A training programme on managing science class interactions: Its impact on teachers' practises and on their pupils' achievement
Introduction
Most research on training deals with how training procedures are devised and evaluated. Any validation of training procedures has to include both a theoretical and an empirical dimension. Theoretical validation is achieved through discussion of the procedure and its objectives with reference to the results of previous research, and also to different theoretical frameworks in the field of teaching, learning, and adult training. Empirical validation generally consists of an evaluation of the impact training has on the teachers. But this mode of evaluation is incomplete as it does not take pupil learning into account.
We take it as a principle that the main objective of any training is to encourage pupil learning by modifying teachers' practises. Thus, three levels of validation of a training programme can be determined, depending on whether the entity evaluated is 1) teacher thinking 2) what the teacher and the pupils actually do in the classroom 3) pupil learning when their teachers have done this training.
The first level of empirical validation of training corresponds to the highlighting of the effects of training on teacher thinking, in other words, ‘on the way in which teachers conceive, know and perceive their profession, their subject, and their activity…’ (Tochon, 2000: 130). The methods generally used to measure this are based on an analysis of what the teachers say about their practises. Several of these methods can be used together. For example we can cite the questionnaire and/or interview (e.g. Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson, 2006, Désautels et al., 1993, Lavonen et al., 2004, Robardet, 1998, Van Driel et al., 2002, Viennot, 1997), the analysis of the teacher's written observations, as in a log-book or a professional dissertation (e.g. Désautels and Larochelle, 1993, Robardet, 1999), or the analysis of the changes in knowledge used by the teachers during their training (Morge, 2001a, Bitan-Frielander et al., 2004, Boilevin and Dumas-Carré, 2001, Fillon, 2001, Saint-Georges, 1998, Schavieren, 2003). The link between teacher thinking and teachers' practises is not assessed for this first level of validation. Training that does not impact teachers' actual practises, cannot impact pupil learning. For this reason, highlighting the effect of a training programme on actual practises is a higher level of validation.
The second level of validation is thus reached when the effect of teacher training on actual practises can be highlighted (e.g. Bianchini et al., 2003, Boilevin and Dumas-Carré, 2001, Fillon, 2001, Lee, 2004, Luft, 2001, Yip, 2001; BIQUA-Project1). In this instance, the method used is observation of teaching sessions. This observation may be direct, if the observer is in the classroom during the session, or indirect if the analysis is carried out by using a video or audio recording of the session. If it is taken into consideration that encouraging pupil learning is the aim of any training programme, then this second level of validation is higher than the first. For if teachers' practises are changed, then so is pupil activity, and this can affect their learning. As teacher and pupil activity are closely linked, no distinction is made on this second level between research showing a change in teachers' practises, and research showing a change in pupil activity in the classroom. But if the analysis of teacher and pupil activity makes it possible to infer that learning is affected, this is still not pinpointed.
The third and final level of empirical validation of a training programme shows what effect the training given to the teachers has on pupil learning. This last level of validation corresponds to what Guskey (2000), in his taxonomy, calls ‘student learning outcomes’. This third level is higher than the previous level if we can consider that the ultimate goal of a training programme is to encourage pupil learning through the training given to the teachers. Bibliographical research has been undertaken, but has not enabled the authors to find studies showing validation at level three in the field of science. Only the study carried out by Bartholomew, Osborne, and Ratcliffe (2004) mentions such evaluation being carried out, but the authors do not give the results of this as the analysis of the data had not been completed when the article was published.
Some other research papers outside the field of science education have focused on evaluating the effect of a teacher training programme on pupils. (e.g. Djalil and Lorin, 1989, Veenman et al., 2002). The research presented in this article concerns the second and third level of validation as it provides the results of the evaluation on how training impacts teacher's practises and pupils' performances.
Section snippets
Theoretical framework for the training programme proposed
The theoretical framework used for pupil learning is mainly socio-constructivism (Toczek et al., 2004, Bruner, 1983, Doise et al., 1978, Dumas-Carré and Weil-Barais, 1998, Perret-Clermont, 1986, Vygotski, 1934). This theory holds that, in certain conditions, collective interactions enhance a child's individual development. Amongst the conditions given for this (Doise et al., 1978), we have focussed on the following: a socio-cognitive conflict is effective if a superior subject takes part in the
Hypotheses and method
On the basis of results in social psychology, we posit that a training programme on the socio-constructivist approach to dealing with pupils' explanations in teacher-pupil interactions in science classes has a positive effect on pupil learning. This general hypothesis is built on the basis of two sub-hypotheses. The first considers that training in the socio-constructivist approach to dealing with pupils' explanations enables teachers to change their interactive practises. The second considers
Results
Two kinds of data, both qualitative and quantitative, were collected. The recordings of sessions the teachers gave the pupils are qualitative data; the pupils' achievements are quantitative data.
Conclusion
The main contribution this research makes is to identify contents in a physics teachers' training programme (how to deal with pupils' explanations during interaction) which impact the teachers' professional practises, which in turn have a proven effect on the quality of pupil learning. The study of literature to be found in the first part of this study has shown that most evaluations of training programmes focus on the teachers (levels 1 and 2) and do not generally consider level 3 (the
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the pupils, teachers, and the administrative staff involved on collecting the data for this research. We would also like to thank Judith Barnoin for her translation.
References (39)
- et al.
The impact of a research-based teacher training program on Indonesian teachers, classrooms, and students
Teaching and Teacher Education
(1989) - et al.
Cooperative learning and teacher education
Teaching & Teacher Education
(2002) - et al.
Learning as conceptual change: factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers' view of nature of science
Science Education
(2006) - et al.
Teaching students – “Ideas-about-science”: dimensions of effective practice
Science Education
(2004) - et al.
Learning to teach science in contemporary and equitable ways: the successes and struggles of first-year science teachers
Science Education
(2003) - et al.
Types of “teachers in training”: the reactions of primary school science teachers when confronted with the task of implementing an innovation
Teaching & Teacher Education
(2004) - et al.
Un modèle d'activité de résolution de problèmes de physique en formation initiale d'enseignant
ASTER
(2001) Savoir faire savoir dire
(1983)- et al.
Constructivistes au travail: propos d'étudiants et d'étudiantes sur leur idée de sciences
ASTER
(1993) - et al.
La formation à l'enseignement des sciences: le virage épistémologique
Didaskalia
(1993)