Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 3, Issue 2, Article 2 (Dec., 2002) Peter AUBUSSON and Kevin WATSON Packaging constructivist Science teaching in a curriculum resource Previous Contents Next

Bronwyn and Frank taught at the same school. They came to the project looking for new, different and innovative ways of teaching. Neither teacher had heard of constructivism at the start of the project. They found the BSCS material hard to read and implement. They found it difficult to follow the BSCS material and implement the program as it was intended. Both argued that the support materials were complicated and Bronwyn explained that the BSCS packaged sequence of activities was 'restrictive' and the project materials were 'complicated and time consuming to look through'. They chose not to use any of the BSCS resource materials, other than the textbook and the parts of the teachers guide essential to understanding the student textbook. Bronwyn and Frank found it necessary to consult with each other extensively throughout the project because the package was so difficult to use.

Bronwyn had used group work extensively in her teaching but not cooperative learning. Frank had never taught using group work, other than for practical work. After the first professional development day, he rearranged the rows of tables and chairs and put his students into groups. After the first week he said 'the group work was going well'. The students were 'looking forward to science' and 'although the class was noisy at first, the kids learnt to settle down quickly and get on with their work'. The allocation of group roles worked better than he had expected because students knew what they had to do and Frank found he could relax and 'let the kids take more responsibility for their own work'. The students said that they liked working in groups because 'you learn more because there's more than one brain'. 'It's more fun' and 'I like science more'. Frank described the learning as 'piecemeal' and considered the students were learning more about cooperative skills than they were about matter.

Frank did not consider the 'text user friendly for teachers let alone students'. After two weeks Frank gave up getting the students to read in class. Frank, like Bronwyn, considered that 'the rate of progress (compared with previous work) was slow'. He found that 'developing strategies for getting through the reading in an interesting way was taking up a lot of time'. Because the rate of work was so slow, Frank felt 'the continuity of what the kids were learning was becoming a problem'.

As time went on, Bronwyn became more efficient in getting from the project what she wanted. The problems Browyn and others in the project initially experienced decreased as they became more familiar with the BSCS resources and as a result of discussions they had with other teachers who were trialling the package. The teachers provided both general encouragement to each other and suggestions about how to use the resource. She would talk to other participants and exchange ideas and materials during and outside professional development sessions. Bronwyn was positive about affects of the BSCS package on her class. Through increased interaction with her students, Bronwyn considered she was developing 'a greater rapport with the kids in the classroom'. It was not until towards the end of the project that Bronwyn began to see the relevance of constructivism in the whole process. Early in the project Bronwyn valued the engage phase activities, particularly the discrepant events. (Discrepant events are surprising, counter intuitive and unexpected events which arouse student interest, raise questions and lead to further investigation (for an extensive discussion of discrepant events see eg, Liem, 1987). One discrepant event used was the bouncing of two seemingly identical soccer balls, one indoor and one outdoor. When both were dropped one bounced the other did not. Bronwyn said she had 'taken discrepant events into other classes and they really liked them'. It was after this that Bronwyn began to look for the 5Es in the program materials. It was as if recognising the value of one part of the 5Es, the engage phase activities, led to an interest in the whole 5Es framework. During the final professional development session Bronwyn commented that she was 'not into the 5Es yet. (She was) still concentrating on the basics, the tools of cooperative learning'. However, she was starting to 'use the 5Es, which is a scaffold for constructivism'. According to Bronwyn, she began to view the 5Es as a systematic way to put into operation a constructivist approach to teaching and learning but had not yet developed a clear understanding of what contructivism was.

Frank also eventually began to value of the 5Es approach to teaching as outlined by BSCS. However, his initial concern was to get the students to work well in groups. It was only after he began to feel confident with students working in small groups that he began to think about the 5Es. During the second professional experience session, Frank said he was 'thinking about the 5Es and cooperative learning every lesson' but not once did he mention constructivism in discussions until the last professional development day. By the end of the project the students commented that nothing was being written on the blackboard any more. They also commented they were writing less in their books. They thought this was good.

The students liked using the textbook. They said it was 'good because it's got everything in it you need. You don't have to go to the library and find other books'. Thus the textbook had some impacts which could be considered to be poor learning behaviours. Bronwyn's students said they sometimes had done group work, in previous topics, but students were consistent in the claim that 'we don't normally do as much group work as we do now'. They also argued that they were 'discussing things more, helping each other more and solving problems together'. The students said that they enjoyed science more when using the BSCS package, 'it gives us the advantage of exploring other ways and ideas'. 'We learn more because we discuss things. It opens up your brain. It's fun. It's more like normal'. Students explained that they were learning 'how to think' and commented that science is 'now as good as other subjects'. Frank argued that the amount of practical work had not increased but the students said that 'it had increased a lot'. A few students were critical of the BSCS science experience. One student complained 'this is better than what we usually do in science but I still don't like it'. Another commented that science was more fun and interesting although some of the activities 'taught them little'.