Science Fiction: Inquiries into the future of science educationGlasgow, 13-15 October 2010

Conference report

What do we mean by the future? Schools have a ‘future’ determined by the needs of pupils and the larger educational system. EU projects have a much shorter timescale and in S-TEAM, for example, the future flows from the present – we’ve started, so we’ll finish! Political timescales are also short. But there is a need for more long-term thinking about the future of science education. This is what we wanted to achieve with SF!

The Future

Riel Miller, in his opening presentation, used the term ‘heterarchy’ to denote emergent forms of social organisation, based on the ‘rhizomic’ transmission of knowledge through the web and changes in the sources of wealth creation. We should be careful to remember that all emergent forms are themselves subject to change, as the global financial order continues to experience

aftershocks from the recent crisis. But it seems likely that the manipulation of knowledge will continue to be the underlying driver of social organisation, albeit modulated by other forms of capital.

If this is the case, then science, as a distinctive way of manipulating knowledge, should be of increasing importance for 21st century school pupils. It seems the opposite is the case, at

1

least as demonstrated by the ROSE project1. The explosion of mediated knowledge, knowledge produced by the inquiry of others, has seemingly buried the desire for individual inquiry into phenomena. As the inner workings of everything enter the public domain, ‘inquiry’ may have become at once more productive and less of an exploration. Inquiry in the classroom is, however, basically about taking control of the production of knowledge.

But science fiction gives us a way out. Science fiction is not, as is often thought, fiction in which science is applied to solve problems, as in Jules Verne’s Mysterious Island. Rather, true science fiction asks “what if...?”. Inquiry is to science education what science fiction is to instruction manuals.

Similarly, ‘future’ does not mean extrapolating from current technology, nor does it necessarily mean more technology. Whilst current classrooms often have access to hundreds of times more computing power than was available twenty years ago, there is no threshold at which this becomes critical.

What if...?

The intention of the conference was to ask “what if...?” in respect of science education. Some of the emergent “what if...?” questions generated by the conference included:

What if the curriculum was modular and allowed pupils to

select for topic interest and different career paths?

What if teachers were given more time for reflective

professional development?

What if we told more stories about science in school?

1 http://roseproject.no./

What if we connected schools with real research?

What if teachers saw themselves as researchers?

The S-TEAM conference included more than 110 science educators, teachers and teacher educators from 15 countries, including representatives of EU projects ESTABLISH, FIBONACCI, PRIMAS and SCIENTIX. The main purpose of the conference was to create an agenda for the next decade in science education, specifically in teacher education for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. We are beginning to use the term STEM more frequently because it is difficult to make a meaningful separation between science, technology, engineering and the mathematics that binds them together. We do not yet have a mandate for creating a unified STEM curriculum2, but there are undoubtedly strong arguments for cutting across disciplinary boundaries in order to produce and reinforce new kinds of learning outcomes.

Why do we need an agenda, when we are constantly told that the future is unpredictable and that pupils will face entirely different challenges ten years from now? We need an agenda precisely because of this unpredictability, as something to create resilience and adaptability to new conditions. In any case, STEM education is a long-term process. A doctoral graduate entering work today might have started her education in 1988, the year Tetris first appeared, when computers in schools were Ataris or Commodores and mobile phones were the size of bricks. Without some form of resilience and adaptability derived from the educational system, most of her learning between then and now might have been wasted. The system, however, adapted and coped with technological change.

2 see e.g. http://www.gla.ac.uk/stem/2

The pre-school scientists of 2011 will be looking for work in 2034. The STEM education agenda needs to adapt and change with them, in order that these future scientists can themselves adapt to whatever comes up next. For example, as inquiry-based methods become more widespread, there is a need for increased recognition of the skills developed by inquiry, such as problem solving, peer-discussion, communication, collaboration, critical thinking, creativity and innovation. These skills require new assessment methods, many of which depend on teachers’ judgements about pupils and actions.

No single conference or event can bring together all the key players or represent all the interests and stakeholders involved in STEM education. Indeed, it is not useful for there to be a single-track approach to science or STEM education, which is necessarily messy, complex and unpredictable in its effects. In order to produce innovators and creators, there needs to be innovative and creative STEM education.

Inquiry-based science teaching (IBST)

Inquiry-based science teaching is not new. It has been around in schools since the 1960s, and has regularly featured in moves to reform science teaching. Policymakers have talked up the benefits of inquiry but have failed to support its widespread adoption through new methods of assessment and more flexible curricula. They have also failed to provide for the necessary

professional development activity, needed to enable teachers to make the most of inquiry-based methods.

Equally, IBST is welcomed by the science teaching community, but there are constraints on its effectiveness. Curriculum and assessment methods should be fully integrated with inquiry-based teaching. A further constraint is time. Curricula could be simplified, or time for STEM teaching might be increased. We know from S-TEAM partners that in some instances, teaching time for science is actually being reduced. This is counterproductive.

The role of mathematics is crucial, and there should be more collaboration between mathematics and science educators, both in the adoption of inquiry, and in ensuring that science pupils are

not held back by inadequate maths. This also highlights the need for more inter-disciplinary collaboration generally.

Pursuing the vision of Innovation Union.The rationale for both increased scientific literacy and more career scientists is based on an underlying assumption that science, innovation and socio-economic progress are

connected into a system. It is not clear, however, what part national education systems play in stimulating innovation. Innovations are not just new industrial products, but are consensual movements involving new technology or new ways of doing things. A successful current technology such as SMS messaging is an example of an innovation ‘afforded’ by a technology but established by social demand. Equally, many industrial innovations fail to capture the public imagination and are therefore unsuccessful.

Inquiry is what drives the scientific endeavor and is a process of discovery. It begins with the formation of questions that are testable, scientific investigations allow scientists to collect evidence, explanations are made based on the evidence and finally results are communicated to peers. (Doris Jorde Presentation)

3

InnovativityThe role of innovation within science education is threefold. Firstly, there are innovative teaching methods or pedagogies. Secondly, there are tools such as SmartBoards and VLEs (Virtual Learning Environments), which are not pedagogically innovative but which may enable new forms of pedagogy. Thirdly, innovation (or ‘innovativeness’, ‘innovativity’) can be an output from science education, as a state of mind to be encouraged in pupils by teachers.

The paradox – scientific literacy for all or scientific careers for a few?A rigorous pathway is needed for pupils going into higher education and STEM careers, without excluding others from basic science education. The answer, according to Professor

Robin Millar, is careful curriculum design, involving modularity and flexibility, and the removal of barriers caused by early exclusion from the science track. In his presentation, Robin Millar provided the example of the Twenty First Century Science project. In this new curriculum3, two courses are offered,

depending on interests. A special course is available for pupils who would like science careers, whilst the other focuses on science literacy. The core course aimed at science literacy focuses on popular topics e.g medical trials, risk, ideas about science, and provides more time to discuss issues. It is worth noting that teachers needed at least two years to become familiar with the new curriculum.

3 See http://www.21stcenturyscience.org/

The primary goal of science education should not just be to train those pupils who end up having a career in science, but to provide pupils with the main ideas and definitions of science and scientific thinking. Subsequent curriculum choices can accommodate both those who wish to pursue scientific careers and those who don’t, and there should be no need to compromise on this. Parents need to be kept informed about pupil choices, and these choices should not always be driven by teachers. Although it is generally acknowledged that interest in science should be developed from an early age, there are strong arguments for enabling late starters to enter the science track. Adult education and lifelong learning should be part of the science education system, to a much greater extent than is currently the case.

The role of assessmentOne of the central conclusions of the conference was that assessment is no less essential to the reform of science education than pedagogy or curriculum. Assessment shows pupils what is expected of them, and should recognise the special skills that they develop when using inquiry-based methods. Current forms of assessment are normative and frequently open to question in the light of linguistic considerations or new developments in scientific knowledge. Our colleagues at Université de Haute Bretagne Rennes 2 have done extensive work on the problem of assessment in relation to the PISA survey items. It is clear that language and terminology need to be carefully explained and discussed with students to bring them into the world of science4.

Assessment can include assessments made on the basis of teacher judgements as outlined in the APP (Assessment of Pupil

4 see S-TEAM deliverable 8.4

Progress) guidelines in England5. The question of evaluation in teaching seems to be under-explored, especially in relation to the introduction of IBST. The open nature of

inquiry suggests the possibility of different forms of assessment such as group and self-assessment, project work and portfolios, since the qualities and skills that are promoted by inquiry are inherently fluid and related to self-concept, identity and sociality as much as to scientific knowledge itself. Fewer high-stakes exams and better integration with teaching and learning at university level would also help pupils. As Eilish McLoughlin pointed out, exploring the criteria teachers use to design and evaluate inquiry teaching and learning is a fruitful area for future research.

Emotional engagement with science

Jarl Bengtsson made the point that facts and emotions can be connected through reflection and debate. Students need to debate scientific issues in order to embed them in consciousness and to take a stance towards them. On the other hand, it is also necessary to introduce scientific rigour into students’ experience of science. This creates tension between the inward looking, ‘scientific thinking’ model and the outward facing ‘social thinking’ model of science. Ethical and social perspectives should be embedded within the scientific thinking

5 see: http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/263985

model, and scientific rigour within social thinking. We need to ask what science is for, and to build bridges between science and philosophy, as our partners at University of Southern Bohemia are doing with the P4CM materials.

Emotion is inseparable from ‘engagement’, and brain research is beginning to help us understand the connections between cognitive and emotional development. These connections are developed in the processes of argumentation and can be supported by bringing discoveries from ‘frontier science’ into the classroom, to change its boundaries. At the same time, there are problems with boredom and discipline in the science classroom, as elsewhere. As we have found in S-TEAM, engagement is frequently fuelled by recognition of pupils as scientists in their own right, even as early as the first year of primary school. Engagement, when combined with sufficient autonomy, leads to creativity.

Teacher Professional Development

The conference agreed that existing European Teacher Professional Development (TPD) systems are inadequate, and do not provide skills and confidence for delivering effective IBST. Although the majority of teachers can do good inquiry-based work, they need time and space to reflect on their practices. This should be based on continuing processes, rather than one-off interventions. The conference supported the creation of a European framework for TPD qualifications in STEM, which would provide a vehicle for long-term continuity. STEM education requires long-term investment. Whilst the future is unpredictable, conditions can be created for flexibility and resilience in the face of new challenges. Secondly, European collaboration is useful because national players are constrained

5

by local, short-term factors. Knowledge has evolved from EU projects, but it is not used sustainably.

If there are countries with many different methods of teaching science, how do we change that?There is no need to standardise on one method for teaching science. Inquiry is only part of the answer, and the diversity of approaches exemplified by S-TEAM shows that we can add to teachers’ repertoires of action in a variety of situations. There is a tendency for teachers to teach in the same way they were taught themselves, which can only be changed by new and better practices in teacher education. Teachers and teacher educators need to be interesting.

The role of teachers in relation to researchTwo issues surfaced in relation to research. Firstly, we discussed the application of academic research to science teaching in the classroom, and secondly, we examined the role of teachers in conducting their own research. There was a feeling that teachers and researchers need to pay more attention to ways of working together. Teachers are not trained as researchers, but on the other hand are in a unique position to gather information about what is happening in the classroom, but they need good questions to start good research. Researchers can help to create ‘reflective research’, which is not just about measurement, but also about the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of classroom activity and learning outcomes. Teachers are constantly evaluating this activity, but rarely have the opportunity to systematically develop their understanding of it.

Academic research for teaching and learning needs to be more accessible. Teachers use different languages from researchers, and there must be a process of accommodation on both sides. The current system of research publication is not teacher-

friendly, and although new (mainly web-based) channels are emerging, researchers have to be active in connecting with teachers and teacher educators. Teachers have to believe in what they are doing, and this requires the support of colleagues and researchers. Local Education Authorities want more lessons taught, not more research, whilst different teachers want different things, and are interested in different areas of research. Research designs involve values as well as knowledge.

Will one central information provider ensure that the project’s effects last beyond the lifetime of the project?The advent of the Scientix portal for science education materials provides a useful common point for accessing the products of the various funded projects in the area of STEM education. The problem with Scientix is that it provides a supply but does not stimulate demand. This can only be created by national systems taking on board the lessons from the TALIS survey6 and other studies, and investing in teacher professional development, with the necessary resources, time and space for it to be effective and manageable for teachers themselves. For teachers to take part in additional (or any) professional development activities, there must be willingness on the part of politicians and funding bodies to cover the cost of either repalcement teachers or overtime for out-of-hours work.

The conference also provided an opportunity for current EU projects to get together, and an informal working group (ProCoNet) has been formed, including the coordinators of current and upcoming projects. This group will share knowledge and experience, and will develop a common language for IBST

6 http://www.oecd.org/document/6/0,3746,en_2649_33723_47789638_1_1_1_1,00.html

6

development. We invite other STEM education projects to be represented in this group: please contact either:Katja Maass (PRIMAS)maass@ph-freiburg.de or Peter Gray (S-TEAM)graypb@gmail.com

Lessons for the end-of-project conferenceThe feature of the conference most appreciated by participants was its interactivity and the chance to have extended conversations rather than listen to lengthy presentations. On the other hand, brief input from presenters was useful in order to stimulate discussion.One big omission was that we don’t really have enough photos or good quality audio from the conference. We do have some good video, however, and this will be edited as a project output. In particular, some of the ‘talking heads’ will be useful as short clips for the new project website. Consequently, for the Santiago conference, we will arrange for the audio of presentations and (where possible) discussions to be recorded separately.

From a budgetary perspective, the conference was a success, and we kept within budget whilst being able to distribute S-TEAM memory sticks and t-shirts to all participants. The four student helpers recruited from Strathclyde were extremely helpful and we would recommend that for Santiago, it would be useful to have 6-8 student helpers. A good command of English is important for this role, especially for taking notes.

7

8

Acknowledgements:S-TEAM would like to thank:Our ‘student ambassadors’ from Strathclyde Dept of Teacher Education: Brianna Zoll, Gareth Wignall, Anthony Powell and Lindsay Gibson, for note taking and general helpfulness.The staff of the Barony for catering and securityProfessor James McNally and Mr Allan Blake from the University of Strathclyde for their overall supportVery special thanks to Ashley Jackson of the University of Strathclyde for overall organisation and incredible efficiency.The Lord Provost and City of Glasgow for hosting our reception in the City Chambers.Our guest speakers: Dr Riel Miller, Professor Robin Millar, Professor Jarl Bengtsson, Professor Doris Jorde, Dr Eilish McLaughlin, Dr Agueda Gras-VelazquezAnd of course all our partners and guests for making the conference happen.

9