Mapping and comparing school practice in early years science and mathematics across the EU:

Results of a questionnaire survey addressed to teachers

Fani Stylianidou and Dimitris Rossis

Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece.

Presentation based on Creative Little Scientists Work Package 3: Mapping and comparative assessment of existing practice http://www.creative-little-scientists.eu

Coordinator Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece: Dr. Fani Stylianidou

Survey Processes

D2.2 Conceptual Framework

Research Questions

D3.1 List of Mapping and Comparison

Factors

D3.2 Report on

Mapping and Comparing Recorded Practices

D3.3 Report on First

Survey of School Practice

D3.4 Comparative

Report

Presentation Outline

• Research Questions

• Methodological issues and processes

• Selection of findings – Aims and objectives, Learning activities, Pedagogy, Assessment

• Issues and tensions

Research Questions

• How are the teaching, learning and assessment of science and mathematics in Early Years conceptualised by teachers? What role if any does creativity play in these?

• What approaches are used in the teaching, learning and assessment of science and mathematics in Early Years? What role if any does creativity play in these?

• What are Early Years teachers’ knowledge, skills and confidence in the teaching, learning and assessment of science and mathematics? What constitutes their relevant experiences in teacher education (ITE and CPD)?

• What are the main similarities and differences:

–across partner countries?

–between preschool and early primary school phases?

Methodological issues and processes

Research Instrument

• Questionnaire to reveal whether and how often teachers use approaches to early years science and mathematics education which have a strong potential to foster the development of creative skills in children

• 44 questions in 7 sections: Factual & 4-point Likert-type questions

Informed by previous large-scale research reports and/or international surveys, e.g.: • Teacher beliefs about creativity (Diakidoy and Kanari, 1999); • Science teaching practice in primary schools (e.g. Murphy and

Beggs, 2005); • Creativity in schools in Europe: Teacher survey (Cachia et al., 2009) • Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS): Teacher

questionnaire (OECD, 2010).

Methodological issues and processes

Data Collection

• Online Survey in 9 languages (Greek, Dutch, English, Romanian, German, French, Finnish, Portuguese and Welsh)

• Preschool and primary school teachers of 3 to 8-year olds in 13 educational systems

• 2011-12 school year

• Convenience or opportunity sampling

Methodological issues and processes

Data Analysis

Production of National Reports from the teacher survey and commentary according to common specifications.

Production of Report on First Survey of School Practice – Quantitative analysis of data gathered from all the partner

countries

– Statistical comparisons to identify similarities and differences between perceived practices in partner countries (one-way ANOVA) and between preschool and early primary school phases (independent t-test);

– Commentary in the National Reports to interpret these similarities and differences.

Conceptual Framework Strands

Dimensions linked to Curriculum Components ‘The vulnerable spider web’ van den Akker (2010)

Aims/Purpose/Priorities

Rationale or vision: Why are children learning?

Aims and Objectives: Toward which goals are children learning?

Teaching, Learning and Assessment

Learning activities: How are children learning?

Pedagogy: How is the teacher facilitating learning?

Assessment: How to measure how far children’s learning has progressed?

Methodological issues and processes

Strands and Dimensions

Findings

Total Sample

Preschool Primary school Total

Schools Teachers Schools Teachers Schools Teachers

BE(Fl) 44 51 3 3 47 54

BE(Wa) 2 2 2 3 4 5

FI 13 13 57 57 70 70

FR 23 23 23 23 46 46

GE 16 19 25 30 41 49

GR 41 56 23 40 64 96

MA 8 35 9 44 17 79

PT 21 33 33 40 54 73

RO 56 101 105 140 161 241

UK(EN) 8 8 68 68 76 76

UK(NI) 2 2 10 10 12 12

UK(Sco) 2 2 6 6 8 8

UK(WA) 2 3 3 3 5 6

238 348 367 467 605 815

Findings

Limitations

• Not ‘representative’

• Possible bias towards respondents

– familiar with ICT

– with a positive attitude towards the issues being explored in the survey

Findings

Rationale or Vision

How important are the following purposes of school SCIENCE in COMPULSORY EDUCATION (5 to 16-year-olds)?

Findings

Rationale or Vision Differences between partner countries

How important are the following purposes of school SCIENCE in COMPULSORY EDUCATION (5 to 16-year-olds)?

Findings

Aims and Objectives

How often you foster the development of the following SCIENCE learning outcomes?

Findings

Aims and Objectives Differences between partner countries

Findings

Aims and Objectives Differences between preschool

and early primary

Findings

Learning Activities

How often do you encourage children to undertake the following activities in SCIENCE?

Findings

Creativity-enabling Inquiry Activities

Which of the SCIENCE activities mentioned in question 29 do you consider as MOST LIKELY to contribute to the development of children’s CREATIVITY?

Findings

Pedagogy

How often do you do you use the following learning/teaching contexts and approaches in your SCIENCE teaching??

Findings

Pedagogy Similarities between partner countries

No difference amongst partner countries in frequency of:

• Using outdoor learning activities

• Fostering collaboration

• Encouraging different ways of recording and expressing ideas – oral, visual, digital, practical

• Fostering imagination

• Encouraging problem finding – e.g. children asking questions

• Encouraging problem solving – e.g. children solving practical tasks

• Encouraging children to try out their own ideas in investigations

Scale: 1: Never to 4: Very often Scale: 1: Never to 4: Very often

Findings

Pedagogy Differences between partner countries

Preschool staff seem to make more frequent use of:

– Open/unstructured play

– Role/Pretend play

– Drama

– Teaching science from stories

– Physical exploration of materials

– Using outdoor learning activities

Primary school staff seem to make more frequent use of:

– Fostering classroom discussion and evaluation of alternative ideas

– Relating science to everyday life

Findings

Pedagogy Differences between preschool

and early primary

Findings

Creativity-enabling Contexts

Findings

Creativity-enabling Approaches

Issues and Tensions

IBSE and CA Synergies

• Dialogue and collaboration – High in use, Low in creativity

• Motivation and affect – ‘drama’ and ‘using history to teach science’

Low in use, Low in creativity

– ‘building on children’s prior experiences’, ‘relating science to everyday life’ and ‘integrating science with other curricular areas’

High in use, Low in creativity

Issues and Tensions

IBSE and CA Synergies • Play and exploration

– ‘open/unstructured play’ and ‘role/pretend play’ High in use, high in creativity by preschool Ts – ‘physical exploration of materials’ High in use, high in creativity by all Ts – ‘using outdoor learning activities’

High in use by preschool Ts, high in creativity by primary Ts

• Problem solving and agency High in use, high in creativity by all Ts

– ‘fostering autonomy in learning’ Low in use, low in creativity by all Ts

• Questioning and curiosity – ‘encouraging children to ask questions’ and ‘fostering their imagination’

High in use, high in creativity by all Ts – ‘use of questioning by teachers’, ‘encouraging different ways of recording and expressing

ideas’ High in use, Low in creativity by all Ts

Acknowledgements

Presentation based on Work Package 3: http://www.creative-little-scientists.eu

Coordinator Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece: Dr. Fani Stylianidou

Lead partners for this Work Package

D 3.1 University of Eastern Finland, Sari Havu-Nuutinen

D 3.2 Institute of Education, Esmé Glauert and Andrew Manches

D 3.3 Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece, Fani Stulianidou, Dimitris Rossis

Contributing partners

Open University, UK: Anna Craft, Teresa Cremin, Jim Clack; Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln, UK: Ashley Compton, Jane Johnston, Alison Riley; University College Aarteveldehogesschool, Belgium: Hilde Van Houte, Kirsten Devlieger, Marike De Smet; Goethe University Frankfurt: Annette Scheersoi; University of Minho, Portugal, Manuel F.M. Costa, Paulo Varela; National Institute for Laser, Plasma and Radiation Physics: Dan Sporea, Adelina Sporea: Université de Picardie Jules Verne, France: Olga Megalakaki; University of Malta: Suzanne Gatt.

This publication/presentation reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.