This chapter sought to isolate the ‘Teacher Factors’ which would under-pin the design of a CPD package to improve provision of science at primary level. I have attempted to profile the respondents in terms of their confidence teaching science, their educational background in the area of science, their attitudes towards science and their commitment to the teaching of science at primary level.
The individual respondents were predominantly female, and were more likely to be over the age of 40 with an average of 17 years’ teaching experience. This reflects the international situation for the year 2007 as indicated by the OECD publication
155 principals, half of whom were male, which accounts for an over-representation of males in the overall survey. In spite of the over-representation of principals and therefore males, it is felt by reference to the available statistics from the DES (2007) that all roles, genders and school types were reasonably well represented in the NNA survey.
All class levels were represented, however the single largest class type was that described as ‘Mixed Seniors’. This describes the situation where one teacher has responsibility for one class which contains within it multiple class levels from 4th to 6th class. The high incidence of this type of class within the data reflects the large number of respondents who were Teaching Principals (35.6%). Urban and rural schools were fairly equally represented and the average school size was 11 (i.e. the number of teaching staff in the school). Most of the schools fell into the category of less than 20 staff members.
In relation to attitudes to science, the data indicates that while teachers almost unanimously believe science should be taught in primary schools, a large percentage (38%), are not using the allotted time for science per week. This may be accounted for by the fact that there are indications that teachers are less confident teaching science than other subjects. While it might be expected that teachers would be more confident teaching the core subjects of Irish, English and maths it would be hoped that a similar confidence would be displayed for all component subjects of SESE (Social, Environmental and Science Education). This however is not the case, with science lagging behind history and geography.
In terms of scientific background it would appear that the majority of respondents have completed science to Junior Certificate level and most have also taken at least one science subject to Leaving Certificate level. There is still a trend for the majority
156 (52%) to take biology. Of those taking a science subject to Leaving Certificate level, 30% had taken chemistry and 18% physics. This represents an increase in the uptake of the non-biological sciences since my 1989 survey (Mulcahy, 1989) and is in line with international data about the increase of females taking up the physical sciences as discussed in section 5.2.1 (DES 2007, p.4; Kelly, 1985, Keller, 1985, Ivinson and Murphy, 2007).
While there is an increase in the numbers taking science to Junior Certificate level among the youngest age group (20-30 years) due to the mandatory nature of such participation in most schools, this has not translated into an increase in the numbers
choosing to pursue science subjects to Leaving Certificate level. In fact the youngest
age group were the only age category in which nobody had taken all three science subjects to Leaving Certificate level. The data suggest that teachers were less than satisfied with the preparation received in their respective Colleges of Education to teach science. The non-standardised allocation of time to science in the Colleges of Education, verified by Varley et al. (2008(a)) and discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.3 reflects the absence of a national policy on the teaching of science in Colleges of Education.
A majority of the respondents attended the DES in-service courses provided prior to the introduction of the 1999 Science curriculum. Teachers expressed satisfaction with these but qualified this expressed satisfaction by saying more follow-up and support was required. The majority of respondents accept that science has a place on the primary curriculum. Considering the lower levels of confidence teaching science than other subjects, it is surprising that 51% of all respondents did not attend any form of science in-service training since the introduction of the science curriculum in 2003. This is disappointing because 70% of respondents expressed the need for more
157 CPD in the area of science. Both genders were aware of such need (68% of all males and 71% of all females).
Why did teachers not access science CPD if they felt it was needed? Is it the case that CPD was unavailable, inaccessible or unsuitable? Or is it that the 54% who were found to be lukewarm in their attitudes towards science (See Table 5.25) did not feel strongly enough about the relevance of science to seek out CPD which meets their needs?
While the quantitative data indicate that a model of CPD needs to address teacher- knowledge, methodology and attitudes towards science, such information is of limited value if teachers choose not to participate. Chapter 6 seeks to extract from the data the types of professional development activities valued by Irish teachers. It also seeks to identify those constraints which prevent teachers from engaging in CPD.
158
CHAPTER 6
TEACHER FACTORS - CPD PRIORITIES OF IRISH PRIMARY