Scaling up higher order thinking skills and personal

Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

Scaling up higher order thinking skills and personal capabilities in primary science: Theory-into-policy-into-practice Colette Murphy a,∗ , Lynne Bianchi b , John McCullagh c , Karen Kerr d a b c d

Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S1 1WB, United Kingdom Stranmillis University College, BT9 5DY Northern Ireland, United Kingdom Queen’s University Belfast, BT7 1NN Northern Ireland, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 29 December 2012 Received in revised form 20 June 2013 Accepted 26 June 2013 Available online 22 July 2013 Keywords: Thinking skills and personal capabilities Primary science Research-in-practice Vygotsky Cognitive acceleration.

a b s t r a c t This paper builds on and contributes to work on learning and teaching in science, specifically in the area of thinking skills in primary (elementary) and early post-primary science education. It is based on the development and implementation of policy on thinking skills and personal capabilities in Northern Ireland (NI), where they form part of the statutory curriculum. The paper traces the development of a framework for thinking skills and personal capabilities, the adoption of the framework and its translation into policy, and through research on implementing the policy in school science. This critical exploration of theoryinto policy-into practice demonstrates ways in which gaps in the process can be addressed, such as the higher-level involvement of teachers as researchers into policy development and implementation, as opposed to being merely ‘trained’ to implement new science learning and teaching policy. The contribution of pre-service teachers in the process provided an important element of the implementation process, particularly in relation to primary science. The article provides insight into issues such as how might we ‘teach’ thinking skills in conceptually rich science content, the relationship between thinking skills in science and other subjects, and the links between research and practice in children’s science learning. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Science lessons in primary (elementary1 ) and early post-primary2 classrooms provide ideal opportunities for developing children’s thinking skills and personal capabilities (TSPC). In Northern Ireland (NI), TSPC forms part of the statutory curriculum to be addressed in all curricular areas and subjects. They are presented as a framework (see Fig. 1): This paper sets out the theory informing policy on TSPC in Northern Ireland and considers its implementation in schools from the standpoint of three primary science research studies.

∗ Corresponding author at: School of Education, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Tel.: +353 18963650. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Murphy). 1 Primary 1 children in Northern Ireland are 4 years old – equivalent to Kindergarten children in the US. 2 Early post-primary includes children up to the age of 14 (grade 9 in the US). 1871-1871/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.06.005

174

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

Fig. 1. The thinking skills and personal capabilities framework (NI Curriculum, 2007).

2. Theory into policy Education systems internationally have sought to define the kinds of skills considered essential for a prosperous economy, and also for personal well-being, which can be reflected through curriculum, assessment and qualifications. There have been many attempts to describe such skills, for example, Lucas and Claxton (2009) who drew out underlying strengths and generalities. Research carried out by McGuinness (2000) on thinking skills and by Bianchi on personal capabilities was used as a basis on which to underpin the construction of the Northern Ireland revised curriculum skills framework (CCEA, 2007a). The focus of McGuinness’s research was the activating children’s thinking skills (ACTS) methodology for enhancing thinking skills across the curriculum (McGuinness, 2000) which took place prior to and during the curriculum review. This infusion methodology identified contexts across the curriculum where particular thinking skills could be developed. The methodology contrasted with other attempts to teach thinking in a more generic (Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman & Miller, 1980) or subject specific way (Adey & Shayer, 1994). Rather, it drew on Swartz and Parks (1994) taxonomy of thinking skills, including: • • • • • •

searching out order and imposing meaning on information (sequencing, ordering information, analysing etc.) critical thinking (making predictions, hypothesising, drawing conclusions, determining bias etc.) creative thinking (generating new ideas) problem solving (defining problems, thinking up and testing different solutions) planning (setting up sub-goals and monitoring progress) decision making (generating options, weighing up pros and cons, choosing a course of action)

McGuinness (2000) explored the implications of making thinking explicit using thinking diagrams or graphic organisers, developing thinking vocabulary, giving students time to think and use discussion and reflection on thinking strategies as a way to increase competence, as well as developing teachers’ questioning techniques. Findings from her research indicated a pattern of change in the students that was noted as a ‘pro-active’ learning effect. Children rated themselves with regard

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

175

to their cognitive and metacognitive strategies, their willingness to work harder and to put in more effort (McGuinness & Sheehy, 2006). Bianchi’s research study into personal capabilities began in 1999. It utilised the notion of ‘capability’ as opposed to ‘skill’ to describe an individual’s capacity to perform a range of behaviours. Where skills represent highly mechanistic behaviours often disassociated from the individual or context within which they are displayed it is feasible that their assessment can occur in a knowledge-free, value-free, emotion-free and context-free manner. Individuals can be considered ‘skilled’ or ‘skilful’ in isolated environments, using performance-specific indicators (Barrow, 1987). In this way, the definition of skills has paid little regard to individuals’ understanding, disposition, values and emotional maturity which Bianchi’s study embraced. The research involved teachers in England, who with support were encouraged to be integrally involved in reviewing science teaching practices, tailoring and adapting resources and interventions, and focusing and sharing evaluation on their perceptions and experiences. The aim was to establish whether the personal capabilities could be embedded, or indeed infused, into national curriculum core teaching and learning activities in post-primary school classrooms. Interventions, similar to those in ACTS, were employed, for example: making the capabilities explicit in lesson planning, delivery and activity; use of thinking frameworks, namely GRASP (getting results and solving problems) (COMINO Foundation, 2012); and the use of focused self-assessment exercises by students. The research outcomes provided a four-stage model of development that, if applied into curriculum settings, might better enhance the awareness, recognition and demonstration of behaviours associated with the personal capabilities. Ten generic life-work skills were defined, for example: teamwork, problem solving and critical thinking, as well as dispositions such as creativity, being tenacious and having a positive self image. The four stages of Knowledge Development, Monitored Self Assessment, Action Planning and Action Taking continues to be tested in the development of contemporary curriculum resources, for example, Smart Science (Bianchi and Barnett, 2006). The interplay of usage between terms, such as ‘skills’, ‘competences’, ‘capabilities’, ‘aptitudes’, ‘characteristics’ and ‘intelligences’, often shrouds the fundamental differences between the concepts. Associated literature makes distinction between ‘transferable’, ‘generic’, ‘core’ and ‘key’ skills – terms which have established meanings in particular fields. However, the difficulty of defining these terms often lies in attempting to capture various elements of human nature. Where the interchange between skill and capability occurs, ‘skill’ is more frequently related to ‘thinking skills’, e.g. critical and creative thinking and problem solving, and ‘capability’ more frequently in relation to affective areas of social and personal development, e.g. working with others and tenacity. The NI curriculum review (CCEA, 2007a) sought out research-based models of skills development, defined as interpersonal, personal, learning and thinking skills. These areas needed to be defined further in order to provide guidance to teachers and schools in enriching and invigorating teaching, learning and assessment practices to appreciate fully the influence of a skills framework, and in understanding the means by which progress could be defined, recorded and reported. The ACTS research, especially given its prevalence in NI schools, allowed for direct use of insights to support the thinking skills elements of such a framework. Bianchi’s work provided different yet complementary elements by way of the more dispositional and affective capabilities. CCEA (2007a) used this research to develop the aforementioned thinking skills and personal capabilities (TSPC) framework (see Fig. 1). A distinctive feature of the TSPC framework is the way it integrates a range of different types of thinking skills and learning dispositions with collaborative learning (working with others) and independent learning (self-management and taking responsibility) (CCEA, 2007a). The combination of thinking skills and personal capabilities was considered important for several reasons, such that they draw attention to the process of learning and not just the products; are more likely to engage pupils in active rather than passive learning; enable pupils to go beyond the mere recall of information and to develop deeper understanding of topics; create positive dispositions and habits for learning; and provide a new range of criteria against which pupils can evaluate their progress in learning (CCEA, 2007a). The framework is statutory and schools are encouraged to use the TSPCs explicitly within whole school and classroom settings and structure their development using detailed progression maps to assist with skills development over the primary and post-primary phases. CCEA’s advice to schools suggests that an infusion approach will ensure the TSPC framework does not stand alone nor be isolated from the subject-related aspects of the curriculum. Such skills are to be developed and assessed in and through the curriculum, alongside other key skills of Literacy, Numeracy and ICT. An ‘infusion’ approach describes a lesson structure which holds in parallel the development of subject knowledge and understanding and a particular mode of thinking or personal disposition/capability. The purpose is to encourage learners to explicitly and with structured support consider how they are learning, as well as what they are learning. This type of lesson approach has gained interest from other researchers, for example Claxton (2002) in his work into Building Learning Power and Expansive Education. The TSPC framework can provide a heuristic to assist teachers in planning and in assessing pupils’ progress. It affords a common language across the curriculum and should be delivered in and through the areas of learning (Murphy, 2009). 3. Policy into practice: thinking skills and personal capabilities framework The implementation of the revised curriculum policy was facilitated by a communication strategy that involved training educational groups, such as the Curriculum Advisory and Support Service, Education Library Board Officers, the Primary Implementation Curriculum Standards Group, School Principals etc. It was intended that such groups would cascade

176

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

information and training into their regions and as such be a conduit between CCEA and teachers. Primary teachers received three days of training focusing on Personal Development and Mutual Understanding, Thinking Skills & Personal Capabilities and Assessment for Learning phased over a number of years. Training was delivered using a cascade model, where CCEA offered training to Library Board Curriculum Advisory and Support Service. Regionally based courses were offered to schools which, in the main, involved representative teachers from primary and post-primary schools attending for particular days depending on their job roles and responsibility. Each training day involved several schools, usually at an off-school site, and in some cases the teachers were trained in school on a whole-school basis, although this was less frequent. CCEA produced and made available training and guidance materials via DVD and workshops and which remain available on-line. Guidance materials were also written to support teachers’ professional development and inform them of the meaning of the five strands of skills and capabilities. Exemplification materials, such as progression maps, were also published which illustrated how the skills and capabilities could potentially progress from age 4–11 years (CCEA, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d). Initially, these materials were generic in nature and were then mapped into subject specific areas, such as the ‘World Around Us’. Additional resources were also disseminated over the period of implementation to promote the infusion of TSPC, including guidance and posters, and a ‘Think Pack’ for teachers and pupils (CCEA, 2009a), a ‘Classroom Toolbox’ (CCEA, 2009b), and illustrated story books for younger children, entitled ‘Wise Up and Think’ (CCEA, 2008). Evaluation of the implementation revealed that schools were enthusiastic overall, but concerns were raised about the amount of preparation time teachers needed in order to meet the new requirements and the short timetable for full implementation (Downing, Martin & Allen, 2007). TSPC formed one of many strands of professional development offered to teachers as part of the wider curriculum implementation strategy. In reality, professional support was diversified across many fronts, and although synergies across different areas of training were encouraged, further time and focus would have been beneficial. There is evidence, though not well documented, that schools have embraced the thinking agenda and that many schools are more explicitly ‘thought-full’ than previously, some having appointed co-ordinators for TSPC to oversee whole-school implementation of the framework (Gallagher, Hipkins, & Zohar, 2012). With particular reference to the TSPC framework, data from the study of Downing et al. (2007) revealed fairly high teacher confidence in relation to taking responsibility for developing TSPC, but a lower confidence level in specific aspects, for example: Incorporating Assessment for Learning despite the training they had received. The lower confidence level was explained by teachers’ lack of opportunity to change plans and practise the delivery of TSPC, which led to uncertainty and/or anxiety about delivering them in the next academic year. Out-of-school continuing professional development (CPD) and training very often is not sustainable when teachers return to their classroom context, where they face issues of lack of time, resources and sometimes support from school leaders to implement the ideas and activities learned during such courses. The researchers explored the employment of coteaching as a method for implementing the TSPC framework in primary and early post-primary science teaching. The coteachers were student teachers and classroom teachers who shared expertise to teach creatively inquiry-based science lessons with the specific, explicit aim of developing children’s thinking skills and personal capabilities. 4. Policy into practice: coteaching Science teacher education is constantly under revision as educators, researchers and policy makers seek to identify optimal strategies for learning to teach science. The organisation for science teachers and educators in the USA, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) revised its strategic goals to include the promotion of science education research in improving science teaching and learning (NSTA, 2010). In the past decade, increasing numbers of science educators have explored coteaching as a model for learning to teach that acknowledges the complexity of this process and has the goal of improving preservice science teaching. Coteaching occurs when teachers share the responsibility for all aspects of students’ learning during an instructional time frame (e.g. a class or curricular unit), including planning, teaching, assessment and evaluation (Martin, 2009). Coteaching has been applied to science teacher education in both the preservice and inservice settings, and its usefulness as a model for learning to teach has led to its expanding use in other content areas and educational settings (Murphy and Scantlebury, 2010). Coteaching provides a structure for teacher reflection on theory, praxis and practice and has been shown to address a variety of issues in science education including teacher planning, the quality of teacher pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, formative evaluation of student learning, and professional practice and self-efficacy. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)’s Blue Ribbon panel on clinical preparation and partnerships has noted the critical role of coteaching as a model for linking theory and practice in preparing teachers to teach (NCATE, 2010). As a model for preservice teaching, coteaching requires that preservice teachers engage in discussions with cooperating teachers about practice and praxis. Unlike many other preservice teaching experiences, coteaching assumes that all teachers are responsible for student learning. Experienced teachers remain engaged with their students, whilst becoming engaged in formal reflection about their practice as they discuss planning, student learning and behaviours with preservice teachers. Preservice teachers are placed into a model that foregrounds the importance of frequent collaborative, professional discussions and recognition that they have expertise and knowledge about teaching to share with others. Preservice teachers reported that coteaching provided them with the confidence to expand their teaching repertoires and a willingness to implement innovative teaching practices (Gallo-Fox, 2010; O’Conaill, 2010). Other studies have noted that

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

177

Fig. 2. Children engaged in “the mixture” activity.

coteaching improved preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (Nilsson, 2010) and the preservice teachers had fewer difficulties when transitioning to inservice teaching (Britzman, 2003; Juck, Scantlebury & Gallo-Fox, 2010). Roth, Masciotra, and Boyd (1999) found that coteaching provided a structure that supported beginning teachers’ transitions between university courses and their practicum. Coteaching promotes a sense of shared responsibility for the beginning teachers (Wassell & LaVan, 2009) and increases access to social and material resources, thereby increasing opportunities for classroom actions (Roth, Tobin, Carambo, & Dalland, 2004). Further, coteaching and the subsequent need for coplanning among teachers, nullifies teachers’ common practice of isolated planning. While many teachers plan lessons in isolation, and prefer to do so, such practice typically results in maintaining current teaching practices, rather than changing lessons to meet students’ differing needs. When teachers plan collaboratively and coteach those lessons, they have more opportunities to respond to the learning needs of diverse students (Thousand, Villa, & Nevin, 2006) 5. Policy into practice: coteaching primary science projects A consequence of the skills-based revised NI curriculum was that statutory subject content was reduced. Science in primary schools was subsumed into the broader learning area of learning called The World Around Us. The statutory learning in science thus comprised a much-reduced content, expressed as minimum learning entitlements (CCEA, 2012). This led to a major concern that many primary teachers who found science difficult to teach (Murphy, 2008) would teach only the minimum entitlement, and teach it through history and geography. A group of researchers, including three of this article’s authors (Murphy, McCullagh and Kerr) saw the opportunity to explore the potential of science as the major element of The World Around Us for children’s development of thinking skills and personal capabilities (TSPC) and to promote inquirybased science education (IBSE). The authors argue that policy-into-practice requires the essential elements of high-quality continuing professional development (CPD) (to inspire, stimulate, motivate and empower teachers) and a means by which teachers are facilitated in the classroom to implement the CPD. Vygotskian theory suggests that young children need to be given opportunities to theorise on natural phenomena whilst at primary school in order to develop scientific thinking skills (Kravtsov, 2009). This entails children generating explanations of phenomena which are consistent with their observations. If given the appropriate set of conditions, children’s reasoning skills can be developed to a high level. These conditions are: • the opportunity to repeat an activity so that they can make close observations and to check their reliability (repetition) • time to discuss ideas in small groups and to prepare their ‘case’ (hypothesis generation) • instruction to check that their reason, explanation or theory regarding the phenomenon is consistent with what they observe (verification) • the opportunity to communicate their findings/explanations to the rest of the class, using data (e.g.: pictures, photographs, diagrams, demonstrations, etc. (communication) • to critique their own and other groups’ theories in terms of consistency between observation and explanation (evaluation) • to consider the link between their experiment and its broader applications in everyday life and/or in scientific discovery or appliance (concept formation) An example of such an activity might be children investigating miscibility of liquids (see Fig. 2). The teacher could demonstrate a strange phenomenon by pouring a small amount of syrup, then cooking oil, and then water carefully into a clear plastic or glass jar, asking children what they think may happen at each stage. Children will see that the water forms a

178

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

layer between the syrup and oil, a phenomenon which they might not have expected. The vital next step is to enable children to repeat the experiment in groups but this time to observe very closely and see if they can come up with a reason, based on their observations, for water displacing the oil (Fig. 2). If resources permit, this step could be repeated several times and children can be introduced to the perseverance required by scientists to make close observation. The projects described below all aimed to develop children’s thinking skills and personal capabilities using curious or thought-provoking scientific contexts. They focused on developing children as subjects of their own learning, who were being introduced into the use of higher order thinking skills in everyday settings. The projects employed a coteaching methodology in which student and experienced teachers ‘learnt together’ by their joint participation in CPD courses aimed at developing TSPC through creative science activities, and then ‘taught together’ by implementing the TSPC jointly in the classroom via coplanning, coteaching and coreflection (Murphy and Beggs, 2010). After the projects, each coteacher subsequently created their own new practice independently as they developed further TSPC contexts for future science lessons. This work was scaled up by the education advisory bodies using the stimulus activities from these projects as materials for TSPC training in Northern Ireland schools. In addition, project teachers introduced their science-for-TSPC work to other teachers in their own and in cluster schools. The three projects discussed in this paper are: i New approaches to science teaching and assessment (NASTA) ii Books and stories in children’s science (BASICS) iii Digitally resourced engaging and motivating science (DREAMS) 5.1. New approaches to science teaching and assessment (NASTA) project 5.1.1. Introduction This research was funded by the AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust, and aimed at empowering teachers and student teachers to awaken children’s joy in creative expression and knowledge (which Einstein suggested was the ‘supreme art of the teacher’) through science learning. The idea was to combine excellent CPD with coteaching so that teachers might develop confidence and enjoyment of science teaching to deliver the thinking skills and personal capabilities (TSPC) strand of the revised Northern Ireland curriculum in the learning area of World Around Us. Inspiration for the project came from work developed by Hans Persson, who had presented ‘Creativity in Science Classrooms’ sessions, for example at the Association for Science Education conference (ASE, 2006), and from the ‘Puppets’ workshops of Brenda Keogh and Stuart Naylor (Naylor, Keogh, Downing, Maloney & Simon, 2007). These scientists/science educators worked with the research team to present a stimulating CPD programme which both motivated and empowered coteachers, who were up-skilled sufficiently to create their own new practice in each specific context. Pre-school, primary, post-primary and special needs schools participated. The theoretical framework for the research combined Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) as a framework for providing children with opportunities to develop scientific thinking and reasoning, with coteaching as a methodology (Murphy and Scantlebury, 2010) for empowering teachers to deliver more creative science lessons. The ZPD can be thought of as a series of interactions whereby children are motivated and enabled to develop higher order thinking skills. In practice, we encouraged coteachers to ‘create’ such ZPDs which gave children opportunities to practice, dialogue, present and evaluate their ideas and theories about scientific phenomena. The coteaching component comprised student and classroom coteaching teams learning together by attending a CPD programme aimed at developing creative science classrooms, followed by teaching together as they implemented and expanded the work from the CPD programme in school. Coteaching provided a ZPD for coteachers to learn from each other, with the result that each coteacher exited the research with the confidence and expertise to create new practice in science teaching in their individual contexts, reflecting the Vygotskian theoretical standpoint that learning occurs firstly in the social plane, and then in the individual plane (Vygotsky, 1981). 5.1.2. Methods There were 27 schools involved in the 2-year project, 50 coteachers and approximately 600 children. The methodology included a blended learning CPD programme which comprised cycles of creative science/coteaching/sharing practice workshops with coteaching science blocks in the classroom. At the end of the project, children and coteachers presented their work at a conference organised for project participants, science educators, curriculum developer and policy makers. The data set included classroom observation by team members, and interviews of teachers, student teachers, science co-ordinators and children. 5.1.3. Findings and discussion (summary) The full findings and evaluation of this work can be found in the project reports (Murphy, Beggs and Kerr, 2008; Beggs, Murphy, & Kerr, 2009). For this paper we present two major elements. Firstly, the combination of excellent CPD which involved researchers, expert speakers, curriculum developers and school advisers and coteaching in the classroom produced a change in many teachers’ delivery of school science. Secondly, providing children with opportunities to investigate phenomena using more scientific approaches (including repetition/replication; hypothesis generation, verification that hypotheses are consistent with observation, presentation and peer evaluation of findings) to develop higher order thinking skills.

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

179

Fig. 3. The toy car.

5.1.4. Changing science teaching Teachers discussed how the project had helped them experience science lessons which were in many ways ‘led’ by the children. There was a change in teacher attitudes and practice to science teaching as they experienced this shift in ‘ownership’ of the learning from teacher to children. Typical quotes from coteacher interviews included: “Usually our science lessons are very structured and you sort of take the children along step by step but we decided, right, we are going to let these children use their own creativity” “They (the children) were driving it and they were just really enjoying having that sort of control and we were just really stepping back and maybe just trying to give them little bits of direction but it was really driven by them and they just absolutely loved it” “They sort of took ownership of the lesson. . .all of a sudden we had weights out and we’d balance scales, they sort of prompted what we were doing really”

5.1.5. Developing children’s science thinking skills Coteachers encouraged children to think and communicate their ideas as a way of introducing science, to raise questions that led to investigations, to show children that teachers are interested in their ideas, to be open-minded with no right or wrong answers and to help make abstract ideas concrete. An extract from a children’s group presentation to explain the reason why water formed a layer between syrup and oil was: “. . .the cooking oil is at the top and the liquid . . . there was bubbles in the cooking oil and it is free, like, it can move around and then it, amm, lifted up and then the water went underneath it” [8 year old] This explanation prompted the researcher to go home and check for air bubbles in the oil–it was exactly as the child had described! This level of close observation and generating explanation consistent with the observations is rare, even at higher levels. Recently, Murphy (unpublished) carried out this same investigation with post-primary science student teachers, asking for explanations based solely on observation, not inference. They found the task extremely challenging and were absorbed totally. Indeed, they commented that this approach to science learning and teaching was one which they had almost never been exposed to. The authors of this paper contend that primary school teachers can promote this method of teaching science, as opposed to asking children to learn facts. Such an approach would require assessment which focused on scientific reasoning, which might provide an excellent foundation for post-primary/tertiary level science learning about conceptual frameworks which have been developed by scientists to explain phenomena. The project work demonstrated that coteaching promoted such approaches because teachers were more likely to ‘let go’ control of learning and facilitate children’s independent learning via experimentation when they had the support of a student teacher coteaching with them. Follow-up interviews after coteaching placements ended evidenced teachers’ continuation of practices that actively promoted the development of children’s thinking skills that they had developed whilst coteaching. An indicative teacher comment was: “I feel that I’ve had a step, you know, I feel a bit more confident now at making that sort of step” (letting children direct their learning). Other examples of children’s thinking skills development came from giving them opportunities to express their ideas of how things might ‘work’. A ‘black box’ activity introduced by Hans Persson at the CPD course (now available on YouTube) called ‘The Bucket’ was extended by a team of coteachers in a class of 6/7 year old children). The teaching sequence started with a sorting toys activity, followed by observation of the movement of a toy car (see Fig. 3). Children were then invited to draw how this car moved and to present their drawing to a video camera. The school principal offered his office for this purpose and each child sat in the principal’s chair and their descriptions were recorded and transcribed (See Fig. 4). A typical one was:

180

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

Fig. 4. Child describing his diagram of the inside of the toy car.

“My name’s . . . and I’m going to show you how this car works. The power of the pump goes into the batteries and makes more power in the batteries. And then it goes into the wheels. Then you push the button, and it goes zoom and fast. And then this here is the engine and these are the wires that are connected on to the engine. . .” Such description reveals the way that children are thinking about, and bringing their experiences into the science classroom. The child above seemed to highlight his concept of ‘power’ in describing how the car moved. Amongst others, descriptions and pictures focused on the central function of cogs in turning wheels (see Fig. 5) and on electricity. The videos evidenced children’s engagement with the task and their clear enjoyment of being given the opportunity to express their ideas in words as well as pictures. The teaching sequence continued with the children planning how they might build a car, using a selection of provided resources, such as cereal packets, plastic wheels, etc. They drew their plans and then build a prototype, which was tested and rebuilt accordingly. The final cars were raced and each child evaluated their own using two features they liked and one it wished they had included (Fig. 6). Finally, children examined all the cars and selected their favourite feature from one of the designs. These examples indicate a different approach to science learning and teaching which aims to promote and develop children’s higher order thinking skills. The approach is based on solid educational foundations, primarily on creating ZPDs for children to expand and communicate their scientific thinking. The sustainability of the approaches can be effected via student and classroom teachers working together via coteaching to introduce new ways of science teaching, thereby each coteacher is up-skilled from working with another resulting in enhanced confidence and empowerment to create their own new practice. An example of change in student teacher confidence in developing children’s scientific skills can be seen in Fig. 7, which showed that the experience of coteaching developed their confidence most in the areas of carrying out scientific investigations with children and helping them solve scientific problems (Carlisle, 2008). Comments from coteachers revealed children’s responses to different approaches to science learning and teaching, for example:

Fig. 5. Child’s diagram of cogs inside the toy car.

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

181

Fig. 6. Child presenting the evaluation of her car.

“They are actually having to talk to each other and co-operate and then, like, get up and present. They’ve become a lot more confident. I can see their investigative skills as well, they’re using the terms, prediction, they know what that means and that’s not a fair test or, they’re using some of that language. That is good and their results and what if this happened and they draw more conclusions from what’s happened instead of just sort of taking it at face value, they can tie in with things that are happening”

Aspects of science skills

Phase 1 % fully confident

Aspects of science skills

Phase 2 % fully confident

Make observations

64

Carry out investigations

69

Relate what happened to what they predicted

62

Solve scientific problems

67

Make observations

66

Make suggestions for improvements

56 Relate what happened to what they predicted

65

Carry out a fair test

55 Carry out a fair test

65

Carry out investigations

53

Choose appropriate materials when planning what to make

49 Make suggestions for improvements

62

Identify patterns

48 Develop communication skills

58

Plan what they are going to make

47 Evaluate and revise their work

58

Develop communication skills

46

Plan what they are going to make

58

Evaluate and revise their work

42 Develop manipulative skills

54

Interpret findings

41 36

Choose appropriate materials when planning what to make

52

Solve scientific problems Develop manipulative skills

36

Interpret findings

50

Construct working models

23

Identify patterns

50

Fig. 7. Increase in student teacher confidence to develop children’s scientific skills (n = 98).

182

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

“It [asking each other questions] creates a confident child that is able to talk out in front of the class and, even I think at that stage, even in P2 [age 5/6], just being able to stand up and talk about something they found to the class, I think that’s really good for, like, presentation skills whenever they’re older and things like that” “They were able to do different types of learning from it and gained an awful lot of knowledge from it.” When teachers are engaged in coteaching, they have the opportunity to exercise ‘reflection-in-action’ (Schon, 1983). This element of coteaching afforded coteachers to critique both their own practice and the approaches that they were using during classes. As such, they developed activities and approaches in ways that would have been unlikely without each other. This could provide the mechanism for the increased confidence in their own practice that coteachers express as a result of being involved in these projects. The coteaching projects conducted in Northern Ireland to date have involved approximately 25% schools in Northern Ireland. The current paper considers those which were designed specifically to enhance implementation of thinking skills and personal capabilities (TSPC), so coteaching projects in total (all aimed at improving primary and early post-primary school science learning and teaching) have reached much further than the few described here. Policy makers, curriculum developers and the school advisory services have been participants in each coteaching project. Informal scaling up has taken place through use of activities developed during coteaching projects, designed to empower teachers in creating interesting, challenging opportunities to develop children’s thinking skills and personal capabilities through science. These activities have been used for training purposes as part of the roll-out of the NI revised curriculum. It is difficult for us to obtain data on the number of schools which would have received this specific training, but we would estimate that it would account for at least half of Northern Ireland primary and early post-primary schools, based on conversations with school advisers. It is also the case that authors of this paper are in the process of developing a proposal to scale up coteaching using a randomised control trial (RCT) combined with ethnographic classroom studies. 5.2. The ‘books and stories in children’s science’ (BASICS) project 5.2.1. Project details This research project (BASICS Project, 2007), funded by the AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust, used coteaching to jointly address the professional development needs of practising teachers and provide a context rich learning environment for undergraduate student teachers. Throughout the project 12 student teachers from Stranmillis University College Belfast were paired with teachers from a cluster of five primary schools from the greater Belfast area during the period September 2006 to June 2007. Approximately 300 children were involved in the project. The principal aims of the project were to: • develop and support the schools’ use of books and stories within science • provide a fresh learning context for classroom observation and reflection • enhance teachers’ confidence and competence in adopting an enquiry-based approach to science at foundation stage and key stage 1. The teacher-student pairs, supported by the project team of science education tutors and local education board science advisers, coplanned, cotaught and coevaluated lower primary science lessons over a period of six weeks. The science lessons were enquiry-based and used a book or story both in the introduction and concluding discussion, and in some cases, at other times during the lesson. The coteachers often used puppets, sometimes alongside the story. The science topics were chosen by the host schools in accordance with their science programme for the term. During the lessons the classroom teachers engaged in structured observation activities. Prior to the coteaching phase a training seminar on enquiry-based science and the use of books and stories provided ideas and modelled approaches suitable for enquiry-based science at foundation stage and key stage 1. A concluding seminar allowed the findings, in the form of the evaluations from all participants, including the pupils, and the examples of activities and resources used, to be disseminated to all involved. 5.2.2. Methods The data were collected using questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, focus group interviews (pupils), and a structured observation activity using a modified version of Walsh’s Quality Learning Instrument (Walsh & Gardner, 2005). This enquiry-based science Quality Learning Instrument (QLI-ebs) was used by teachers during their own science lessons before and after the students’ intervention. The student teachers also applied it to lessons at the very start and at the end of the teaching phase. Questionnaires were administered to teachers; science coordinators and student teachers before the initial planning seminar and then after the students had completed their period of teaching. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with principals, science coordinators, teachers and student teachers on completion of this phase of the project. A key aspect of the project examined responses of the children to the greater use of stories in their science activities as an array of research (e.g. Walsh, Dunn, Mitchell & McAlister, 2006) emphasizes that what young children have to say is of interest, is informative and should not be overlooked in any project concerning them. Evidence was therefore obtained by use of two data collection methods: the observations of children during their science lessons and focus group interviews with six groups of approximately eight children chosen by the class teacher.

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

183

The key aim of the observations was to evaluate whether the quality of the scientific experience had improved as a result of the inclusion of books and stories into the lessons. Based on this premise it was intended not to focus on outcomes (i.e. had children’s scientific knowledge improved), but rather to focus into the learning processes during the lessons in terms of children’s learning dispositions and use of scientific skills (including thinking skills). In this way it could be argued that the aim was to capture what Katz (1995) terms the ‘bottom up’ perspective of quality i.e. how does it feel to be a child in this particular activity. The QLI is a process measure of quality which aims to capture the quality of the learning experience on offer in a given early years setting. In this way it challenges the pre-existing notion that quality can only be determined in terms of learning outcomes, teaching style and context. Instead, as argued by Walsh et al. (2006), the QLI rates the quality of a setting according to the way it meets the developmental needs of the children. It is embedded in an experiential model of how young children learn and develop and it focuses on nine key themes, namely motivation, concentration, confidence, independence, wellbeing, socials interaction, respect, multiple skill acquisition and higher order thinking skills. The QLI has proven to a highly reliable and valid instrument (Walsh & Gardner, 2005), its formulation mediated by evidence from a series of pilot observations, the views of early years experts, a calibration study and a Krippendorf’s alpha test showing a high level of inter-rater reliability (0.73–1.0). The QLI-ebs maintains its focus on the themes of ‘motivation’, ‘concentration’ and ‘confidence’ (drawn directly from the QLI) but with the addition of ‘observation and communication’, ‘predicting’, ‘problem-solving’ and ‘decision-making’. Each of these seven themes were rated on a high (3) to low (1) basis and a general picture of practice was captured (i.e. the majority of children), rather than targeting specific children. The observation was carried out over the course of the entire science lesson and after the lesson has been delivered, a rating was made against the QLI -ebs based on a best fit model. For the purposes of this study, the QLI-ebs was used both by classroom and student teachers. The teachers (n = 6) used the QLI-ebs on a science lesson before the intervention and then after the intervention; while the student teachers (n = 10) used the QLI-ebs immediately after their first Science lesson within the intervention and then after their last science lesson.

5.2.3. Findings Although the promotion of TSPC was not an identified aim from the start of the project the evaluation data collected throughout the teaching phase indicated that the context of a book, story or puppet provided greater access for teachers to pupils’ thinking by encouraging discussion and collaborative learning (McCullagh, Walsh and Greenwood, 2008). Classroom observations indicated that the use of books, stories and puppets within the enquiry-based science lessons resulted in statistically significant increases in the level of pupils’, predicting, problem-solving and decision-making as well as in motivation, concentration, confidence, observation and communication. The opportunity, which the introductory story or book provided for exploring children’s current thinking, was considered by several teachers to be a key advantage of this approach. For example children’s ideas on melting and freezing could be accessed via a discussion of the story of ‘The Snowman’. The more abstract concepts such as heat, insulation and changes of state could now be accessed by talking about the sun, the Snowman’s coat and his inevitable melting. The story was considered to provide a shared experience in which children’s ideas could be explored and developed. Following hands-on exploration with ice and possible insulating materials other stories or puppet based scenarios which referred to these concepts could be visited. As in any area of the curriculum, learning with understanding in science involves the development of ideas and concepts through both mental and physical activity. It is important that science lessons are as much ‘minds-on’ as they are ‘handson’. As talking and listening play a crucial role in supporting thinking and reasoning, classroom strategies which promote teacher-pupil and pupil-pupil dialogue are ideal for developing children’s thinking skills. The use of stories and puppets, with their context, characters and narrative structure, was seen to provide a template for progress in thinking and reasoning. Books stories and puppets, in providing a context for developing thinking, crucially allow time for thinking. All too often this is overlooked when time constraints and the focus on science ‘content’ over ‘process’ results in teacher-led experiences. The coteaching approach was identified as a crucial element in developing this aspect of practice. Both teachers and their student partners commented on how the coteaching arrangement facilitated a much closer observation of this enriched language climate and thus allowed for a deeper reflection on its importance as evidenced by the comment: “I was better able to observe alongside my student teacher partner and I could react and pick up on and react to the ideas which the children were trying to develop and articulate, putting in the story or the character where and when I felt it could help.”

5.2.4. Cognitive acceleration The process of moving children on towards higher levels of thinking is called ‘cognitive acceleration’. Based on our evaluation data we have identified (Table 1) how each of the ‘five pillars’ of cognitive acceleration, as identified by the ‘Let’s think through science!’ programme (Adey, Nagy, Robertson, Serret & Wadsworth, 2003), can be developed through science enquiry which is supported by books stories and puppets. Although thinking skills are developed through all of a child’s various interactions and encounters, it is important that we consider how we may enable them to think more skilfully and as they develop, to be more aware of the types of thinking they are engaged with.

184

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

Table 1 How the use of books stories or puppets within enquiry-based science can promote cognitive acceleration. Pillar of cognitive acceleration

How this is supported by books, stories or puppets

Teachers’ comments

Concrete preparation •Establish context

•Story provides context and meaning

•Identify what children already know

•Discussion of story or book

“The story as an introduction engages the children immediately through what they are familiar with.” “The story puts the science into a context for them and provides the opportunity for you to refer back to.”

•Introduce new vocabulary

•Dialogue with puppet •Text and pictures from book

Cognitive conflict •Provide activities which challenge current understanding or require exploration

•Story may provide a new experience, a problem or an opportunity for enquiry •Puppet may provide the problem for exploring •Puppet may be saying or doing ‘silly things’

Social construction •Discussion about the activity

Metacognition •Evaluation and reflection on enquiry activity, reliability and improvements

“The children were keen to know would the snowman have been ok if he had stood in front of the open fridge door.” “They loved correcting the puppet when he made mistakes.”

•Child-centred setting of story encourages wider participation in discussion and encourages ideas to be shared •The shared context of book or story in the form of images and events helps children articulate their ideas •Puppet increases the quantity and quality of pupil talk

“The children were so eager to help the puppet, the ideas kept coming, including children who are usually reluctant to speak out.” “The picture got them talking. Especially the text-less version of ‘The Snowman’.”

•The story provides relevance and purpose to the activity requiring that progress is made and outcomes are valid •Puppet can challenge method and results

“When I go back to the story I can ask what have they found out from their experiments and were they really sure about it.” “The puppet could ask probing questions and get them to think was this the best way to do it.”

•Narrative structure of story or revisiting the book retains focus and sustains engagement Bridging •Making connections between the understanding relating to the current scenario and other possible situations

•Children can help draft a new ending to the story, transferring learning from classroom to context of story •Use of related books and stories with similar scenarios to consider how newly acquired understanding may be applied •Use of puppet to discuss related problems or introduce additional puppets with similar questions or problems.

“When they went back to the story I get them to talk about it within the setting of the story. We could then discuss a different possible ending.” “I could have another story book and we could discuss this using our new ideas.”

5.3. The ‘digitally resourced engaging and motivating science’ (DREAMS) project 5.3.1. Project details Like the BASICS Project the Digitally Resourced Engaging And Motivating Science Project (DREAMS Project, 2008) used coteaching as the methodology for developing the practice of both qualified and undergraduate student teachers. Funded by the AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust, this research included in its aims the development of teachers’ practice with respect to the TSPC framework. The project aimed to develop teachers’: • awareness of the merits of using digital technology (DT) in science lessons. • ICT skills in using DT and LearningNI. • awareness of the potential for enquiry-based science to address other areas of the curriculum such as communication, being creative, personal skills and capabilities, thinking skills • ability to make science lessons more relevant and enjoyable. • use of enquiry-based science.

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

185

A central aim was to provide teachers with the support and resources to explore how the use of digital resources can enhance science enquiry as well as support other areas of the curriculum including the TSPC framework. The digital technology used included the use of data loggers, computer microscopes, digital cameras and video recording. This ‘infusion’ approach should ‘lead to lessons where there is the parallel development of subject knowledge and understanding of a particular mode of thinking.’ (CCEA, 2007a, p9.) The project involved six primary schools from across Northern Ireland. Schools were selected from as many of the five Education and Library Boards as possible in order to maximise the impact of the project and support dissemination across the province. A group of eleven student teachers were paired with classroom teachers across the full primary school age range. Another factor in selecting schools was the student teachers’ placement for the school-based work component of their B.Ed course, which took place later in the term. This allowed for the teacher-student teacher pairs to continue coteach science for a further six weeks. Schools representing four of the five Education and Library Boards were used. The project design was similar to that used in the BASICS project and included training workshops in each of the digital resources and in enquiry-based science, coplanning sessions, and then a six week period of coteaching, coevaluating and coreflection. At the end of the project a dissemination event allowed the findings and experiences of all participants to be shared and discussed. During the project each class carried out enquiry-based activities making use of whichever digital resource(s) they found to be the most appropriate to their particular topic. 5.3.2. Methods The data were collected by questionnaires, teacher and student teacher reflective journals, semi-structured interviews, classroom observations and focus group interviews with pupils. Several of the pairs of coteachers involved pupils in producing videos describing and discussing their enquiry-based science experiences. Approximately 250 children participated in the project. 5.3.3. Findings One of the most significant findings of this project was the effectiveness of this use of digital technology for developing the TSPC framework. All participants, teachers, student teachers and pupils described how this approach addressed each of the five strands of the framework. 5.3.4. Managing information The ease with which each of the digital resources can be used to capture data ensured that all pupils very quickly had data and information to work with and think about. The direct experience of handling and manipulating the equipment excited and motivated the pupils; they were now real scientists. This sustained pupils’ interest and focus as they were required to manage and examine their data which typically took the form of tables or graphs of temperature, light or sound levels, magnified images or a series of video clips. Thinking progressed to considering how best to make sense of this information and effectively present it. 5.3.5. Thinking, problem-solving and decision making The challenge of deciding how a particular digital resource could best be used within an activity required the pupils to think and make decisions regarding their enquiry task. After the initial exploration of what each resource could do the pupils set about deciding what data was required, and how best could it be recorded. The digital resources helped to deconstruct the problem and bring the stages of doing, evaluating and communicating closer together. 5.3.6. Being creative The opportunities for creating visual presentations using their images within microsoft’s powerpoint or photostory 3, or edited videos, allowed pupils to explore the importance of creativity. Time-lapse magnified images of seed germination or the browning of exposed fruit really captured the imagination of pupils and produced further discussion and ideas. The often hidden beauty and wonder within science phenomena had a significant impact on the pupils. 5.3.7. Working with others Group work was used extensively throughout the project as the pupils had to share the resources and negotiate taking turns in directly using them. The buzz of excitement generated a great deal of ideas and productive talk and discussion. The challenge of producing an edited video to present the group enquiry task exemplified the importance of team work and organisation as tasks were identified and allocated. The production of a video itself elevated the status of the learning activity and greatly enhanced the quality of the pupils work. 5.3.8. Self-management The opportunities for facilitating purposeful teamwork in itself resulted in peer learning and enabled pupils to take greater control of their own learning. Role rotation and the shared goals within the enquiry task highlighted the importance of time and self-management and encouraged pupils to be more self-directed.

186

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

5.3.9. Scaling up Although the project involved only two classes from each school and the intervention was planned and costed for a single academic year the researchers were keen to explore how these innovative approaches might be extended across a whole school. To this end the project included collaboration with school principals and science coordinators and explored how effective forms of pedagogy could be extended across and between year groups. One of the schools in close proximity to the University College continued with a modified form of the project the following year when and a group of five undergraduate student teachers developed these approaches to primary science across the full school age range. As before a coteaching model was adopted with in-service training days focused on planning and preparation. The findings mirrored those of the original project and evidenced an enhancement of the quality of pupils’ experience of the TSPC programme across all key stages. As a result the school science provision was revised to include a greater focus on enquiry and the use of digital resources. The reach of these projects extends further than the participating schools. The potential for books, stories and puppets to support the development of the TSPC framework is included within the online CPD unit ‘Promoting children’s engagement with primary science using books stories and puppets’ (Astrazeneca Science Teaching Trust, 2012) and is included within Continuous Professional Development courses offered by Stranmillis University College (Stranmillis University College, 2013). Furthermore a number of the college’s primary science education modules are specifically designed to include a coteaching placement in order to inform the future practice of both student and host teacher. 6. General discussion and conclusions This paper discusses policy development on thinking skills and personal capabilities (TSPC) and its implementation in the revised Northern Ireland curriculum. Both development and implementation were built upon solid educational foundations, and were influenced strongly by research at all stages. Some of the coteaching projects described comprised an element of scaling up the implementation by focusing specifically on developing thinking skills and personal capabilities (TSPC). Coteaching projects overall in Northern Ireland have to date involved approximately 25% primary schools in Northern Ireland (190+ teachers/schools, and more than 5,500 children). All of the major providers of primary initial teacher education in the island of Ireland now incorporate coteaching in their science programmes – as a direct result of dissemination of the ten years of coteaching work, some of which is summarised in this paper. There have been more than 20 papers in academic journals, an international book (Murphy and Scantlebury, 2010) and an online continuing professional development unit (http://www.azteachscience.co.uk/ext/cpd/coteaching/index.html). This unit is in the process of redevelopment to reflect the more recent applications of coteaching. The potential for sustainability of the specific projects aimed at coteaching and thinking skills was enhanced by the involvement of student teachers, each of whom developed their capacity for teaching TSPC though science in future posts, and from the close involvement of education advisers, who used materials developed during the CPD programme and its implementation in schools as resources for the ‘roll-out’ training for teachers in the delivery of the revised Northern Ireland curriculum. Research that informed policy was based strongly on that of McGuinness (2000) and Bianchi (2002), which saw the development of the TSPC framework adopting a cognitive and affective influence. The five categories of skill and capability were defined by positive behavioural statements supported by progression grids and subject related exemplification documents. The research projects carried out during implementation of the curriculum focused on the use of school science to develop children’s thinking skills by utilising the theoretical foundations of Vygotsky’s ZPD, Kravtsov’s application of Vygotskian theory to primary science, and cognitive acceleration. Classroom application of science teaching which develops children’s thinking skills evidenced the requirement of teachers to provide opportunities for children to engage explicitly in thinking and expressing their thoughts in several ways, for example in pictures, diagrams, multimedia, writing and orally. We found that oral expression was most important for children to clarify their thinking. In Vygotsky’s Thought and Language (Vygotsky, 1986) he established the explicit and profound connection between speech (silent inner speech and oral external speech) and the development of mental concepts and cognitive awareness. He observed that whilst young children ‘think out loud’; adults also speak their thoughts when carrying out complicated tasks (for example, following written instructions when cooking or setting up an electrical appliance). Young children can express their ideas more fully using spoken than written language and in science, a teacher can gauge better the level of understanding using oral assessment. Other aspects of developing thinking skills through science in school were: engaging children’s interest and motivation using curious phenomena; giving children opportunities (as scientists) to repeat activities in order to make deeper observations; facilitating peer collaboration in developing hypotheses which are consistent with observations and in evaluating same; presenting data in several formats; and fostering scientific concept development by linking their work in school with science outside (everyday and scientific contexts). Whilst much of the focus of this paper has been on interpreting the NI framework and indeed getting teachers to feel confident with it, to set the foundations of it to flourish through a mainstream curriculum, there are questions for future work, which must be addressed. For instance, we need to consider the needs of all learners in their development of TSPCs, developments that are pertinent to their needs, when they are ready and how best to organise that in a classroom setting. In order to do this, we need insightful, purposeful and practical forms of assessment. Assessment for learning (AfL) has for

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

187

many allowed a strength to come through for self, peer and teacher assessment, yet further study into what ‘assessment’ really means for TSPCs (for example what are they for, and for whom?) are issues that NI and other countries will need to face in the very near future. Another issue arises in the nature of ‘progression’ of TSPC. It could be argued that TSPC, as science, could be better considered as progressing in the reverse direction to that based on the Piagetian idea that children need to develop a certain level of cognition before being taught specific scientific concepts. Such rigid progression has led to boring school science, presented as a stepwise progression of ideas, which never reach the more complex, interesting aspects of science. There is a danger that if the same logic is applied to TSPC, children’s thinking may be constrained even further. The research in these projects evidences children tackling highly complex phenomena and applying intense observation and high-level reasoning to arrive at explanations which are scientifically sound. The paper argues that research-based policy making and implementation lends itself to transformation in classroom practice. We need to retain such a perspective so that teachers are empowered to use creativity and imagination in their teaching such that they open children’s minds to the wonders of science. As Einstein remarked: “I never teach my pupils. I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.” (Albert Einstein) References Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1994). Really Raising Standards: Cognitive Intervention and Academic Achievement. London: Routledge. Adey, P., Nagy, F., Robertson, A., Serret, N., & Wadsworth, P. (2003). Let’s Think Through Science. London: NFER Nelson. Association for Science Education. (2006). Creativity in the Science Classroom. Reading, England: Hans Persson, Institute of Education Stockholm. Available at www.nugo.org/downloadattachment/28035/programme.pdf (accessed December 2012) Astrazeneca Science Teaching Trust (2012) http://www.azteachscience.co.uk/ext/cpd/engagement-with-puppets (accessed April 2013). Barrow, R. (1987). Skills talk. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 21(2), 187–196. BASICS Project. (2007). Books and Stories in Children’s Science BASICS Project Final Report. Available from http://www.stran.ac.uk/media/media, 91232,en.pdf (accessed December 2012) Beggs, J., Murphy, C., & Kerr, K. (2009). New Approaches to Primary Science Teaching and Assessment. Report for AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust. Bianchi, L. (2002). ‘Teacher’s Perceptions of the Teaching of Personal Capabilities Through the Science Curriculum’. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Hallam University (PhD thesis). Bianchi, L., & Barnett, R. (2006). Smart Science. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University. Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes Practice: A Critical Study of Learning to Teach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Carlisle, K. (2008). An Examination of Coteaching in Initial Teacher Education. Belfast: Queen’s University (unpublished PhD thesis). CCEA. (2007a). Thinking Skills and Personal Capabilities for Key Stages 1 and 2. Belfast: CCEA. Available from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/ skills and capabilities/training/TSPC-Guidance-KS12.pdf (accessed December 2012) CCEA. (2007b). Introduction to Thinking Skills and Personal Capabilities. Retrieved from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/key stage 3/skills and capabilities/ (accessed May 2013) CCEA. (2007c). Thinking Skills and Personal Capabilities for Key Stage 1 and 2. Retrieved from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/skills and capabilities/ training/TSPC-Guidance-KS12.pdf (accessed May 2013) CCEA. (2007d). Thinking Skills and Personal Capabilities for Key Stage 3. Retrieved from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/skills and capabilities/training/ TSPC-Guidance-KS3.pdf (accessed May 2013) CCEA. (2008). Wise Up and Think Books Including Audio and Teacher Materials. Retrieved from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/TSPC/the think pack/ storybooks/wise up and think.asp (accessed May 2013) CCEA. (2009a). The Think Pack. Retrieved from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/TSPC/the think pack/ (accessed May 2013) CCEA. (2009b). Classroom Toolbox: Walking Debate; Thinking Time; Job Roles etc. Retrieved from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/TSPC/the think pack/ classroom toolbox/ (accessed May 2013) CCEA. (2012). The World Around Us. Available from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/key stages 1 and 2/areas of learning/the world around us/ (accessed December 2012) COMINO Foundation. (2012). GRASP, The Comino Approach. Available at http://www.cominofoundation.org.uk/D1 GRASP.html (accessed December 2012) Claxton, G. (2002). Building Learning Power: Helping Young People Become Better Learners. Bristol: TLO Ltd. Downing, D., Martin, K., & Allen, S. (2007). Evaluation of the Implementation of the Revised Curriculum and Assessment Arrangements in Northern Ireland. . . From Planning To Preparation. Queen’s University, Belfast: Centre for Educational Research. DREAMS Project. (2008). Digitally Resourced Engaging and Motivating Science Project Final Report. Available from http://www.stran.ac.uk/ media/media, 181303,en.pdf (accessed December 2012) Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention Program for Cognitive Modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Gallagher, C., Hipkins, R., & Zohar, A. (2012). Positioning thinking within national curriculum assessment systems: perspectives form Israel, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 134–143. Gallo-Fox, J. (2010). Risk-taking as practice in a coteaching professional learning community. In C. Murphy, & K. Scantlebury (Eds.), Coteaching in International Contexts (pp. 105–124). Rotterdam, Holland: Springer. ISBN: 978-9048137060. Juck, M., Scantlebury, K., & Gallo-Fox, J. (2010). Now it’s time to go solo. In C. Murphy, & K. Scantlebury (Eds.), Coteaching in International Contexts (pp. 241–262). Rotterdam, Holland: Springer. ISBN: 978-9048137060. Katz, L. G. (1995). Talks With Teachers of Young Children: A Collection. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Kravtsov, G. (2009). A Cultural-Historical Basis of the “Golden Key” Program. In Paper presented at the International Psychological Vygotsky Summer School Belaya Kalitva, Russia. Lucas, B., & Claxton, G. (2009). Wider Skills for Learning: What Are They, How Can They Be Cultivated, How Could They Be Measured And Why Are They Important for Innovation. London: NESTA. Martin, S. (2009). Learning to teach science. In K. Tobin, & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), World of Science Education: North America (pp. 567–586). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. McCullagh, J., Walsh, G., & Greenwood, J. (2008). Books and stories in children’s science: the preliminary findings of the BASICS project. In Presentation at The Association of Science Education (ASE) Annual Conference in Liverpool 2008. McGuinness, C. (2000). ACTS: a methodology for teaching thinking across the curriculum. Teaching Thinking, 2, 1–12. McGuinness, C., & Sheehy, N. (2006). Building Thinking Skills in Thinking Classrooms. Available from www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/McGuinness RB 18.pdf (accessed November 2012) Murphy, C. (2008). Primary Science in Northern Ireland: A Position Paper. Report for STEM group (Northern Ireland). Available at: http:// www.nismartcommunities.com/ViewServlet?content id=16004605&community content id=16004567&folder id=16000188&cid=16000003&str extension=doc&filename=Primary Science in Northern Ireland.doc (accessed November, 2012).

188

C. Murphy et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 10 (2013) 173–188

Murphy, C. (2009). Unit 7.6 schools, revised curriculum and initial teacher education in Northern Ireland. In C. Capel, M. Leask, & T. Turner (Eds.), Learning to Teach in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience. Bingdon: Taylor & Francis. Available from: http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415478724/downloads/n-ireland.pdf (accessed December 2012) Murphy, C., Beggs, J., & Kerr, K. (2008). New Approaches to Science Teaching and Assessment. Report for AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust. Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2010). A five-year systematic study of coteaching science in 120 primary schools. In C. Murphy, & K. Scantlebury (Eds.), Coteaching in International Contexts: Research and Practice (5th ed., pp. 11–34). Rotterdam, Holland: Springer. Murphy, C., & Scantlebury, K. (Eds.). (2010). Coteaching in International Contexts. Rotterdam, Holland: Springer. ISBN: 978-9048137060. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming Teacher Education Through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers. Washington, DC: NCATE. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3d&tabid=715 National Science Teachers’ Association. (2010). NSTA Strategic Goals 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/research.aspx Naylor, S., Keogh, B., Downing, B., Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2007). The PUPPETS project: puppets and change in teacher practice. In Paper Presented at the ESERA Conference Malmo, Sweden. Nilsson, P. (2010). From theoretical explanation to practical application: coteaching in a pre-service primary physics teaching course. In C. Murphy, & K. Scantlebury (Eds.), Coteaching in International Contexts (pp. 219–240). Rotterdam, Holland: Springer. ISBN: 978-9048137060. NI Curriculum. (2007). TSPC Framework Online. Retrieved from http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/skills and capabilities/tspc framework.JPG. (accessed December 2012) O’Conaill, N. (2010). A learning space: studenbt teachers’ experiences of coteaching science. In C. Murphy, & K. Scantlebury (Eds.), Coteaching in International Contexts (pp. 169–194). Rotterdam, Holland: Springer. ISBN: 978-9048137060. Roth, W.-M., Masciotra, D., & Boyd, N. (1999). Becoming-in-the-classroom: a case study of teacher development through coteaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 771–784. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., Carambo, C., & Dalland, C. (2004). Coteaching: creating resources for learning and learning to teach chemistry in urban high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 882–904. Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith. Stranmillis University College (2013) http://www.stran.ac.uk/media/media,347935,en.pdf Swartz, R., & Parks, S. (1994). Infusing the Teaching of Critical and Creative Thinking into Elementary Instruction. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press and Software. Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2006). The many faces of collaborative planning and teaching. Theory Into Practice, 45(3), 239–248. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The development of higher forms of attention in childhood. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and Language. Revised and Edited by A. Kozulin. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Walsh, G., & Gardner, J. (2005). Assessing the quality of early years leaning environments. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 7(1). http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/walsh.html (accessed December 2012) Walsh, G., Dunn, J., Mitchell, D., & McAlister, M. (2006). Giving young children a voice: accessing the views of 3–4 year old children in playgroups. Representing Children, 18(5), 79–95. Wassell, B., & LaVan, S. (2009). Revisiting the dialogue on the transition from coteaching to inservice teaching: new frameworks, additional benefits and emergent issues. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(2), 409–432.