix 2: Final Student Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 80 Appendix 3: Initial Teacher Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 81 Appendix 4: Final Teacher Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 88

vi

Chapter 1: Introduction Context and Rationale Most of the rural and remote primary schools in the Mid-West education district have high (70-96%) Indigenous student enrolments and low (52-84%) school attendance rates compared with Perth schools (91-93%) in low socio-economic status suburbs (ACARA, n.d.). Low attendance rates reduce students’ educational opportunities. These Mid-West schools have relatively poor performance on national literacy and numeracy tests compared with larger schools in regional and metropolitan areas of WA. The NAPLAN (literacy and numeracy) and NAPSL (scientific literacy) tests reveal that the achievement of Indigenous students in significantly lower than that of non-Indigenous students and achievement levels decline with increased remoteness (MCEETYA, 2007). For example, the 2009 NAPLAN results for Year 7 students in WA indicate that only 65% of Indigenous students were above the benchmark for reading compared with 94% for non-Indigenous children (MCEETYA, 2009). The 2006 NAPSL results for Year 6 student show that only 26% of Indigenous students were at or above the proficient standard compared to 55% for non-Indigenous students (MCEETYA, 2008). Negotiating the meaning of science concepts where there are no equivalent concepts in students’ first languages and cultures provides an additional barrier to learning science (Chigeza, 2008). Poor educational outcomes are a cause of decreased employment opportunities and are also correlated with poor health, increased engagement in risky behaviours, lower life expectancy and increased likelihood of negative encounters with the justice system (Beresford & Partington, 2003; Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth Service Provision, 2009). Science provides opportunities for students to be engaged through hands-on activities and for intellectual engagement leading to learning. Primary students enjoy science and have positive attitudes towards science (Hackling & Prain, 2008), however, in many Australian primary schools students get little opportunity to do science because of the crowded curriculum (Angus, Olney & Ainley, 2007) and teachers’ low confidence for teaching science (Hackling, Peers & Prain, 2007). Scitech’s Aboriginal Education Program (AEP) was developed to increase interest and participation by Aboriginal Western Australians in science and technology. The AEP provides accessible and culturally relevant science programs for Aboriginal students, their teachers and Aboriginal and Islander Education Officers (AIEOs) who work with schools and Indigenous communities (Scitech, 2009). Given the high transience of teachers in these remote schools, support and training for the AIEOs who are based in the communities is particularly important for the sustainability of these interventions. The AEP is an outreach to rural and remote schools with high Indigenous enrolments and provides activities for students and professional learning workshops for teachers and AIEOs. The AEP also provides resources for teachers in the form of kits which provide a suite of curriculum aligned activities which include everything a teacher will need for a program of science for one term. The program utilises the Primary Connections science curriculum resources developed by the Australian Academy of Science which have been evaluated and shown to produce enhanced learning outcomes compared with other science programs implemented in Australian primary schools (Hackling & Prain, 2008). The development of Primary Connections has taken account of the learning approaches 1

required to effectively engage Indigenous students with its Indigenous perspectives pedagogical framework (Australian Academy of Science, n.d.). The AEP has attracted support and funding from the Australian and WA Governments, BHP Billiton Rio Tinto and Woodside. It is the most significant initiative addressing the science education needs of Indigenous students in WA remote schools and has the potential to offer a model that can be implemented throughout Australia and beyond, however, there is a need to conduct research to explore the extent to which the program provides rich opportunities for engagement in schooling and learning and generate the evidence needed to refine the model and enhance its effectiveness. A preliminary study of the program’s effectiveness (Byrne, Galloway, Gower & Weissofner, 2008) revealed that the program has the potential to increase interest in science and the amount of science taught in the surveyed schools. Further research is required to investigate the impacts of the program on students’ school attendance and attitudes towards science; teachers’ confidence and self-efficacy for teaching science and the amount of science they teach; and to investigate opportunities for engaging learning experiences that stimulate students’ curiosity. A new focus on analysing student-teacher interactions in primary science lessons through classroom discourse analysis (Hackling, Smith & Murcia, 2010) offers opportunities for capturing new types of data that provide insights into students’ engagement with learning and the extent to which students become curious about science activities. This form of analysis will also help identify the circumstances under which high levels of engagement are achieved. Discourse analysis also offers insights into teachers’ ability to match the form of discourse to the instructional purposes of the phases of scientific inquiry (Hackling et al., 2010). Very little research has been conducted on the opportunities for learning created by outreach programs for Indigenous students in remote schools and their effectiveness. Given the large gap between the science achievement of Indigenous and non-Indigenous students and the importance of scientific literacy for future health and employment outcomes, research is needed to better understand how these programs increase opportunities for science learning and to maximise their effectiveness. This research contributes to the current body of knowledge in this area.

Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this study was to investigate the opportunities provided by the AEP for engagement in learning and its impact on students and teachers. The impact of the resource kits was not evaluated. The study addressed the following research questions: 1. What opportunities are provided by the AEP for engaging students in science learning and stimulating their curiosity, and how are these opportunities created? 2. What impact does the AEP have on students’ interest in science? 3. What impact does the AEP have on teachers and AIEOs’ confidence and self-efficacy for teaching science and on the amount of science they teach? 4. What factors enhance or constrain the effectiveness of the AEP in different schools?

2

5. How did the experience of presenting sessions and the feedback from the researchers impact on the professional growth of the Scitech presenters?

Methods The research was conducted as a set of case studies, where each case was bounded by an Indigenous community, the school and its teachers, AIEOs and students. A cross-case analysis helped reveal local factors that enhanced or constrained the effectiveness of the AEP in different communities and schools. Case study is “the preferred strategy when “how” or “why” questions are being posed ... and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context” (Yin, 2003, p. 1).

Approach Access to and entry to the communities and schools was negotiated by an Indigenous researcher and informed consent was obtained by all participants for the collection of data. All non-Indigenous researchers involved in data collection completed cultural competencies training prior to their involvement in the research. The involvement of KK, ECU’s Centre for Indigenous Australian Education and Research ensured that the research was conducted in ways that are sensitive to the history and culture of the Indigenous Communities. The Scitech AEP visited 13 schools in the Mid-West Education District in June-July 2011. Of those 13 schools, five had a student population greater than 70 students, Indigenous enrolments of greater than 70% and school attendance rates lower than 75%. Two of those schools were selected as case study schools. In addition, three other schools with an Indigenous enrolment greater than 70% were also included as case study schools. The research was conducted in three phases: pre-visit; during the visit to the school, and post-visit. Data collections are summarised in Figure 1. The case studies were natural in the sense that the events and contexts observed were not manipulated and data gathering comprised a mix of structured (e.g., surveys) and unstructured (e.g., observations) data collections (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). All of the sessions presented to students were audio recorded. Each presenter carried a digital audio recorder with an external microphone to capture their utterances and those made by students. The sessions were also observed by two researchers who documented the events of the sessions on an observational template. These field notes provided the rich contextual information needed to interpret the audio recordings of the sessions.

Data analysis All interviews and focus group discussions with teachers, AIEOs, children and presenters were transcribed. The audio recordings of the sessions with students were reviewed in the context of the researchers’ field notes to identify quality teaching moments that generated high levels of student engagement. These sessions were transcribed verbatim. The analysis of lesson transcripts was contextualised with the observation schedule field notes and the recollections of the researchers. A 3

form of ethnographic microanalysis was performed (Erickson, 1992) which involved the team of two field researchers, a science education researcher and the research assistant reading sections of transcripts, making connections to the field notes, considering descriptions of the events provided by the field researchers and generating interpretations of these data. Themes emerging from these interpretations revealed a set of pedagogical practices that generated the high levels of engagement. Phase 1: Pre-visit The Scitech AEP team was interviewed to gather information about their plans for the school visits, communication between Scitech and the schools and their beliefs about effective practice in outreach programs.

These data helped contextualise the cases

Students completed a survey about their recent experience of science lessons in their school and an attitude scale (based on Hackling & Prain, 2008)

Students in Years 3-7 completed the survey with the assistance of an AIEO where required

Teachers and AIEOs completed a survey about science in the school, their science teaching and confidence and selfefficacy scales (based on Hackling & Prain, 2005). The teachers and AIEOs also participated in interviews about the status of science in their schools.

Researchers collected the student and teacher pre-visit data prior to the presentation of any sessions on arrival at the schools

Phase 2: During the Scitech visit to the school The researchers shadowed the Scitech team while they worked in the schools and recorded detailed field notes of all activities and interactions with members of the school community.

The Scitech team spent one or two days in each school

During the activities presented by the Scitech team with student groups, the Scitech presenters wore sensitive digital audio recorders that picked up their own talk and the students’ utterances.

Detailed field notes were recorded by the researchers on an observation schedule to contextualise the recordings of discourse.

During the workshops presented by the Scitech team to teachers and AIEOs, the Scitech presenters wore sensitive digital audio recorders that picked up their talk and teachers’ and AIEOs’ utterances.

Detailed field notes were recorded by the researchers on observation schedules to contextualise the recordings of discourse.

Phase 3: Post visit Students completed a post-visit survey and attitude scale Teachers and AIEOs completed a post-visit survey that included confidence and self-efficacy scales Following visits to all 13 schools in the Mid-West Education District, a focus group discussion was held with the Scitech AEP team to debrief on the school visits and investigate their perceptions of key factors that enhanced or 4

The student and teacher post-visit surveys contained rating scales common to those on the pre-visit surveys The focus group provided an opportunity for member checking of researchers’ preliminary data

constrained the effectiveness of the outreach activities to the case study schools.

interpretations.

Figure 1. Phases of research

Most of the student and teacher questionnaire data were collected through rating scale items. Frequency of ratings for each point on the scale and mean items ratings were calculated which permitted statistical comparisons between pre- and post-visit ratings to be made. The following chapters of the report describe the tour through the Mid-West schools and outline the data and key findings relating to the impact of the tour on the presenters, the students, teachers and AIEOs, and the pedagogical practices that generated high levels of student engagement. The report concludes with a set of conclusions and recommendations.

5

Chapter 2: The Tour Overview of the tour In June of 2011, a team of three Scitech presenters began a tour of schools in the Mid-West region of Western Australia. For the first 12 days of the tour that covered five schools, the presenters were joined by two researchers from Edith Cowan University (ECU). This report is based on data collected from the experiences and interactions at those five schools: Yidarma, Garamai, Juruma, Mungina River and Walleroo schools (pseudonyms).

Background on schools visited Yidarma School: Yidarma is a non-government community school that caters for approximately 70 students from Kindergarten to Year 10. All of the students board at the school during term time and return home during holiday breaks. Garamai School: Garamai is a government school that caters for approximately 150 students from Kindergarten to Year 12. Juruma School: Juruma is a remote government school that caters for approximately 40 students from Kindergarten to Year 12. Mungina River School: Mungina River is a remote government school that caters for approximately 15 students from Kindergarten to Year 12. Walleroo School: Walleroo is a government school that caters for approximately 150 students from Kindergarten to Year 7.

The student sessions The science theme developed with the students and teachers during the tour was Natural and Processed Materials and three different activities were developed to suit the learning needs of three groupings of students: junior; middle; and upper primary. Some activities were presented to both middle and upper primary groups. Junior primary activities: What things are made of. A number of different materials made from metal, plastic, wood, glass and fabric were used in a number of activities. A major aim of these activities was to introduce students to the characteristics of materials through classification and description, e.g., soft. hard, bendy. Other activities included finding out why certain materials are 6

more suitable for a particular outcome, e.g., wood versus drinking straw as a drum beater and rubber versus aluminium foil for use as a drum skin. Middle primary activities: Air and absorption. The key understandings developed through this subtheme and associated activities were, ‘air is everywhere’ and absorption. The air activities included the parachute game where students would raise and lower a large parachute and on a given signal, would entrap themselves underneath it. Other activities ranged from vacuum sealing items in a plastic bag by removing air, demonstrating that hot air rises by heating air in a balloon, burning a tea bag, and surface tension using cup and water. The ‘absorption’ activities included: super absorbent polymer (nappy versus towel), a sponge relay race (using different sponges), mixing substances (making a lava lamp), making slime using borax and other substances. Upper primary activities: Solids, liquids and gases. This sub-theme introduced students to the concept of molecules through the following activities: making slime using borax, making psylium slime (absorption), inflating a balloon using vinegar and bi-carb soda, making a ‘rocket’ by placing vinegar and bi-carb soda in a small canister; shaking it and placing the lid upside down on the ground, playing a molecule game to demonstrate characteristics of solids, liquids and gases and, the popular, parachute game.

Professional Development for Teachers Professional development sessions were provided to teachers in after school sessions at four schools: Yidarma; Garamai; Mungina River; and Juruma. The main focus of these sessions was to demonstrate simple science activities and ideas to teachers that can be used in the classroom. The sessions linked to Primary Connections and included the following activities: A basic introduction to chemistry, e.g., the use of scientific terminology to describe/classify natural and processed materials and to break down the myth that all chemicals are nasty and/or dangerous. Then three science activities were demonstrated and involved the participation of teachers. 1. The first activity focused on building scientific terminology among pre-primary and Year one students. Teachers were asked to observe and use different senses to classify different objects. 2. The second activity focused on further increasing the use of scientific terminology among middle primary students through the identification and classification of five mystery powders using senses, water and vinegar to identify and describe the character of each powder. 3. The third activity demonstrated a chemical change using pop corn for use with middle to upper primary students. During this activity, discussion focused on two key questions: What is a chemical reaction? How do you know when a chemical reaction has occurred? 7

Local school factors constraining or enhancing the impact of the visit There is a wide range of contextual factors in regional and remote schools that can limit or enhance the effectiveness of the Scitech program. Some of these factors impacting on this tour are described below. 1. Factors limiting the effectiveness of the visit: There was one major cultural factor which impacted significantly on the Scitech visit to Garamai. On the second day of the visit a funeral was held for a local Aboriginal community member. Attendance for pre-primary and Year one students on the first day of the visit was 21, while only seven attended on the day of the funeral. Another factor of note was the non-active participation of classroom teachers in the science activities being presented by the Scitech team. Teachers at times were observant participants and/or were engaged in other school matters or did not attend the session at all. The Scitech team believed that the teachers miss out on experiencing the ‘fun’ and ‘engagement’ of science when they don’t actively participate in the sessions. 2. Factors enhancing the visit: There were at least two factors that significantly enhanced the impact of the visit: the time spent in schools; and the engagement in science activities by students prior to the Scitech visit. A two day visit was scheduled for Garamai, Mungina River and Walleroo schools, while a one day visit was scheduled for Yidarma and Juruma schools. The second day had a noticeable effect in each of the schools allowing the Scitech team to build a good rapport with each class and positive relationships with the students which enabled them to feel more comfortable and confident in conversation with each presenter. For example, the students asked more questions and were ready to begin each activity straight away on the second day. The second day provided the opportunity for the Scitech team to revise and build on the learning outcomes and experiences of the previous day which also stimulated discussion and questions among students. A second example of enhancement came as a result of students engaging in science activities prior to the Scitech visit. These activities were sent by the Scitech team to all schools prior to the visit. Unfortunately, not all schools took up this opportunity, however, those that did commented positively to the Scitech team about the excitement demonstrated by the students. Walleroo Primary School students in particular, were noticeably very excited when Scitech arrived as they knew what the Scitech experience would be like and they were anxious to tell the presenters about the science activities that they had engaged in prior to the visit, particularly the egg and vinegar experiment which resulted in the egg shell turning soft. Participation in the pre-visit activities helped students to build essential knowledge and skills that the presenters could extend during the Scitech presentations. This was also applicable for teachers in the professional development sessions. 8

Teachers who had participated in the pre-visit activities were better prepared and had greater opportunity to engage in the professional development sessions led by the Scitech presenter.

Key Finding 2.1 The success of the Scitech visits partly depended on the development of suitable activities that would be age-appropriate and would be highly engaging for the students. Greater levels of engagement were achieved in schools where the visit was of two days duration than in schools where the visit was limited to one day; and, where the students had completed the pre-visit activities sent to the school. Failure of teachers to attend and participate in the activities in some schools limited the impact of the visit on the teachers themselves.

9

Chapter 3: Impacts on Students, Teachers and AIEOs Impacts on Students Students were surveyed prior to attending Scitech presentations and again after the presentations. The student questionnaires gathered data about the science they had studied at school and about their responses to the Scitech presentation.

Student Demographic Data Given the remoteness of the schools, most were small in population and the number of students responding to surveys ranged from 15 to 63 across the five participating schools. Table 1: Numbers of students who completed student surveys about science before and/or after the Scitech visit.

Surveys completed

No of students per school School 4

School 5

Total all schools

School 1

School 2

School 3

Pre visit survey only

3

2

10

0

18

33

Post visit survey only

5

13

0

6

23

47

Both surveys

29

28

10

9

22

98

Total students per school

37

43

20

15

63

178

In total 178 students completed surveys, however, of these, only 98 completed both pre and postvisit surveys. The data reported here are based on these 98 students.

Science at School The students were asked about the amount of science experienced at school and how much they learned from school science. The students’ responses are presented in Table 2 which shows that the majority of students reported they do “Some” science while only one quarter did “Lots” of science. Of concern is the 16% who indicated they only did a “Little bit” of science. The students were generally quite positive about how much they learned from school science with 54% indicating they learned “Lots”.

10

Table 2: Student responses to the questions “How much science do you do at school?” and “How much do you learn in science at school” asked before the Scitech visit. (n=98)

Statement

Responses (% of respondents) Lots

Some

Little bit

Mean rating (/3)a

sd

How much science do you do at school?

25

59

16

2.08

.640

How much do you learn in science at school?

54

38

8

2.46*

.648

a

mean of all responses based on a three point scale where lots =3, some =2 and little bit =1

The Scitech Visit The post-visit survey indicated a very high level of enjoyment of Scitech science and a very positive response about how much they had learned from the Scitech presentation (Table 3).

Table 3: Students’ responses to the questions about enjoyment of and learning from the Scitech visit. (n=98)

Responses (% of respondents) Statement

Lots

Some

Little bit

Mean rating (/3)a

Standard Deviation

Did you enjoy the Scitech science lesson?

91

6

2

2.89

.375

How much did you learn from the Scitech lesson?

85

13

2

2.83*

.433

a *

mean of all responses based on a three-point scale where lots =3, some =2 and little bit =1 differences are significant (P, .05 on a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test

Students enjoyed the Scitech visit and 85% said they learnt lots from the visit, compared to 54% learning lots in science at school. A Wilcoxin Signed Ranks test comparing the responses to the previsit question “How much do you learn in science at school?” to the post-visit question “How much did you learn from the Scitech lesson?” indicated that students gave a significantly higher rating for the amount learned from the Scitech presentation than from learning science at school (p < .05, two tailed). The students also rated a number of statements before and after the Scitech visit relating to enjoyment of science, curiosity about science phenomena and learning in science. The students 11

responded on a three-point scale and for each statement before and after the visit mean ratings were calculated. These data are reported in Table 4.

Table 4: Students’ ratings of statements about science, before and after the Scitech visit. (n=98)

Responses (% of respondents) Statement

Lots

Some

Mean rating (/3)a

Little bit

before

after

before

after

before

after

before

after

I enjoy learning science

77

89

15

11

7

0

2.70

2.89**

Science is fun

77

92

21

5

2

2

2.75

2.90*

I like finding out things in science

71

92

22

6

7

1

2.64

2.91**

I am bored during science

16

23

27

14

57

63

1.58

1.60

I learn interesting things in science

72

86

22

14

6

0

2.65

2.86**

a

mean of all responses based on a three-point scale where lots =3, some =2 and little bit =1 * ** significant at p

Suggest Documents