The pedagogical issues identified within the literature relate to the use of teaching pedagogies and the process of learning in science education. The literature on the subject of teaching pedagogies in science divides these pedagogies into two ideas, didactic (or deductive) pedagogies and constructivist (or inductive) pedagogies (Rocard et al., 2007). Didactic pedagogies are described as the presentation of data, ideas or concepts for memorization by students. Constructivist pedagogies relate to the development or construction of data, ideas or concepts through the study of a
subject (ibid). The issue relating to teaching pedagogies describes how, while efforts to promote constructivist pedagogies are being employed and shown to have positive results, that there is still a large cohort of teacher’s mainly employing didactic pedagogies (Harlen et al., 1995, Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007, Murphy et al., 2007, Rocard et al., 2007).
The Rocard et al. (2007) report described how the quality of primary science teaching and learning could be improved by a move to constructivist teaching pedagogies. Constructivism was detailed in Section 2.1. The Irish primary science curriculum, and the accompanying teacher guidelines, also promotes these teaching practices (DES 1999a, NCCA, 2008a). There is much literature on the positive impact of constructivist teaching methodologies (Rocard et al., 2007, Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007, Minner et al. 2010). The combination of these positives and the approach utilised by the curriculum isolated constructivist pedagogies as a primary focus of this research.
The Rocard et al. report also describes how didactic and constructivist teaching pedagogies are not mutually exclusive. In its description of constructivist teaching practices it states that there is a place for didactic practices (Rocard et al., 2007). This point therefore means that utilizing constructivist teaching practices does not mean abandoning didactic methodologies. If teachers are being evaluated and shown to still be mainly employing didactic teaching, the question must be asked as to how their teaching can be redeveloped to create the habits of mind that include constructivist pedagogies.
A teachers’ pedagogical knowledge is also informed by their views on the Nature of Science (NoS) (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998, Davis et al., 2008, Murphy et al., 2011). With the description of NoS above, it can be therefore extrapolated that the teacher’s beliefs about difficulties in science and the pedagogies that accompany it may affect the way that they teach it. Murphy et al. argue that NoS should be actively studied in science as their results suggest students who study NoS develop a view of science that makes more sense to them than excluding it (Murphy et al. 2010).
The issue of teacher relates to the amount and frequency of in-service and the setup of pre-service education. Palmer (2007) describes how primary teacher education students are a particularly notable group that propose to have low self-efficacy and confidence levels. Teacher confidence levels will be described further below.
Research has shown how teacher education has been proven to be ineffective if the education is not carefully structured between the processes of learning, the pedagogies of teaching and the investment of teacher educators (Korthagen, 2010, Labaree, 1992, Lanier and Little, 1986). The investment of teacher educators is described as the effort they place into their teaching and the concentration on the promotion of science content and pedagogical knowledge. Palmer would argue however that these two concepts are not necessarily isolated (Palmer, 2007). Recommendations in this paper describe how teacher educators should carry out activities that promote both content and pedagogy simultaneously. Positive impacts were recorded by students attending environmental tours or viewing science in popular movies. This provided students with methods to present science in interesting and innovative ways while still expanding their content knowledge on the subject (ibid). Throughout the five teacher training colleges in Ireland, pre-service teachers are receiving between twelve and forty-four total hours of education in science in their undergraduate studies (Varley et al., 2008a). The wide variance in hours alone shows how universities in Ireland do not provide equal levels of education in science. Education must therefore be supported by the inclusion of structured and maintained in-service studies for teachers as well as Continuous Professional Development (CPD).
CPD has also been found to have positive effects on teacher confidence levels (Harlen et al., 1995, Murphy et al. 2007) and the teachers’ views on the NoS (Akerson et al., 2008). The NCCA study within Ireland also recommended the use of further in- service initiatives, as well as an improvement to pre-service education (Varley et al., 2008a, 2013). Harlen argues that teachers should have a minimum of 80 hours of training for the introduction of a new subject into the curriculum (Harlen, 2004). From the in-service that was awarded to Irish school teachers only sixteen hours of the training was mandatory with the final eight hours being optional (Varley et al., 2008a). These figures are well below the time as described by Harlen, and could be attributed to Irish teachers currently having difficulties (ibid).
The idea that teacher education is a continuous process, throughout the career of the teacher is argued by Feiman-Nemser (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). This is supported by the Korthagen model which concludes that a teacher’s Gestalt, see Figure 2, is continuously developing throughout their lives (Korthagen, 2010).
How do teachers decide what to teach, how to represent it, how to question students about it and how to deal with the problems of misunderstanding?
(Shulman, 1986, p.8)
The idea of questioning how a teacher decides what and how to teach is mainly informed through teacher education and professional development. One method to challenge issues in teacher education is to give consideration to a theory of how teachers learn. Korthagen and Lagerwerf devised a three level model in order to analyse a theory on teacher learning (Korthagen and Lagerwerf, 1996). This structure is comprised of the Gestalt level, the Schema level and the Theory level.
Figure 2: The Korthagen three level model (Korthagen, 2010, p.410)
As it can be seen the Gestalt is a holistic idea, which is formed through the experience of teachers, who can recall a how they responded to previous circumstances and develop an appropriate response to new situations. The development of a teacher’s Gestalt is based on the practical experiences of a teacher and may lead to implicit actions and pedagogies being carried out by the teacher (ibid). The idea behind the development of the gestalt is the development of a logical theory of teacher learning, through experience, making implicit actions explicit (Korthagen and Lagerwerf, 1996, Korthagen, 2010). Documenting a change in Gestalt may be a difficult process, however, due to the Gestalt being a holistic idea. Education Change however, is based
on a reform of practice (Fullan, 2007). Therefore Educational Change can only be documented through a change in a teacher’s Schema, through the analysis of a network of elements and relations. This network of elements and relations will be returned to in the discussion of IBSE practices, but it becomes evident that the impact of educational reform through teacher education can be gauged through a documented change in a teacher’s Schema.