 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 16, Issue 2, Article 5 (Dec., 2015) |
Before taking the course, the average score that this group (K1, K2, A1, and A2) earned was 11 out of 13 points, which showed high teacher-centered tendencies. After the courses, they all showed child-centered images, and the average score dropped dramatically to 2.8 points. The four pre-service teachers (K3, K4, A3, and A4) displayed the child-centered images (i.e., topics, teaching methods, and environments) even before taking the courses and moved more toward child-centered images and solidified them after the courses. The average scores of the images in this group were 2.1, and such scores fell slightly to 2.0 after the courses. Although the number change did not show much difference, we found that the content of the after-course images showed that they moved more toward the child-centered approach, particularly in the roles of teachers and children.
Before Taking the Courses
The following images and excerpts display the pre-service teachers’ images of science teaching before taking the course. K1, K2, A1, and A2 displayed teacher-centered images, and K3, K4, A3, and A4 showed child-centered images. Figure 1 reveals the teacher-centered views of the pre-service teachers before the course commenced.
Figure 1. Teacher-centered images and descriptions before the courseThe pre-service teachers described different activities; some of these activities were child-centered, and others were teacher centered. K1 suggested a “convection of water” activity, which is beyond the children’s levels of understanding. K2 and A1 suggested appropriate content for young children - “flowers and grains” and “mixing colors” - that are familiar to children in their daily lives. A2 was not able to specify the described activity even after the follow-up interview. The images by K1 and A2 especially show that pre-service teachers have a lack of understanding about what is an appropriate concept of science for young children. In turn, this lack of understanding results in teachers leading science activities by choosing activities beyond the children’s level of development (Cho et al., 2012).
However, with the mixed content, they all described teacher-centered teaching methods and environments. In the image by K1, the teacher explained the names and uses of those tools that she had prepared before the class. She informed the students of the rules with which to experiment, and she then demonstrated the process. Children passively listened to the teacher’s explanation and observed her demonstration. The teacher was explaining, and children were sitting and listening to the teacher’s explanation. In the image by A1, the teacher set up the experimental equipment on a table in front of the teacher, demonstrated color-mixing experiments, and explained the results. The children were instructed to come up to the front of the class, they were asked to do as the teacher did or just sit and listen to the teacher. A2’s image shows that the teacher was standing in front of the class while the children were sitting in a group at their desks, working on textbooks or a worksheet. The children were not displaying active involvement in the activities.
Interestingly, as shown in the study by Herron (2010), the pre-service teachers perceived that small-group learning is an important form of teaching for constructivist learning (Cho et al., 2012; Saunders, 1992). However, this study found that some pre-service teachers displayed children’s small-group activities in their teacher-centered images even before the class. This result implies that an important aspect of constructivism science education is not simply a matter of small-group opportunities but rather the actual learning process that occurs within the small groups. That is, science education courses should help pre-service teachers understand the importance of the process of children’s scientific inquiries in small groups for constructivist science education.
Figure 2 shows the initial child-centered images of the other four teachers’ (K3, K4, A3, and A4) views about teaching science before the course and how they maintained their views after taking the course.
Figure 2. Child-centered images and descriptions before the course
All the teachers suggested activities that are appropriate for young children’s level of understanding. The image by K3 shows that the teacher is providing an outdoor activity in which children are observing flowers and trees outside — something that is easy for them to access in their daily lives. Children are using five senses to observe, and the teacher is observing the children’s activity. Similarly, in the image of K4, the teacher is providing an indoor science activity in which children are executing an assignment using magnetics —something with which they are familiar in their everyday lives. The children are actively participating in the assignment, and the teacher is observing the children’s level of engagement. Initially, A3 and A4 did not suggest a specific activity. In the follow-up interviews, A3 identified the activity as “What is an insect?” Similarly, A4 still was not able to describe concrete content of the image she drew. All the images by these pre-service teachers depicted child-centered teaching methods, emphasizing the process in that the teachers observed children’s activities, guided them, and asked questions, while the children were solving the provided activities and discussing what they observed.
After Taking the Courses
Similar to the findings of previous studies (Go, 2013; Kang et al., 2007; Seung, Park, & Narayan, 2011), this study also shows that science education courses contributed to changing the pre-service teachers’ images of science teaching from teacher-centered to child-centered. The following images and excerpts show the pre-service teachers’ child-centered images of science teaching after taking the course. Figure 3 shows specific characteristics of the images by K1, K2, A1, and A2. Specifically, these pre-service teachers had displayed teacher-centered images before taking the courses and changed toward becoming child-centered in their teaching approach.
Figure 3. Child-centered images and descriptions after the course
Although the content of the activities that K1 and K2 suggested was different, both showed similar child-centered activities (i.e., “exploring various objects” by K1 and “stones, sand, and soil” by K2) as well as teaching methods. The teaching methods and class environments described by K1 and K2 show the teachers and children working together in the activities with the teachers observing and asking questions and the children exploring and observing.
A1 and A2 drew similar images after taking the course, which described teachers observing and helping children while children participated directly in activities. However, the images and descriptions of these two pre-service teachers also demonstrated some differences. She added an additional thought to the teachers’ roles, namely encouraging children to connect their performance to the outcomes, which was not shown in the drawing made prior to the course. The image of children made by A2 after the course was more child-centered in that the children were described as exploring more actively rather than simply working on textbooks or worksheets at their desks. However, A2 was not able to suggest a concrete topic even after a follow-up.
K3, K4, A3, and A4 showed continuation of child-centered images after the course; however, they displayed broadened views in some respects. The most important change in this group was in regard to teachers’ roles. Prior to taking the course, these pre-service teachers noted the importance of children’s active involvement in assignments rather than the teacher’s direct involvement. However, the described teachers’ roles were limited to simply asking questions or guiding activities. After participating in the course, both groups expanded their views on teachers’ roles to promote children’s scientific thinking. This is a constructivist teacher’s role, emphasizing children’s scientific thinking of connecting their performance with outcomes (Cho et al., 2012; Fosnot, 2005). Figure 4 displays their more child-centered images after taking the course.
Figure 4. Child-centered images and descriptions after the course
In the images by K3 and K4, the teachers’ roles were described as observing and watching children’s activities before taking the course, but after the course, the teachers added roles to include scientific content such as providing materials with controlled variables or encouraging children’s scientific thinking by asking them questions. The roles of children included having the children consider their own methods of approaching the materials and experimenting with such methods. The children could connect their activities to the results, whereas the roles of children described before the class were focused on playing and exploring. Prior to the course, A3 and A4 emphasized a teacher’s role as merely guiding children through the activities. However, after the course, A3 described the image depicting a teacher asking questions about children’s explorations. Likewise, A4 drew an image of the teacher guiding activities but emphasized the importance of minimizing the teacher’s intervention in the activity in order to encourage children’s active involvement in the experiments by asking questions and thinking about shapes in bridges, for example. Interestingly, the topics of A3’s activities were similar before and after the course. After the course, though, she considered the benefits of using technologies such as a microscope, laptop, and smart board for learners to experience the scientific inquiry process. This result implies that to help pre-service teachers put child-centered perspectives into practice, courses should include an opportunity for them to understand a teacher’s role for facilitating children’s scientific thinking (Go, 2013; Kang et al., 2007) and diverse up-to-date tools to help learners explore scientific inquiry.
The content of the images created by pre-service teachers in the two courses had some similar aspects but also differences. For example, after the course, all the ECSC pre-service teachers suggested different topics, all of which were familiar to children in their daily lives. Two ECSC pre-service teachers (K2 and K3) suggested familiar activities even before taking the course; their activities after the course became more constructivist. The topic presented by K3, “changes in fruits,” is not a one-time activity but does require children’s constant scientific thinking as well as the process of scientific inquiry. The pre-service teachers in the United Sates (A1, A2, and A3) showed child-centered images after taking the course; however, they did not display ideas as diverse as those in ECSC. A1 and A4 represented “building a bridge,” which they learned from a textbook and taught in the STEM class. A3 mentioned the same topic as the one mentioned prior to the course. A2 remained unable to identify specific topics even after the course occurred. These differences seem to be explained by the different content of the early childhood education courses in these two countries as shown in Table 1. ECSC consisted of only the single subject of science—to emphasize attitudes toward the process of scientific inquiry as well as specific and broader content for young children to understand such as biology, nature, or earth science. In contrast, MST comprised interdisciplinary subject areas, namely math, science, and technology. The course still focused on the process of scientific inquiry and attitudes toward science, but the content of the course limited information and provided typical topics for science education for young children such as plants, insects, pancake-making, or building bridges. This suggests that early childhood science education courses should include explanation of and information about core concepts as well as varied content that young children should learn. This will help early childhood pre-service teachers understand what to teach in addition to how to appropriately teach science for young children.
Factors to change the images. The factors that the pre-service teachers changed from teacher-centered toward child-centered ones after taking the course included: (a) changed perspectives about a teacher’s role (K1), (b) observation of teachers’ child-centered instructional practices (A2), (c) learning experiences about constructivist science learning (K3, A3), and (d) teaching experiences of constructivism-based science lessons for children (K2, A1, K4, and A4).
K1 mentioned that before taking the course, a teacher’s role was one of providing scientific information to children, but after the course, she changed her perspective to that of a teacher’s role as helping children to build their own knowledge base. She mentioned that this changed view was influenced by what she had learned from opportunities throughout the course to constantly review her own perspectives about science teaching.
Today in the class, I learned about the purpose, content, and ways for constructivism science education for young children; I think I need to change my views of teaching science. I should become a teacher who helps children learn by themselves through inquiry, not just prepares and demonstrates. (K1’s journal after the course, April 26th 2012)
Noting that the teachers’ own views about science teaching influenced the images is an important result because analyzing their own teaching activities based on their beliefs and self-constructed views about teaching is important for teachers to develop professionalism (Cho & Go, 2006b; Cho et al., 2004; Go, 2013).
The second factor that the pre-service teachers mentioned was that the course provided opportunities for in-service teachers to observe child-centered science lessons. In this context, A2 remarked the following:
I have seen teachers moving around the classroom to make sure students are on task and working together. . . . The only lesson I truly took away from this course is to make science. . . “hands-on” or to make sure the students are being active with the curriculum. (Interview with A2, after the course, June 28th 2013)
When she visited the STEM class for kindergarteners, A2 observed that children were actively involved in the activities, and the teacher observed children’s participation. The opportunities to observe teachers’ actual performance of a science activity influenced her views as they changed toward a child-centered perspective.
These experiences in the course influenced them to solidify their previous perspectives on science teaching.
In this course, I learned about various learning means based on constructivism. While applying this learning to the science project, I [was] reassured that it is important that students should take [an] active part in their own learning with interests. I also learned about [the] importance of children’s experiences to draw results through scientific thinking such as “how can I change this?” or “how this is changed?” (Interview with K3 after the course, June 25th 2013)
Similarly, A3 indicated the following:
After this course, I realized the importance of technology in the classroom. . . . I learned that there are awesome resources students can use and still be engaged and hands-on in what they are learning. (Interview with A3 after the course, February 19th, 2013)
These excerpts show that the two pre-service teachers had confirmed child-centered images after taking the course through experiences as constructivist learners, specifically performing a team project of science (K3) and learning about using technology to observe and experiment with (A3). In particular, K3 considered only children’s interests before the course; however, after the course, she included a teacher’s role to promote children’s scientific thinking based on their interests. The different views of the pre-service teachers from the two settings about influences on their images of science teaching can be explained by the different content and methods found in each course. Teachers tend to teach as they learned; their experiences as constructivist learners during their school years are important for becoming a teacher who can teach science based on constructivism (Fosnot, 2005; You et al., 2010).
To help early childhood pre-service teachers construct firm images of child-centered science education, the course should provide opportunities for them to consider their views about science education and share their perspectives with others so as to understand various points of view and to learn about science activities that are developed with a basis in constructivism. Lastly, similar to the previous study (Kang et al., 2010 & Go, 2013), the pre-service teachers (K2, A1, K4, and A4) mentioned teaching experiences of child-centered science activities as an influence on their views. K2 and A1 changed their images from teacher-centered to child centered ones. K2 mentioned as an experience to plan and perform a science activity for young children at the simulated lessons. A1 considered the building bridges activity that she performed in the STEM lab as an ideal example of how the science lesson should go because she saw that the children were genuinely interested in the activity that she prepared. They specifically indicated that the teaching experiences helped the pre-service teachers assure themselves that children are able to construct their own knowledge while they explore. This assurance of children’s abilities led them to change toward child-centered images. K2 stated, “Today, I learned that without a teacher’s explanation, children are unable to understand by themselves.” (K2’s journal after the course, June 19th 2012). A1 said:
In the activity, when I asked a question, “How can we make a bridge with newspaper?” they provided various ideas and discussed, then built a newspaper bridge. Then, I [was] assured of [the] importance of child-centered science activity that I learned in the course.” (Interview with A1 after the course, February 21st 2013).
K4 and A4, who maintained but solidified their child-centered images, also mentioned opportunities of applying constructivist theories to practice. K4 emphasized children exploring directly for the purpose of constructing for their own knowledge after taking the course. By doing so, she also mentioned that a teacher’s role was to provide materials with controlled variables:
This semester, I learned theory about the purposes, contents, and methods of early childhood science education and actually applied the theories to practice. I came to understand that children, rather than a teacher, should take a lead in activities. My drawing shows that children are playing with bubbles, which has controlled variables. (Interview with K4 after the course, June 24th 2013)
A4 mentioned the teaching experiences of a science activity (e.g., building bridges) for young children in the real classroom [STEM lab school]. Her statement regarding the influence of her teaching experience in the STEM lab school matched the researcher observations of the researcher.
Today, in the STEM lab, A4 taught the first graders “Building Bridges.” The main aspect of this activity was how to encourage the students to build strong bridges and try out their ideas with various materials, such as books…. During the discussion in class after the activities, she self-evaluated that her activity was a successful experience. (Observation at STEM class, February 15th 2013)
These excerpts indicate that A4 continued her emphasis on child-centered images after the teaching experiences of young children in the STEM class. Specifically, she evaluated her own teaching of a child-centered activity as successful. This positive teaching experience for young children helped her maintain child-centered images of science teaching.
