Teacher practices during science school visits in Gauteng Anthony Lelliott Marang Centre for Maths and Science Education, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.
[email protected] This study reports on phase one of a project examining how teachers make use of school visits to sites of informal learning in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Teachers were briefly interviewed when they visited one of four ‘museums’: the Johannesburg Planetarium, Johannesburg Zoo, Sci-Bono Discovery Centre or Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory together with their students. Interviews were held to determine information about the school visiting, as well as the teacher’s purpose for the visit, any preparation they made, their plans for activities during the visit as well as their intentions for follow-up activities after the visit. The findings show that teachers’ purposes are mostly related to educational and curricular aims, they make relatively little preparation for the visit apart from logistical planning and their intention to follow-up consists mainly of written activities. The findings will inform phase two of the project which aims to capture best practices and disseminate these amongst the teachers and informal learning institutions. Introduction The research in this study falls within the general frameworks of visitor studies and learning at museums1 which have developed over the past thirty years (Rennie, 2001). Interest in learning in museums is gaining a higher profile in South Africa, as the number of sites of informal learning increase, and both the government and donors question the impact that such institutions can make, evidenced by the recent annual conferences of the South African Association of Science and Technology Centres and the African Science Communication Conference in Dec 2006 (and forthcoming February 2009). The aim of the study is to investigate how South African teachers use fieldtrips to sites of informal learning such as science centres and museums. By researching how teachers use museums and identifying best practices during school visits, it is possible to provide comprehensive plans for how both pre- and in-service programmes can ensure that fieldtrips become an integral part of a teachers’ repertoire of expertise. Literature Review Over the past twenty years, there has been considerable research carried out at museums overseas that show they are environments which not only inspire and motivate people, but have a role to play in learning (Falk & Dierking, 2000; Rennie, 2007). The international literature suggests that, despite taking the trouble to plan and organise visits outside the classroom, many teachers are disengaged from the visits themselves, and view them “as field trips where the students see interesting things and have fun” (Tal, Bamberger, & Morag, 2005, p. 932). Griffin and Symington (1997) found than in their research involving 29 teachers in Australia, the majority had little 1
In this paper, the term ‘museum’ will be used generically, to refer to a variety of informal learning environments such as museums, Zoos, science centres, and a Planetarium.
idea of how to work with museums as informal learning environments. Similarly, in a study of 115 senior primary teachers in the USA, 31% had no plan of what they wanted to do with their students during the visit (Kisiel, 2006). While it is likely that teachers in South Africa follow the international trend, there is little evidence to confirm this (Lelliott, 2007). In the research that has been conducted, relatively few studies have examined science museum learning using a theoretical lens. Prominent among those that have are John Falk and Lynn Dierking, who have conducted numerous research and evaluative studies in science centres and museums since the 1980s. They have proposed a framework – the Contextual Model of Learning (CML) – which describes how learning in museums involves the three overlapping contexts of the personal, the sociocultural and the physical (Falk & Dierking, 2000). The first context stresses the personal nature of learning, and how it is different for each visitor. However, most visits (and all school visits) are carried out in groups, whereby the individuals interact with each other and the museum staff, so that there is a social and cultural context to the experience. The physical aspect of the model refers to role of the environment of the museum, and visitors’ interaction with the exhibits. Although the CML provides a model into which different types of museum and science centre learning can be fitted, and also provides a holistic way of examining such research, it does not provide a theoretical framework in itself. Lave and Wenger’s notions of legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991), as well as Wenger’s communities of practice and dimensions of progress (Havergal, 2005; Wenger, 2002) will be used in the current study to provide a framework for investigating and analysing how teachers (and their students) can become encultured into museum visits. Sociocultural approaches involving communities of practice have been successfully used in museum research involving pre-service teachers (e.g. Leinhardt & Gregg, 2002). Methodology The research is located in the qualitative paradigm, and is based on the epistemological assumptions of a ‘modest realist’ (Osborne, 1996) which accepts that there is an ontological reality which researchers investigate, but that our attempts to determine reality will be a social construction of that reality. The methods of research are based in this epistemology, and will (over time) attempt to obtain rich detailed descriptions of social practices, rather than superficial snapshots. Studies involving communities of practice are usually carried out in authentic contexts, using methods such as interviews and observation which obtain detailed descriptions of the participants (Lemke, 2001). The first phase of the project based on data collected during 2008 focused on interviewing teachers visiting four different institutions in Gauteng province: the Johannesburg Planetarium (on the University of the Witwatersrand campus), the Johannesburg Zoo (in Partktown), the Sci-Bono Discovery Centre (in Newtown, Johannesburg) and the Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory (known as HartRAO, 60 km West of Johannesburg). These initial interviews have determined (using teacher’s self-reporting) the extent to which they prepare for a visit, interact during the visit and follow-up on the visit back at school. Interviews last 10-15 minutes and have been conducted by research assistants with teachers arriving at the venue with their learners. The interview schedule for the Planetarium is shown in Appendix 1. In addition to information on the number of students, the school location
and logistics of the trip, the sorts of questions asked during the interview include the following: “What is the purpose for the learners visiting the Planetarium? Is there anything in particular you are expecting the learners to do today?” “Did you manage to [or other teachers] do any work with the learners about the visit? [If so, what did you do? When did you do it?]” The interviews were analysed by transcribing the notes made by the research assistants, and entering all the data into an Excel spreadsheet. The questions involving teacher purpose, preparation, activity during the visit and intentions to follow-up were then analysed using qualitative data analysis software (ATLAS.ti), and categories of responses were developed. These are described in the findings below. The second phase of the project will identify cases of ‘best-practice’ teachers, who prepare for the visit and who conduct follow-up activities after the visit. Ideally these teachers also are engaged with learners and museums educators during the visit. These teachers will be visited at school and interviewed so that a complete picture of their practice in their school context can be documented. Findings Over the course of 2008, the project carried out a total of 99 interviews across four institutions. The bulk of the interviews were conducted at the Planetarium, with the remainder split between the other sites (Table 1). Table 1. Interviews conducted at the four sites of informal learning Institution
Number of teacher interviews No. of learners
Johannesburg Planetarium
62
4659
Johannesburg Zoo
12
1915
Sci-Bono (Newtown)
14
2324
Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory
11
713
Total
99
9611
Each of the participating teachers in the study was asked questions relating to the grade composition of the accompanying learners (Figure 1).
Percentage of classes
30 25 20
Pltm Zoo SciB HRAO
15 10 5 0 R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Grades
Figure 1. Grades of learners visiting the four sites of informal learning
At the Planetarium and HartRAO, the majority of the learners were from grades 4 to 7, at the Zoo, grades 1 to 3 predominated, while at Sci-Bono the upper grades (10 and 11) were most in evidence. At the Zoo, Sci-Bono and HartRAO all visiting schools came from Gauteng province with a journey time from their school of between 35 and 80 minutes. However, at the Planetarium the schools came from seven of the nine provinces as shown in Figure 2, with a journey time averaging over three hours. Eight of the 15 schools from Limpopo Province were from the Vhembe District; and the reasons for this relatively high number will be followed up in phase two of the research. 25
No. of visits (n=61)
21
20 15
15 11 9
10
5
3
2
2
KZN
NC
0 Gauteng
Limpopo
North West Mpumalanga Free State
Figure 2. Provinces of schools visiting the Planetarium Purpose of and preparation for visit
A key characteristic of a good teacher is their ability to articulate purpose regarding what they are doing with their learners (e.g. Middlesborough Grid for Learning, 2004), and there is some evidence that South African teachers find this difficult
25
21
20
17 Pltm Zoo Sci-B HartRAO
15 11 10
8 3
5
11
11
7 4
4 1 2
1 0
3 1
3 1
0
0
va tio n
Vi s
ua lis at
io n/ ob se r
Ex po su re
g Le ar ni n
Cu rri cu l
Ed uc at io na l
0
um
No. of citations by teachers
(Adler, Slonimsky, & Reed, 2002). All teachers in the study were asked a question regarding their purpose for the visit (see Methodology section) in order to determine their reasons for bringing the learners to the site. Analysis of the responses to this question revealed 12 categories of reasons why teachers considered they were carrying out the visit. The five categories with the most cited purposes for the visit were ‘curriculum’ ‘educational’, ‘learning’, ‘exposure’ and ‘visualisation/observation’ (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Teachers’ purposes for the visit The most commonly cited purpose for bringing students to the site was related to the curriculum, referred to 29 times by teachers. Teachers gave reasons such as “to see some relevant aspects of science to the school curriculum” and “the visit is part of the theme” in the case of primary teachers teaching a theme across all learning areas. The research on teachers’ motivations for fieldtrips shows that many teachers do not have specific purposes for their visits (Griffin & Symington, 1997; Storksdieck, 2001). The linking of school visits to the curriculum has been noted by Gilbert & Priest (1997) and Storksdieck (2001), but has not been identified by teachers as a prominent goal of visits. The fact that it is the foremost purpose given in the current study suggests that South African teachers might want to relate the trip to a ‘worthwhile’ activity, and contrasts with the very few teachers (five) who referred to ‘fun’ as a purpose of the visit. The next-commonly cited purpose for arranging the visits was categorised as ‘educational’ (26), in which teachers gave a very brief reason such as “aim of the visit was educational”. It is likely that teachers who stated this as a purpose for the visits were, like the curriculum-related reason above, answering the interviewer with a meaningful activity that relates closely to their roles as teachers. A similar category was ‘learning’ (24), though in this case several teachers did express themselves more fully in the interview. Examples of answers included “to enlighten pupils’ understanding” “improve learner’s knowledge” and “they understand better”. The category of ‘exposure’ (cited 15 times) has no analogue in the literature and may be particularly applicable to the South African situation. Teachers gave reasons such as “to expose learners to the science world” and “learners need exposure like everyone else”. It is likely that teachers used this expression because they consider their students have limited opportunities, either in their rural or township
environments. It would be interesting to investigate this purpose more fully in phase two of the study. The extent to and manner in which teachers prepare their classes for school visits has been identified as a key factor in ensuring that a fieldtrip is a valuable learning experience (Anderson, Kisiel, & Storksdieck, 2006; Falk & Dierking, 2000; Kubota & Olstad, 1991; Lucas, 1999; Rennie & McClafferty, 1996). The current study asked teachers to comment on any preparation they had carried out, but the interview question (see methodology section) was carefully phrased to attempt no judgement on the part of the interviewer. Analysis revealed five categories of preparation, as shown in Figure 4. The highest category was that specific lessons were conducted on topics related to the visit in preparation for it. Examples in this category were “learners were engaged into discussions then two written exercise were done”, “did two lessons explaining what learners would expect” and “learners had done more work about planets for the past three weeks”. However, the nature of the interview relied on teachers reporting on themselves and even though the topic of the visit might have been covered in class, it was difficult to determine the extent to which specific preparation for the trip was conducted, for example what to look for in the museum environment. In Griffin and Symington’s study, where the teacher’s description of preparation was compared against the learner’s description, it was apparent that less preparation was actually carried out than the teachers reported. 40
37 34
Times referred to (n=99)
35 30 25
19
20 15 10
6 3
5 0 Specific lessons
None
Brief
Logistical
Unsure
Figure 4.Teachers’ preparation for the visit One third of the responses were that the teacher did no preparation for the visit, which appears to be the norm in the international literature. Storksdieck (2001) found that 15/29 teachers did no preparation, while in Griffin and Symington’s (1997) study students reported that no significant preparation was done in 7/12 schools. The remaining quarter of the responses in the current study suggested only brief preparation (e.g. “Learners were told what to expect” and “They held a discussion”) or reference to logistical arrangements for example behaviour or transport. When combined with the category of ‘no preparation’, these responses outweigh teachers who claimed to have prepared in some detail.
Interaction during visit
Teachers were also asked what they considered they should be doing during the visit. Most responses involved assisting and guiding the students, as well as reference to ensuring that the students behave properly. More than half of the teachers had never visited the institution before, and therefore may not have known what to expect. Few previous studies have reported on what teachers expect to do during the fieldtrip. Kisiel (2006) found that 44% of teachers in his study (n=115) reported structured student engagement (e.g. use of worksheets), 22% reported unstructured student engagement, while 31% had no strategy. This appears to be an area that the current study needs to examine more closely in phase two of the project. Follow-up after the visit
How teachers follow-up the visit back at school is regarded as being equally or more important than pre-visit activities (Anderson, Lucas, Ginns, & Dierking 2000; Griffin & Symington 1997; Lucas, 1999). The question asked in the study was how teachers intended to follow-up the visit (“any plans for work with the learners when they are back at school?”). Given that the teacher’s class was not visited at the school, it is only their self-reported intentions that can be examined here (Figure 5). Over 50% of the teachers referred to the students carrying out some form of test or written exercise, while just under 20% were vague or uncertain of their plans. The remaining teachers referred to discussions, presentations by learners or projects. Like the responses to the questions on preparation, it seems that the teachers need to show to the interviewer that they are doing ‘valid work’ when they are back in the classroom. The literature on post-visit activities states that they are vital if the visit is to promote learning (Falk & Dierking 2000). Although the teachers’ intentions in the current study are laudable, additional forms of recall of the visit are likely to achieve more than written tasks, especially tests. Most museum researchers agree that simple testing of what students learn from a visit is unlikely to promote learning (Hein 1998).
Times referred to
60 50 40 30 20 10
Us e
so f
tw
ar e
wup No
fo
llo
ct Pr oj e
at io n Pr es en t
cu ss io
n/ Q &A
in Di s
Va gu e/ un ce rta
Te st /w r it te n
ex er cis e
0
Figure 4.Teachers’ follow-up after the visit Conclusions This study has shown that teachers who carry out class fieldtrips at the four sites of informal learning in Gauteng show broad similarities with teachers overseas. Teachers
organise the visits to relate to the curriculum they are teaching, and treat them as important for (fairly undefined) educational reasons. The majority of teachers do little or no preparation with the students for the visit, while the remainder appear to have been teaching aspects of the visit topic over the previous few lessons. It is not clear exactly how they link the visit to the lessons conducted; a feature which needs to be clarified in phase two of the study. The role of teachers’ interaction with their students and the museum staff and exhibits also needs to be examined more carefully. In terms of post-visit follow-up, the majority of teachers claim that they will conduct some form of written activity with their students in class. The findings have provided very useful baseline data on what a sample of teachers report they do when carrying out school fieldtrips. A few of the teachers clearly follow aspects of the best practices the literature recommends when class visits are conducted. The second phase of the research to be carried out during 2009 will document these best practices, with a view to providing a set of guidelines for both teachers and sites of informal learning. From a ‘community of practice’ viewpoint, there is a current culture of school visits in Gauteng in which rather superficial learning appears to take place. Identifying the aspects where more engagement on the part of the teachers and learners can take place will provide insights into how a more substantial and reflective community can be developed. References Adler, J., Slonimsky, L., & Reed, Y. (2002). Subject-focused INSET and teachers' conceptual knoweldge-in-practice. In J. Adler & Y. Reed (Eds.), Challenges of Teacher Development. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Anderson, D., Kisiel, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2006). Understanding teachers’ perspectives on field trips: Discovering common ground in three countries. Curator, 49(3), 365-386. Anderson, D., Lucas, K., Ginns, I., & Dierking, L. (2000). Development of knowledge about electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and related post-visit activities. Science Education, 84, 658-679. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and their making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Gilbert, J., & Priest, M. (1997). Models and Discourse: A Primary School Science Class Visit to a Museum. Science Education, 81(6), 749-762. Griffin, J., & Symington, D. (1997). Moving from Task-Oriented to LearningOriented Strategies on School Excursions to Museums. Science Education, 81(6), 763-779. Havergal, V. (2005). The Emperor's New Clothes? Taunton, UK: South West Musuems, Libraries & Archives Council. Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the Museum. London: Routledge. Kisiel, J. (2006). An Examination of Fieldtrip Strategies and their Implementation within a Natural History Museum. Science Education, 90, 434-452. Kubota, C., & Olstad, R. (1991). Effects of Novelty-reducing preparation on Exploratory Behavior and Cognitive Learning in a Science Museum Setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 225-234. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leinhardt, G., & Gregg, M. (2002). Burning Buses, Burning Crosses: Student Teachers See Civil Rights. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley & K. Knutson (Eds.),
Learning Conversations in Museums (pp. 139-166). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Lelliott, A. D. (2007). Learning about Astronomy: a case study exploring how grade 7 and 8 students experience sites of informal learning in South Africa. Unpublished PhD, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating Communities: Sociocultural Perspectives on Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316. Lucas, K. B. (1999). When Mr Jones took Grade 5 to the Sciencecentre. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne. Middlesborough Grid for Learning (2004) The Characteristics of Good Teaching. Retrieved 15 November 2008 from http://www.mgrid.org.uk/custom/resources_ftp/client_ftp/tnl/characteristics_of_go od_teaching.htm Osborne, J. (1996). Beyond Constructivism. Science Education, 80(1), 53-82. Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning Science Outside of School. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 125-167): Routledge. Rennie, L. J., & McClafferty, T. P. (1996). Science Centres and Science Learning. Studies in Science Education, 27, 53-98. Storksdieck, M. (2001). Differences in Teachers' and students' museum field-trip experiences. Visitor Studies Today, 4(1), 8-12. Tal, R., Bamberger, Y., & Morag, O. (2005). Guided School Visits to Natural History Museums in Israel: Teachers’ Roles. Science Education, 89, 920-935. Wenger, E. (2002). Communities of practice and social learning systems. In F. Reeve, M. Cartright & R. Edwards (Eds.), Supporting lifelong learning: Volume 2 organizing learning. London: Routledge-Falmer/Open University Press. Acknowledgements This project was kindly funded by NRF grant # FA2007041400003 awarded to the author. Grateful thanks to Simon Maneya, Kayode Arowolo, Mpho Mosabala, Sam Rametse and Anacletta Koloko for collecting the interview data. Appendix 1 Interview Schedule for teachers visiting the Planetarium [Chatty. Need unthreatening conversation] Do ethics: informed consent Interviewer introduces self in a chatty way. Hi, I’m welcoming you to the Planetarium. I’d like to ask you some questions about your visit. Interviewer notes down the following in notebook: 1. Name of School 2. Name of organising teacher 3. School District/area 4. Grade(s) visiting 5. No. of students (per grade) 6. Length of one-way bus ride from school/overnight stay
7. Your role in the school 8. How many teachers are accompanying you? Do they teach these learners? 9. Did you organise the visit? [Or is there someone else who coordinated the visit? [Can you give me contact details]. Why did you decide to come here? 10. Who sponsored the trip? [If pupils], how much did each pupil paid for the trip? 11. What is the purpose for the learners visiting the Planetarium? Is there anything in particular you are expecting the learners to do today? Is there any link to the curriculum? [If so, what?] 12. Does the school Have you ever visited the Planetarium before? [If so, how many times? With learners? Privately?] 13. Did you manage to [or other teachers] do any work with the learners about the visit? [If so, what did you do? When did you do it?]. If so number of lessons or weeks 14. What do you think a teachers’ role should be during this visit? 15. Did the Planetarium send you/the teachers any material before you came? 16. Is this a one-off visit for this class, or part of other visits? [Here? Elsewhere?] 17. Have you visited anywhere else with these or other learners? Where? 18. Do you or other teachers have any plans for work with the learners when they are back at school? [If so, what?] 19. Are you intending to visit again? 20. Would you mind if I (or one of my colleagues) came to see how you work with your learners at school? 21. Name; Cellphone. 22. Informally ask learners to see their perception on visit preparation. a. Have you done anything on solar system, planets, stars [if so] when? b. Tell me something about the e.g. solar system?
