MyStorys natur, med små filmsnutter (10 sek), viste seg å være velegnet til å utforske en så sammensatt og kompleks problemstilling som unges forbruksvaner. Bruk av mobil og MyStory som kulturelle
artefakter knyttet til ungdomskulturen, inviterte også til bruk av lokal kulturell kontekst for å undersøke temaet og koble det til ungdommenes egne levde liv. Kunnskapstilegnelsen ble kulturelt tilpasset (Gay, 2000), den engasjerte elevene på en personlig måte og de ble eksperter i deler av læringsaktiviteten (Vasbø, Silseth, & Erstad, 2014). Den akademiske kunnskapen ble situert i ungdommenes egne erfaringer, men de faglige koblingene ble allikevel i stor grad styrket under veiledning av læreren.
6 Referenser
Aikenhead (1996). "Science Education: Border Crossing into the Subculture of Science." Studies in Science Education 27, 1-52.
Aikenhead, G. (2001). Students Ease in Crossing Cultural Borders into School Science. Science Education, 85, 180-188.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Cobern, W. (1996) Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science Education 80(5), 579-610
Erstad, O. (2013). Digital Learning Lives: Trajectories, Literacies, and Schooling. New York, Peter Lang.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Vasbø, K. B., Silseth, K., & Erstad, O. (2014). Being a learner using social media in school: the case of Space2cre8. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 110-126
Udir. (2013). Læreplan i Naturfag (Nat1-03). Hentet fra http://www.udir.no/kl06/NAT1- 03/Hele/Kompetansemaal/kompetansemal-etter-vg1-%E2%80%93-studieforberedende-utdanningsprogram
108
40. CHANGES IN PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGES. A CASE STUDY FROM THE NEW TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM AT UiT – THE ARCTIC UNIVERSITY OF NORWAY
Magne Olufsen1, Solveig Karlsen
1Department of Education. Uit- The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
Abstract
From 2017 the primary and lower secondary teacher education will be a master education in Norway. UiT - The Arctic University of Norway started a master education already in 2010. The main differences between the former and new program are: increased credits in both pedagogy and the master subject, more emphasize on pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and early focus on the master subject. In this case study, teacher mentors evaluate students’ knowledges in their school practice. All mentors with experience from both programs stated that the master students had increased knowledge in both science matter knowledge and PCK. These changes in preservice teacher knowledges can
possibly be explained by changes in the master program. Our results show that early emphasize on and more credits in the master subject and increased focus on PCK in science courses, seem to be important features in the development of the preservice teachers professional knowledge.
1 Introduction
OECD (2005) concludes that the teacher is highly important for pupils achievement in school. Especially the teachers’ subject matter knowledge has shown to be vital (Gustafsson, 2003; McKenzie et al., 2005;
Monk, 1994). There are also some studies that show a positive correlation between teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge and pupils’ achievement gain (Baumert et al., 2010). In a review by Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy (2001) there are some results which suggest that the teachers general pedagogy knowledges influences the pupils learning outcome.
From 2017 the Norwegian teacher education in primary and lower secondary school will be a five-year master education. UiT - The Arctic University of Norway (UiT) started a master education already in 2010. This was a national pilot. In this new master education, it was highlighted four point where the new education differed from the former one (Norwegian: allmennlærerutdanningen (ALU-education)) (UiT, 2009):
A teacher education which provides better totality and coherence between subject, subject didactics and school practice
An extended and more R&D oriented school practice
An teacher education divided into different school-levels (grade 1-7 and 5-10) that ensure better subject knowledge
Increased emphasis on R&D knowledge to stimulate teachers to develop the Norwegian schools in a scientific tradition
In the 4-year ALU-education the students could at a maximum get 60 ects in science and 30 ects in general pedagogy. In the new master program for grade 5-10 the students get 120 ects in their master subject and 70 ects in general pedagogy. Thus, these two subjects have increased considerably in the new program. In addition, the emphasize on PCK in the science courses has increased considerably.
109
In the project “New master education in science – improved teacher competences?“ we have followed the first preservice teachers in science during their master education. In this study, teacher mentors evaluate master students’ knowledges and progress in school practice. Data from the students have also been included to answer our research question: How can a teacher education be designed in order to get science teachers with high professional knowledges?
2 Theoretical framework
PCK-models are considered to be useful tools to understand the teachers’ professional practices. Kind (2009) points out that Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko’s (1999) PCK-model is useful as a theoretical background for training novice science teachers becoming effective teachers. In this study we use the Magnussen et. al.’s (1999) model to evaluate the knowledges of preservice science teachers. The model has four general areas of teacher knowledges: Subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content
knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge and knowledge of context (Figure 1). The PCK area is then divided into five components: Orientations to teaching science, knowledge of science curricula, knowledge of assessment of scientific literacy, knowledge of instructional strategies and knowledge of students’ understanding of science (Figure 2).
Figure 1
A model of the relationship of the domain of teacher knowledge. The figure is copied from Magnusson et. al. (1999).
110 Figure 2
The components of PCK for science teaching. The figure is copied from Magnusson et. al. (1999).
3 Research methods
In this study, mentors answered a questionnaire and were interviewed about their students’
knowledges in general pedagogy, SMK and PCK during their school practice. Altogether, there were done nine interviews over two years, which comprised twelve school practice periods and nine master students. The students were in their three first years of their study. All of the teachers were experienced teachers and six of them had mentored students in both programs. Magnusson et. al.’s (1999) PCK-model was used as a basis for development of the questionnaire and interview guide. The interviews, which were semi-structured, were taped and transcribed. The questionnaires were analyzed by descriptive statistics and the interviews were analyzed using a theme based analytical approach (Thagaard, 2013).
4 Results
Our results are based on the mentors’ evaluation of the students in their school practice. The mentors describes that the students had a relative high SMK in science, especially in topics they have worked with in the science courses. The mentors experienced discussions with the master students at a higher academic level compared to the ALU-students. Here is a quotation that illustrates this: “The general academic level in science and math has increased. That is one of the things that have pleased me most in the new education.” All mentors with experience from both programs find that the master students have increased knowledge in SMK compared to the ALU-students.
The mentors evaluated the master students PCK both in the interview and in a questionnaire. In Table 1 the result from the questionnaire are shown. On average, they find that the master students PCK was good. They reported an improvement in use of different teaching methods and use of active learning
111
methods. Most mentors pointed out that the students had knowledge about open-ended inquiry based experiments and they were not so dependent of the textbook. One teacher said: “They want to distance themselves from traditional science teaching and want to do more experiments. They are more focused on open-ended inquiry based experiments. They don’t want to just follow the textbook and do cookbook experiments. I can see that they have got impulses which they bring into school practice”. All the mentors with experience from both educations pointed out that that the master students had higher knowledges in PCK compared to the ALU-students.
Table 1: Overview of the mentors evaluation of the students‘ pedagogical content knowledge. The diagram shows the distribution of answer. The horizontal lines in the diagram correspond to two answers.
Question
How do you evaluate the student when it comes to…
Fordeling
1 integrating inquiry based methods (forskerspiremetodikk) in the lessons?1
2 using active learning methods (experiments, practical activities, etc)?
3 repertoire of teaching methods?
4 communicating science content?
5 presenting learning goals at the start of lessons?
6 summarizing the lesson according to the learning goals?
7 informing the pupils about their school work in a clear and concise manner?
8 adapting the teaching to the pupils different abilities and needs?
9 giving the pupils challenges in science?
10 relating science to the society and to the everyday life of pupils?1
11 do formative assessment (homework, talks, presentations, etc)?1
1 One or more mentors answered «don’t now»
In general pedagogy, the master students were evaluated as natural and reflective classroom leaders.
The mentors gave the master students particularly good evaluation when it came to making good relations with the pupils. One quote describing this was: “He took care of the weaker students and gave them attention. It has been good relations”. The master students were also confident and showed responsibility for the students. In the area of classroom management, the mentors with experience from both programs don’t experience any differences between the master- and ALU-students.
112 5 Discussion and conclusion
All mentors in the study with experience from both teacher education programs, find that the master students have increased knowledge in both SMK and PCK. These changes in preservice teacher
knowledges can possibly be explained by changes in the education program. In the new master program the extent of the master subject is increased considerably and there has been an increased emphasizes on PCK in the science courses. In the master program, the students get 40 ects in their master subject (science) already in their first year. This is a distinct different from the ALU-education where the
students only could choose this subject in their third or fourth year. The change make it possible for the master students to practice science teaching during the entire education and to make the school practice more relevant for the students. This could be a contribution to link theory and practice together, which is considered as a key element in the professional development of teachers.
5 References
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., . . . Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers' Mathematical Knowledge, Cognitive Activation in the Classroom, and Student Progress.
American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180.
Gustafsson, J. E. (2003). What do we know about effects of school resources on educational results?
Swedish economic policy review, 10(2), 77-110.
Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education: Perspectives and Potential for Progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examing
Pedagogical content knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer academic publishers.
McKenzie, P., Santiago, P., Sliwka, P., & Hiroyuki, H. (2005). Teachers matter. Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Retrieved from Paris:
https://www.oecd.org/edu/school/34990905.pdf
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject Area Preparation of Secondary Mathematics and Science Teachers and Student Achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125-145.
Thagaard, T. (2013). Systematikk og innlevelse : en innføring i kvalitativ metode (4. utg. ed.). Bergen:
Fagbokforlaget.
UiT. (2009). Søknad om godkjenning av pilot for ny lærerutdanning ved Univesitetet i Tromsø – Økonomisk støtte. Upublisert.
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps and recommendations. Retrieved from
https://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherPrep-WFFM-02-2001.pdf
113