Educational Research Apprenticeship – Science Student Teachers Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice

Author(s):

Kari Sormunen(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2012

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 03 C, Parallel Paper Session

Parallel Paper Session

Time:

2012-09-18

17:15-18:45

Room:

ESI 1 - Aula 36

Chair:

Gerry Czerniawski

Contribution

Teacher education has been said to be research-based, but do we give any authentic possibilities for subject teacher students to experience what the nature of educational research actually is? This question arises from the dilemma that teacher education is often criticized for being too theoretical and separated from practice (Kagan, 1992). Student teachers are likely to perceive a disconnection between the learning of educational theories at the university and their teaching practice experiences. They are largely unsupported in their attempts to make sense of their own or others students’ practice with respect to the theories presented in university coursework. (Luehmann 2007.) Pre-service teacher education is the very place where the research-practice gap is supposed to be bridged: ideally, teacher educators work with student teachers to help them understand how the research base can be used to support practice (Clough et al. 2009). The challenge especially concerns subject student teachers. They usually come from so called subject faculties to the faculty of education, in order to pursue their pedagogical studies which include, e.g., subject didactics and teaching practice. For instance, science student teachers might have – at least implicitly – been informed of the nature of science, but how could these students achieve adequate experiences on educational research? Our hypotheses is that if a student teacher could have experiences through research apprenticeship (cf. Sadler et al. 2010), then there may be improvement regarding attitude and motivation towards the “teacher-as-researcher” stance (cf. Bruce et al. 2011). The purpose of this pragmatic case study was to explore what kind of experiences science student teachers gain during a 6-month research course of subject pedagogy. Ten out of 14 students decided to take part in a study project which explores so called advanced pupils’ views of the Nature of Science (NOS) in Finland; this study was related to a comparative study based on a Turkish sample (Köksal & Sormunen 2009). During the first meeting, the study project was introduced to the students. They then formed four research teams according to their research tasks: pupils’ attitudes towards science; pupils’ motivation towards science; pupils’ views of NOS; teachers’ conceptions about their pupils. In the next two meetings the teams started to draw up their research plans with the teacher educator. Then the teams translated international questionnaires, designed interview themes, gathered and analyzed data with the support of their teacher educator as well as consulting with a SPSS expert for data analysis. The teams met together once a month to discuss the project in general and possible problems. Finally, the research teams wrote a literature-based report on their sub-study and defended it before their peer opponents. Based on this attempt to bridge the gap between the nature of educational research and practice in the subject teacher program, we pose the following research question: What kind of experiences did science student teachers have when they participated in the research apprenticeship course on subject pedagogy? The results are discussed as possible new insights for improving teacher education programs.

Method

Student teachers were asked to write journals about their research project during and after the research course in winter 2009-2010, then a year later, in spring 2011, there was a delayed open-ended questionnaire in which they reviewed the whole study project. In the first essays they were asked to write about their motivation for participating on the research project, their expectations of the project, their learning experiences and reflections during certain phases of the project and the importance of the whole project in the research course. All ten students wrote 2-3 short essays and sent them to their teacher educator – i.e. the author. In the last essay, just after the course, the students wrote about the whole 6-month project; again all ten students gave 2-3 page responses. The delayed questionnaire consisted of 18 short descriptions about the phases of the project steps (e.g. “Dividing the research theme into sub-studies and formulating the research tasks”; “Presenting the sub-study and getting feedback from the peers”). At each phase the students were asked what a) similarities and b) differences they saw between their research project and “real” educational research. Seven of the students responded to this questionnaire.

Expected Outcomes

The overall result was that the students’ experiences were very positive. Findings from the content analysis of the first essays revealed that they were highly motivated in participating in the research project and that they expected to gain theoretical insights that could be transferred to teacher’s work. This was also strengthened with analyses concerning the students' expectations and experiences: they were interested in solving a big and relevant task in teams, eager to learn about “real research procedures”, also motivated about the content of the research. Their last essays informed us about learning experiences: content knowledge from literature, research skills, research as a social enterprise with its challenges and limitations as well as actual results. Analysis of the delayed questionnaire gives a strong impression that the students learned to recognize the nature of educational research and that this effect would be long-lasting. To sum up, the students greatly valued the chance to participate in the project; they saw the importance of the course as an opportunity for gaining new insights into the nature of educational research while at the same time learning about the research topic. These findings suggest applying educational research apprenticeship for bridging the theory-practice-gap in teacher education.

References

Bruce, C. D., Flynn, T. & Stagg-Peterson, S. 2011. Examining what we mean by collaboration in collaborative action research: a cross-case analysis. Educational Action Research 19, 433-452. Clough, M. P., Berg, G. A. & Olson, J. K. 2009. Promoting effective science teacher education and science teaching: A framework for teacher decision-making. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 7, 821-847. Kagan, D. M. 1992. Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research 62, 129-169. Köksal, M. & Sormunen, K. 2009. Advanced science students’ understanding on nature of science in Turkey. A paper presented in the European Science Education Research Association (E.S.E.R.A) Conference, August 31 – September 4, 2009, Istanbul, Turkey. Luehmann, A. L. 2007. Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation. Science Education, 91, 822–839. Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L. & Ponjuan, L. 2010. Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47, 235-256.

Author Information

Kari Sormunen (presenting / submitting)

University of Eastern Finland, Finland

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.