DATA ANALYSIS REPORT

S-TEAM Work Package 6

Jyväskylä University – JYU

Ilkka Ratinen, Sami Lehesvuori, Jouni Viiri

Results

In our case we collected the different types of data: Students’ preconceptions, Students’ interviews,

Students’ observation report and Students’ study project report, which are the results presented in more

detail.

Students’ preconceptions

At the beginning of the course student teachers wrote informally about how they think science should

be taught. 28 reports were thematically analysed. The data-driven analysis was guided by questions

such as: What kind of preconceptions do student teachers have about science teaching, and how can

inquiry-based learning and dialogic teaching be seen from the reports. First themes that emerged were

identified and then some characteristics for good science teaching not emerged from data were also

composed.

In the first phase of the data analysis relevant themes concerning the study objectives were identified.

Then these comments were described by key words. Formation of key words included interpreting the

content of the comment, thus interpretations were carefully discussed with several researchers. For in-

stance, if student teacher talks only about experiments, but not about taking account of pupils’ precon-

ceptions, pupils as an active participant or problem-based learning, the key word was considered to be

experimentation rather than inquiry-based learning. In other words we tried to establish the appropriate

context for the emerged theme.

Three main categories were created from the key words: Teaching methods (51%) (Table 1), pedagogy

(37%) (Table 2) and communication (12%) (Table3). Key words were fitted as properly as possible

once again applying the researcher triangulation (Cohen & Manion, 1989) in order to establish validity

in our judgements.

As results revealed, the students' preconceptions from the teaching of the science concentrated on the

teaching methods. The preconceptions indicated that everyday information does not direct for the in-

quiry based science teaching. According to students' preconceptions science teaching should contain

outdoor teaching (54%), researching as lab work (50% ), practical work (43%), illustrating (43%), in-

quiry (36%) and discussion (21%). Those seem like the traditional authoritative science teaching and

do not contain an idea of modelling scientific study process.

Table 1. Teaching methods-category

TEACHING METHODS –CATEGORY KEY WORDSOutdoor education 15Researching 14Examples 12Inquiring 10Project work 8Experiences 6Integration to other subjects 5Observation by different senses 4Textbooks 2Activities 2Comparing 2Examples of science research 1Causality 1Textbook based introduction of class 1Total 83

The students' pedagogic way of thinking concentrated to pay attention to the pupils' own experiences

and for the dealing practically phenomena. Even though the students have studied the pedagogics be-

fore the science course, the pedagogic thinking was reflected fairly little in preconceptions. The utilis-

ing of the pupil's own experiences reflects students’ ability to pedagogic thinking but otherwise the

preconceptions reflected ideas of teaching which the students have experienced as in their school days.

The second biggest (36%) category was pedagogy. This includes topics that are related to teachers’

intentional instructional decision making. These are for example: use of different teaching methods,

taking account different learning and learners and taking advance of educational understandings

TABLE 2. Pedagogy-category

Pedagogic-category Key words

Practical applications 12

Pupils’ pre-experiences 8

Pupil centeredness 6

Problem-based learning 4

Teacher attitudes 4

Pupils thinking/understanding 4

Variety in teaching methods 3

Pupils as active participants 3

Learning styles 3

Inquiry-based learning 3

Critical approach 2

Content knowledge 2

Becoming aware of 2

Teacher oriented 2

Integration within science topics 1

Clarification of concepts 1

Total 60

Key words related to communication formed the smallest category (12%). Two key words can be seen

dominating in this category: Conversation (6 times) and group work (5 times).

TABLE 3. Communication-category

Communication-category Key words

Conversation 6

Group work 5

Presentations 2

Teacher as a tutor 2

Collaborative learning 2

Teacher led introductions 1

Peer to peer interaction 1

Participatory learning 1

Total 20

Students’ interviews

Individual interviews obtained students’ ideas about science teaching at the mid-point of the science

course. The data of individual interviews were analysed by data based qualitative analysis. The stu-

dents’ ideas of inquiry-based teaching and dialogic teaching were gathered and students’ options were

evaluated by the principles of inquiry based dialogic science teaching (Minner, Levy & Century, 2010).

The data of the final individual interviews were analysed by theory-based qualitative analysis. In this

analysis students’ ideas were divided into concept categories which were evaluated by the principles of

inquiry based dialogic science teaching (Minner, Levy & Century, 2010) and the objectives of the sci-

ence course they have taken part in.

At the end of the course the students understood the principles of the dialogic teaching moderately well

but in the learning as a process there were some shortcomings. The problem based science teaching and

the study planning were the biggest mental shortcomings in the students' ideas. On the basis of the re-

sults one can say that in the education of the science the process of inquiry based learning should be

emphasized and the students should be directed to the problem based way of thinking. The significance

of the conceptual change should be emphasized in education and also sharpens the significance of the

variation of the authoritativeness and dialogic interaction to the novice teachers.

Students’ observation report

The concept of ‘a communicative approach’ (Mortimer & Sott, 2003) was introduced by Sami Lehes-

vuori to student teachers in the early phase of the training package. Student teachers were introduced

with video excerpts including different communicative approaches. Clips were first discussed without

pre-knowledge about the communicative approach. After the concept was introduced, video-clips were

discussed again and differences were shed light in terms of communicative approach. In the end of the

introductory lessons, student teachers were directed to observe science lessons. Student teachers were

asked to fill an observation form and to conduct a few page informal reports about their observations.

Observation forms revealed that majority of the student teachers were able to follow the communica-

tive approaches during the lessons they observed although they found it challenging in the beginning.

At the same time student teachers observation forms and reports confirmed the presumption that dia-

logic approach is uncommon in typical science teaching. Besides of few exceptions, only authoritative

approaches were implemented during the observed lessons.

The findings suggest that the categorisation of teacher talk could be trained even more from videos

before real-class observations, although the majority was able to fill the observation forms properly.

Since dialogic teaching is so untypical, more examples of ‘dialogic’ video clips and transcribed epi-

sodes should be provided to student teachers (and teachers) when introducing the different aspects of

teacher talk.

Students’ study project report

Students wrote the study project report, which included every phase of the study project: Analysis of

the content structure, Study of pupils’ conceptions and the construction of instruction. In the study pro-

ject concept mapping (see figure 1) was a technique which paves the way to represent students’ know-

ledge about the elements of the greenhouse effect and the interdependency between these elements

schematically.

FIGURE 1. The example of concept map which illustrates student’s ideas about good science teaching

in the primary school.

The study project was evaluated by content analysis when it was observed how students’ scientific

thinking was developed during the science course. Furthermore, it was evaluated how students’ pedago-

gical content knowledge were developed during the course and how that knowledge affected students’

skills to plan lesson about the greenhouse effect or global warming. Primary student-teachers’ concep-

tualization of the greenhouse effect was quite inadequate but some concept categories were con-

structed. Firstly, students did not have a good understanding of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect

caused by greenhouse gases. Secondly, Students incorrectly relate the greenhouse effect to ozone layer

depletion and their misconceptions are related to lack of scientific knowledge. Thirdly, students’ did

not understand the debate in society related to climate warming and to make decisions based on sci-

ence.

Based on the students' reports one can state that the students were able to develop their science thinking

and their ideas about the nature of science and their competence to draw up inquiry based science les-

sons. However, reports also indicated that students’ still had some misconceptions related to the green-

house effect and social consequence of it.

Overviews of the learning profiles

As the data was collected in several phases (beginning, middle, and end) during the course, learning

profiles related to inquiry-based learning and dialogic teaching could be composed and illustrated. Cri-

teria for evaluating inquiry-based learning and dialogic teaching were generated (tables 4 & 5) and

used in multi-data analysis. Examples of learning profiles (figures 2 & 3) suggest that students per-

ceived concepts at different levels during the course. Whereas Anniina’s figure indicates positive im-

pact on the conceptual development, Anu’s learning profile indicates also development but not as pro-

gressively.

TABLE 4. Evaluation criteria for creating the learning profiles in inquiry-based learningEvaluation criteria for inquiry-based learning

0. Student teacher does not mention anything related to inquiry-based learning, inquiry, or experi-ments

1. Student teacher has no understanding about the process of inquiry-based learning or concepts related to it, but some of the concepts have been mentioned

2. Considering preconceptions as a basis for teaching, but the understanding is insufficient.

3. Problem-based learning is mentioned. The role of the preconceptions is understood (for both pu-pils and teacher). The process of inquiry-based learning is generally clear, hypotheses are not brought up. Conceptions about the end of the process are however insufficient. Inquiry-based learning is understood as a teaching method rather than framework.

4. Process initiates as problem-based, and after mapping the preconceptions of pupils, proceeds to planning phase in which preliminary hypotheses are discussed. Execution of the inquiry is clear, but the collection of the results might be still insufficient. Inquiry based learning is adopted as frame-work that could be implemented in various ways.

5. Problem-based learning, taking account of preconceptions, planning and creation of hypotheses, execution of the inquiry, and coherent creation of models with arguments are considered. Different aspects of communication can be identified within the process. Inquiry-based learning is understood as flexible framework and applications are also understood. Understands conceptual change and its’ terms.

TABLE 5. Evaluation criteria for creating the learning profiles in dialogic teachingEvaluation criteria for dialogic teaching

0. Student teacher does not mention any topics related to communication.

1. Student teacher has no understanding about the nature of dialogic talk rather student prefers it to general conversation.

2. Collectivity, interaction, support, cumulativity, and intentionality are considered to some extent. Two out of five are mentioned. Notions about the opening phase of the teaching.

3. Collectivity, interaction, support, cumulativity, and intentionality are present. Four out of five are mentioned. The opening phase of the teaching is mentioned.

4. Collectivity, interaction, support, cumulativity, and intentionality are all present. Opening phase of the teaching is present but only some notions about the closing phase. Authoritativity of the interac-tion is not present in conceptions. Dialogicality is partly integrated to inquiry-based learning.

5. Collectivity, interaction, support, cumulativity, and intentionality are present in conceptions. Both opening up and closing down phase are present in conceptions. Both dialogic and authoritative as-pects are present in the student’s conceptions. Dialogicality is integrated in the inquiry-based lear-ning process.

Pre-concep

tions

Conceptions in

the m

id-course

Conceptions in

the e

nd012345

Inquiry-based learningDialogic teaching

FIGURE 2. Anniina’s conceptual development from preconceptions to the conceptions in the end of the

course. Y-axis’ values describe levels of inquiry based learning and dialogic teaching.

Pre-concep

tions

Conceptions in

the m

id-course

Conceptions in

the e

nd012345

Inquiry-based learningDialogic teaching

FIGURE3. Anu’s conceptual development from preconceptions to the conceptions in the end of the

course. Y-axis’ values describe levels of inquiry based learning and dialogic teaching.

How does the data shape the design of the professional development program (training module)?

Data from students’ preconceptions and students’ interviews have been used in the evaluation of stu-

dents’ initial professional development. Furthermore students’ study project reports indicated how

“novice teacher” has developed their skills and knowledge during science course. Data suggest also

that for instance dialogic teaching related concepts like communicative approach should be explicitly

brought up (video- and transcribed-excerpts), and practised in order to make the connection between

theory and practice visible. This furthermore could initiate the professional development within the

field of classroom interaction.

References

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1989). Research Methods in Education. (Third ed.). London, England: Rout-ledge.

Minner, D.D., Levy, A.J. & Century, J. 2010. Inquiry-based science instruction – what is it and does it matter? Results from research synthesis from years 1984 to 2002. Journal of research in science teaching 47 (4), 474-496.

Mortimer, E.F., and Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in science classrooms. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.