Maria João LoureiroOportoAveiroCoimbraCollaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
University of Aveiro• created in 1973• around 12.000 students• graduate and post-graduate  courses     •   teachers educat...
Previous research• impact of teachers education courses (post-  graduation) in teachers practices• gap between research an...
Previous researchProject “Culturas” – 2006 (constrains to school innovation)A – intra and inter                         25...
Science Education Research and School Practices:            evaluation perspectives             Dynamics of Interaction   ...
Summary•   project presentation•   participants•   methodology•   results    – collaboration and leadership roles• final t...
Project presentation   gap between educational                        interaction between those com-  research and practit...
Project presentation• Problem         school                 interaction                                                  ...
Project presentationFocus                     INTERACTION                               Nature                            ...
Project presentation• Methodology  – qualitative case-based study (IPEC CoP) / action-research  – data gathering tools    ...
Project presentation• Tasks                                  I.perceptions                                                ...
Participants• Researchers   number – 10 (U.Aveiro, U.Évora, U.Lisbon)   degree – PhD (8), 2 finishing their PhD   research...
Participants• Teachers   number – 30   genre – F (70%)   education – graduation (5 years). ~ 40% had a post-   graduation ...
Participants (data analysis)• PhD and MsD students   Margarida Marques – MsD (doing the PhD), dynamics of   interaction, c...
Establishing the CoP - potencial• Tasks (before May 2006)  – regional meetings    • gather participants, focus interviews ...
Establishing the CoP - coalescente• Tasks (2006)  – May to end of Oct. (online).    • working groups (4)    • information ...
Dynamics of interaction - active• Explored tools (LMS)                     Chat                                    Forum  ...
Dynamics of interaction - active• group 1  – goal:     • project based/interdisciplinary teaching strategies  – difficulti...
Dynamics of interaction - active• group 2  – goals:    • preparation of a fieldtrip to a quarry - Quinta do Moinho    • re...
Dynamics of interaction - active• group 2 (cont.)  – products:     • lessons plan (before, during, after), worksheets, imp...
Dynamics of interaction - active• group 3  – goal:     • development of pedagogical materials (ICT integration) – natural ...
Dynamics of interaction - active• group 4  – goal:     • develop assessment instruments to use in project-based     approa...
Dynamics of interaction – roles G2                                                        Total                           ...
Dynamics of interaction - roles                    Líder intelectual        Facilitador          Mentor        Part. Activ...
Dynamics of interaction - collaboration                 V – Afirmações de acordo_aplicação dos novos significados construí...
Dynamics of interaction - collaboration                              Afirmações de acordo_aplicação dos novos significados...
Dynamics of interactionLeadership roles                              Collaboration   Level of                             ...
Impact• teachers’ perceptions                     ICT competences                                                         ...
Elements of the IPEC CoP• domain  – shared learning agenda: science teaching – sustainability (practices    based on compe...
Final thoughts• Research and school practices have their own dynamics but  can be articulated to:  – researchers     • pro...
Final thoughts• IPEC – contributed for a school that “facilitate the  development of each one potential” (my father, follo...
Thanks you for our attention!               Maria João Loureiro                       mjoao@dte.ua.ptCollaboration and Soc...
Initial perceptions (school practices)• aims/objectives of Science Education  – focus: education / instruction       – con...
Initial perceptions (school practices)• evaluation and assessment  – insufficient evaluation culture       – “70% test, 15...
Initial perceptions (interaction)• research possibilities for school practices  – practice innovation (change, reflection)...
Initial perceptions (interaction)• school practices possibilities for research.  – give importance to actual practices    ...
Initial perceptions (constraints)• intra and inter communities connections• attitudes toward innovation emerging from  res...
Research being carried out• Evaluation of the interaction dynamic  – Guna model  – Roles• Impact on curricular management ...
Perceptions about research• what influence the research agenda?  – international research community  – institutions    • n...
Perceptions about research• ICT exploitation  – create favorable context to innovation• research limitation  – analytical ...
Perceptions about …/methodologies• empirical work  – turned to school practice and not to theoretical reflection• qualitat...
Perceptions about …/validation• we learn how to do research doing  – permanent process, interrogation, reflection, …• we r...
Perceptions about …/dissemination• research transfer to school practice  – language (to difficult)  – results are not oper...
Perceptions about …/ethics• idiosyncratic sense of the communities and mutual  respect  – researchers and teachers• work t...
Perceptions about …/constraints• task overload and dispersions  – projects, lecturing, supervising, administrative work, …...
Teachers’ expectations• innovate  – Reflect about our own practice• collaborate• in-dept  – thoughtful practice• evolve  –...
Researchers’ expectations• respect and account  – personal and professional “parcours”• invests in collaborative research•...
Doubts/questions …• organization of working groups  –   guidelines?  –   how to promote the interactions/roles?  –   how t...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Ipec iodl&icem 2010

350 views
273 views

Published on

presentation IODL&ICEM 2010

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
350
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Let me first introduce myself and where I came from - my name is Maria João Loureiro and I came from Aveiro, Portugal, a little town between Oporto and Coimbra. Aveiro is frequently named the Portuguese Venice or the Portuguese “art-nouveau” town. I think the photographs tell by themselves. The town is also known by it beautiful light. Since the town is near a 50 Km long lagoon, connected with the sea, one of our oldest traditions is related with the production of marine salt and fishing. Aveiro was one of the most important towns of the country in the XV century. We have a typical boat, the “moliceiro”. This last image is a detail of a popular painting made in one of those boats.
  • I work at the Dept. of Education at the University of Aveiro. The Univ. of Aveiro, is a new university, created in 1973, with around twelve thousands students. We have several graduation and post-graduation degrees, in several domains. The Uni. of Aveiro is one of the members of the European Consortium of Innovative Universities, we also have the ECTS label and a very beautiful campus. We hope you will all enjoy the place next year.
  • My presentation is about a research project “Science Education Research and School Practices: Dynamics of Interaction” which was financed both by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and our research centre (Research Centre in Didactics and Technology in Teachers Education), and involved three portuguese universities: Univ. of Aveiro, Univ of Lisbon and Univ of Évora. I will present the project and the work that was developed, mainly in what evaluation is concerned. I will also share with you some of the difficulties we faced. In a broader scope, these difficulties are related to those felt by any innovative enterprise, like a new teaching approach or the integration of ICT.
  • I will briefly describe the project and the foreseen tasks and methodology. The project participant (30 teachers and 10 researchers) are also presented as well as how the IPEC CoP evolved. Then some results are described and discussed. Finally, I will share with you some of our doubts and questions.
  • The project is based on four main assumptions emerging from the literature review, and also on authors’ experience, namely from a former project concerning the identification of constraints between theory and practice in Science Education: there is a gap between educational research and school practices. The quality of educational research and its practical usefulness are seriously questioned in different continents, such as Europe (Hammersley, 2002), America (Chafouleas & Riley-Tillman, 2005) or Australia (McGraw, 1997), and also in Portugal (Cachapuz et al ., 2005; Costa et al. , 2003). The lack of a relationship between educational research and teaching and learning approaches is one of the main reasons for this discussion; it is important to promote interaction between educational researchers and practitioners (Costa et al., 2000). However, as we will see in the next slide, we assume (as Pórlan et al., …) that each community has its one epistemology that should be maintained; as in other domains, such as economy, engineering, …, the research educational agendas, priorities and processes, need to focus more on implementation studies developed by researchers and practitioners, in collaboration ( Hargreaves , …) .; ICT can facilitate the establishment of CoP and therefore working teams involving both educational researchers and practitioners, since, among others, they can collaborate at their one pace and without time and space constraints. However, there seems to be scarce empirical research about online CoP involving teachers (Lay et al., 2006) and researchers working in collaboration (Barab and colleagues – initial teachers education) and their impact on their (teachers and researchers) practices.
  • This scheme illustrates at the same time our assumptions and the problem under research which is: how to promote interaction between science educational research and school practices effective for both. Two particular questions arise from it: does the a community of practice (CoP) enable an easier interaction between these two groups? How does the analysis of the community under study contribute to build a mediating framework for the interaction between research and practice?
  • Hence, the project focuses on the nature, mechanisms, difficulties and procedures concerned with the interaction between teachers and researchers, mainly in an online context. It is important to look for ways of active sharing of expertise; scholars and practitioners should become part of a community, with the aim of improving their own research and teaching practices. The staff members of the project assume that the study of the impact of the interaction at the research practice level is one of our main challenges.
  • The methodology is based on a case study, being the case the CoP itself. A variety of research tools are being used, such as interviews, documental analyses, observation and questionnaires.
  • T1 – literature review T2 - s tarting the learning community ( . teachers’ selection under a set of criteria, .teachers to motivation and involvement – meeting) T3 - expectations and perceptions’ diagnostic T4 - pr eparing logistic aspects (creditation, platform, …) T5 - planning the classroom action (discussion of research, design of thematic science curriculum modules - Sustainability) T6 - d eveloping the classroom action T7 - analysing the interaction and identification of impacts T8 - knowledge production and dissemination (workshop with experts), to contribute to a mediating framework between research and school practices and to provide suggestions for improving the quality of research and school practices.
  • Based on the results of: Tools 1 (focus-group interview) Researchers – colleague Teachers (5 interviews) – researchers (common scheme) Tool 2 (personal and professional characterization) – online questionnaire Tool 3 (familiarity and attitudes toward ICT) – online questionnaire
  • Tarefas realizadas antes de Maio de 2006: i) realização de reuniões regionais que visaram a apresentação do projecto e a administração de entrevistas em grupos de enfoque . Estas entrevistas tinham por finalidade fazer um levantamento inicial das percepções que os professores tinham das suas práticas, bem como da interacção entre a investigação e as práticas lectivas em Educação em Ciência, e das suas perspectivas sobre o projecto e o trabalho em CoP online (Loureiro et al., 2007). Foi igualmente efectuada uma entrevista em grupo aos investigadores com objectivos similares às anteriores, excepto no que respeita às práticas, que no caso respeitavam as práticas de investigação, bem como a sua racionalidade; ii) aplicação de dois questionários online visando a caracterização dos professores, as dificuldades que emergem das suas práticas e os temas que gostariam de trabalhar , tanto no que respeita à investigação em Educação em Ciência, como aos temas curriculares dos ensinos básico e secundário; iii) primeira reunião geral do projecto, as 1as Jornadas de Trabalho IPEC, em Maio de 2006. Nesta reunião, houve um primeiro contacto pessoal entre os participantes no projecto, contribuindo para o desenvolvimento de confiança, essencial para o bom desenrolar do projecto. Segundo Barab (2003, p. 199), o desenvolvimento de confiança constitui um pré-requisito para os docentes reflectirem nas suas práticas e nas dos colegas: “trust is fundamental to participation.” No decurso dessa reunião fez-se uma sessão de familiarização com a plataforma de comunicação e foram apresentados os resultados das entrevistas em grupos de enfoque e dos questionários iniciais. Foram ainda discutidos os procedimentos para a organização dos grupos de trabalho.
  • Após as 1as Jornadas de Trabalho IPEC, iniciou-se um período de interacção online em que os vários elementos da CoP (professores e investigadores) discutiram e negociaram as temáticas curriculares a desenvolver. Tal permitiu organizar quatro grupos de trabalho, envolvendo cada um deles professores e investigadores da mesma região. Apenas o Grupo 4 envolve professores de várias zonas. Seguiu-se uma época de baixa interactividade, durante as férias do Verão. Depois de organizados os grupos, que só ficaram estabilizados em Novembro de 2006, foi solicitado aos participantes que definissem os planos de trabalho a desenvolver por cada grupo. A definição dos planos de trabalho conduziu ao aprofundamento dos tópicos seleccionados, à construção de materiais curriculares e à respectiva implementação e avaliação em salas de aula. Durante este período houve partilha de informação variada que incluiu partilha de experiências de ensino e de literatura relacionada com os temas que os grupos pretendiam trabalhar.
  •   Como se pode ver quadro, que apresenta as estatísticas gerais de interacção, em 2007, cada grupo de trabalho interagiu, fundamentalmente através das ferramentas de comunicação da plataforma Blackboard (fóruns de discussão, chats, …,). Foram negociadas e planificadas várias temáticas curriculares de Ciências do 3º ciclo do ensino básico e ensino secundário, com o objectivo de conceber e implementar módulos temáticos e materiais didácticos a ser exploradas em contextos educativos (sala de aula, saídas de campo, …). O quadro acima mostra que o nível de interacção nas ferramentas de trabalho (número de mensagens nos fóruns e chats realizados), dos grupos que se constituíram, é muito diverso . Fica também patente que as ferramentas de trabalho privilegiadas são diferentes .
  • Ainda em 2006, o Grupo 1 (constituído maioritariamente por elementos da zona de Évora) apresentou o esquema do trabalho que pretendia desenvolver. Era interesse do grupo, através da plataforma, desenvolver e avaliar estratégias de ensino e de aprendizagem baseadas em trabalho por projectos e de carácter interdisciplinar . No decurso de 2007, o grupo concebeu material didáctico diverso sobre vários temas. Contudo, o trabalho centrou-se num projecto , que tendo tido a sua génese no âmbito do projecto IPEC, foi financiado e é propriedade do EDIA [1] . Assim, o grupo focou-se num projecto que acabou por decorreu paralelamente ao projecto IPEC. Não obstante, foram desenvolvidas actividades, que os elementos do grupo, após selecção da informação, disponibilizaram na plataforma. Apesar de inicialmente o Grupo 1 se ter mostrado muito empenhado e interactivo , criou-se um “vazio" de interacção , que pode explicar a diminuição drástica dessa mesma interacção (o quadro 1 revela tratar-se do grupo com menos interacção). Subjacente a esta situação podem estar várias razões , dentre elas: - tratar-se de um grupo de professores e investigadores (pelo menos dois deles) que já anteriormente trabalhavam em colaboração mas presencialmente ; - ter havido um afastamento do investigador que mais dinamizava a interacção na plataforma (pelo facto de estar geograficamente distante, justificando a interacção online ). Mensagens ilustrativa do acima referido envolvimento das professoras no projecto Noudar e da “ausência” de interacção na plataforma: ( 1] podendo ser consultado na Internet ( http:// www.parquenoudar.com / pt /modules/ smartsection /item.php?itemid=86 ).
  • O Grupo 2 desenvolveu materiais para a realização de uma visita de campo à pedreira Quinta do Moinho (Canidelo – Vila Nova de Gaia), dado tratar-se de uma pedreira que permite o tratamento de questões ambientais (Educação para a sustentatibilidade). Os materiais foram desenvolvidos em colaboração e foram objecto de implementação por uma das professoras, que fez as devidas adaptações ao contexto . Estas adaptações relacionaram-se com uma simplificação da fase de preparação da saída de campo (Marques, no prelo), por alegadas razões de falta de tempo , entre outros. Em 2008, os materiais foram adaptados a outros contextos (Pedreira de Ferpil, Viseu) e implementados por pares pedagógicos (BG e FQ) nas escolas das professoras envolvidas no projecto, envolvendo portanto outros professores dessas escolas. No entanto, é de realçar que as alterações introduzidas não põem em causa os princípios orientadores da investigação educacional relativamente aos cuidados a ter quando se planeiam Actividades Exteriores à Sala de Aula – AESA (Marques, 2006). A partir da mensagem abaixo pode indicar-se que a escolha da pedreira Quinta do Moinho ficou a dever-se ao facto de se tratar de uma exploração em que os impactos ambientais procuram ser minorados e, portanto, de maior interesse didáctico.
  • As maiores dificuldades com que o G2 se defrontou relacionaram-se com a definição dos objectivos educacionais e as competências que poderiam ter sido desenvolvidas pelos alunos no âmbito das actividades propostas e realizadas e, por consequência, com a sua avaliação (Marques, no prelo). Esta discussão ainda se mantém no seio do grupo. Apesar de ter havido níveis de interacção na plataforma muito consideráveis (com picos , o que parece ser uma característica das CoP, Wenger, 1998 ), sobretudo em fóruns de discussão (como mostra o quadro 1), as principais decisões e discussões de ideias relativas ao desenvolvimento dos materiais foram feitas presencialmente , nomeadamente em saídas de campo (cuja preparação envolveu um especialista da área da Geologia da pedreira a visitar com os alunos).
  • O Grupo 3 concebeu, desenvolveu e implementou materiais didácticos para abordar a temática curricular sobre a gestão dos recursos naturais energéticos renováveis (eólicos, solares, hídricos, …), no 8º ano de escolaridade. A metodologia adoptada foi a da resolução de problemas . O problema proposto aos alunos foi “ Como melhorar a gestão energética da Escola? ”. Os materiais foram desenvolvidos em contexto online , por recurso a uma ferramenta síncrona (o quadro 1 mostra ser o G3 aquele que mais explorou esta ferramenta). Apesar de no quadro 1 estar registado que foram gravadas 58 sessões de chat envolvendo membros do G3, uma análise preliminar do seu conteúdo, feita por Marques (no prelo), revela que só 20 incluem interacções com discussão de trabalho no âmbito do projecto. Porém, considerando as datas/horas de criação de cada sessão, assim como o conteúdo de cada uma, verificou-se que o grupo 3 reuniu e registou as suas sessões de trabalho online em 12 ocasiões. Dado tratar-se do único grupo que privilegiou este tipo de ferramentas, importa analisar a(s) razão(ões) na entrevista final. Tal como aconteceu no grupo 2, houve necessidade de promover sessões presenciais que se revelaram essenciais para o prosseguimento do trabalho (ver mensagem seguinte). Todos os professores usaram os materiais em sala de aula, tendo alguns explorado as potencialidades das TIC no decurso da sua implementação (por exemplo a plataforma Moodle ). A exploração do Moodle não deverá ser alheia ao incentivo que tem sido promovido pelo ministério da tutela , Ministério da Educação, ao nível da integração das TIC em contexto educativo e à larga experiência de investigação na área da integração das TIC em contexto educativo, nomeadamente na Educação em Ciência, duma das investigadoras envolvidas no grupo.
  • Relativamente ao Grupo 4 (constituído por elementos de várias zonas do país), uma vez que não havia consenso sobre o tema curricular a trabalhar em colaboração, decidiu-se desenvolver instrumentos de “avaliação de trabalho de projecto”, utilizando a plataforma que está, neste momento, a ser utilizada nas escolas ( Moodle ). O plano de trabalho do grupo foi delineado de acordo com as orientações estabelecidas nas 1as Jornadas do projecto. No entanto, vários membros do grupo afastaram-se , tendo o grupo ficado reduzido a três elementos. No decurso de 2007, um destes membros teve que interromper a interacção por um período relativamente longo (retomou a interacção no início de 2008). Os restantes membros, enquanto esperavam pelo regresso do colega, foram centrando as interacções em questões mais pontuais (por exemplo, avaliação de competências promovidas pela exploração de uma webquest ) e com os membros dos outros grupos.
  • From the graphic, it can be stated that, in G2, leadership roles were assumed by Prof A and Inv 1 and 2, which is in line with the perceptions of the group member, discussed during face to face meeting, including the last seminar. Prof A is group member that facilitated the interaction, always inviting the other participants to interact through the CMC tools. Nevertheless, Prof D also played leadership roles, questioning the group and discussing the topics both in issues related with the practice and the underlying concepts.
  • In this group roles were not clearly assumed neither by teachers nor researchers. As reported by the group member in the final seminar of the project IPEC, for some aspects, for instance related with ICT exploitation, the leadership was assumed by a teachers and for others by the researchers. The results are in line with this perceptions but it is striking that, although those perceptions, ProfI played more leadership roles than their colleagues and the researchers. This can be related with the fact that that teachers was the most active member in the group, indicating that an increase in participation may result in playing leadership roles.
  • Participants that had leadership roles (prof A and D, Inv 1 and 2) have also great level of interaction achieving higher levels of knowledge construction which can be related to the fact that they contributed to information sharing but asked questions, tried to relate different point of view and negotiate them, make synthesis, …. On the other hand, as indicated by de Weber et al. (2009), that reported that role assignment promote higher level of thinking, since “moderators , theoreticians, and summarisers requires a stronger focus on building upon others’ contributions” (p. ??).
  • According to the perceptions of the members of the group, leadership was shared between the group members. The results show that Prof I played leadership roles more often than the others participants. Concerning the levels of collaboration, and from the graphic above, one can indicate that those that achieved higher level of knowledge construction are Pro I, followed by Prof J and that, as in the previous group, it seems that leadership roles entail higher level of knowledge construction. Asynchronous CMC tools are claimed to have advantages when confronted with synchronous ones since they may facilitate reflexive thinking and thus higher levels of cognitive involvement (????). In fact this CMC tools facilitate communication which is independent of space and time, increasing flexibility, but also give participant time to think about the issues under discussion before posting and facilitate the access to those issues because all the contributions are stored and organized, i.e, it is easy to reconstruct the discussion flow. It is surprising to notice that, although the reported advantages, from our results, it seems that G3, that used mainly chat to communicate, achieved higher level of Knowledge construction than did G2 (asynchronous communication). Two aspects of the groups dynamics can explain at a certain level these results. First, the main decision and discussions inside the G2 were made in face to face meetings (as described before) being the CMC explored mainly for information sharing. G3 worked for a shorter period of time (April till June 2007) and, since the materials were supposed to be implemented in classroom before the end of the school year, the chat sessions were programmed, centered in the planned tasks and used mostly for to negotiate aspects related with the lessons plans being developped.
  • According to the perceptions of the members of the group, leadership was shared between the group members. The results show that Prof I played leadership roles more often than the others participants. Concerning the levels of collaboration, and from the graphic above, one can indicate that those that achieved higher level of knowledge construction are Pro I, followed by Prof J and that, as in the previous group, it seems that leadership roles entail higher level of knowledge construction. Asynchronous CMC tools are claimed to have advantages when confronted with synchronous ones since they may facilitate reflexive thinking and thus higher levels of cognitive involvement (????). In fact this CMC tools facilitate communication which is independent of space and time, increasing flexibility, but also give participant time to think about the issues under discussion before posting and facilitate the access to those issues because all the contributions are stored and organized, i.e, it is easy to reconstruct the discussion flow. It is surprising to notice that, although the reported advantages, from our results, it seems that G3, that used mainly chat to communicate, achieved higher level of Knowledge construction than did G2 (asynchronous communication). Two aspects of the groups dynamics can explain at a certain level these results. First, the main decision and discussions inside the G2 were made in face to face meetings (as described before) being the CMC explored mainly for information sharing. G3 worked for a shorter period of time (April till June 2007) and, since the materials were supposed to be implemented in classroom before the end of the school year, the chat sessions were programmed, centered in the planned tasks and used mostly for to negotiate aspects related with the lessons plans being developped.
  • No ponto anterior – dinâmicas de interacção , foi feita uma primeira abordagem às dinâmicas criadas nos diferentes grupos que importa aprofundar num futuro próximo. Não obstante, cremos poder avançar que o trabalho desenvolvido até ao momento permite assinalar que através das interacções na CoP foi possível: - identificar uma temática curricular de trabalho a desenvolver, bem como as áreas de dificuldades – avaliação e competências, o que poderá ter contribuído para as clarificar e aprofundar. Note-se que está prevista uma análise mais detalhada das discussões em curso e a recolha das percepções dos participantes no que respeita ao desenvolvimento pessoal e profissional que as interacções desencadearam; - desenvolver materiais curriculares de qualidade , segundo a opinião dos professores e investigadores envolvidos, e segundo as reacções dos alunos depois da respectiva implementação; - proporcionar aos professores a solicitação de informação bibliográfica que ajude a encontrar respostas para as suas dificuldades. Esta informação serviu de fundamentação à elaboração dos materiais produzidos e, necessariamente, cremos, ao crescimento pessoal e profissional dos envolvidos . O acesso facilitado à informação bibliográfica disponibilizada e a sua discussão terá também contribuído para a qualidade dos materiais curriculares desenvolvidos/adaptados; - facilitar aos investigadores o reconhecimento das dificuldades emergentes da prática lectiva dos professores envolvidos e, portanto, aproximar-se dessas mesmas práticas , apropriando-se das condições em que elas ocorrem. O acima exposto, cremos, não é despiciente no quotidiano dos investigadores em Educação em Ciência e constitui factores que podem aproximar a investigação e as práticas lectivas em Educação em Ciência, objectivo do projecto apresentado neste documento.
  • Preliminary results of the diagnostic task Tools 1 (focus-group interview) Researchers – colleague Teachers (5 interviews) – researchers (common scheme) Tool 2 (personal and professional characterization) – online questionnaire Tool 3 (familiarity and attitudes toward ICT) – online questionnaire
  • Ipec iodl&icem 2010

    1. 1. Maria João LoureiroOportoAveiroCoimbraCollaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    2. 2. University of Aveiro• created in 1973• around 12.000 students• graduate and post-graduate courses • teachers education • sciences, math, … • engineering • Health • …• member of the European Consortium of Innovative Universities, ECTS label. Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    3. 3. Previous research• impact of teachers education courses (post- graduation) in teachers practices• gap between research and practice (context Science Education, …)• teachers with MsD, thus involved in experiential action/research are willing to innovate their practices -> can contribute to sustainable educational changes and innovation Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    4. 4. Previous researchProject “Culturas” – 2006 (constrains to school innovation)A – intra and inter 25communities connections Interviews 20 FrequencyB – attitudes towardinnovation emerging from 15 DissertationsresearchC – nature of teachers’ 10training 5D – school resources andmanagement 0E – representationsF – theoretical discourse A B C D E F GG - educational policy Categories of the constraintsIPEC site http://ipecproject.wordpress.com/a-nossa-producao Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    5. 5. Science Education Research and School Practices: evaluation perspectives Dynamics of Interaction Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    6. 6. Summary• project presentation• participants• methodology• results – collaboration and leadership roles• final thought Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    7. 7. Project presentation gap between educational interaction between those com- research and practitioners munities should be promoted assumptions research should be developed role of ICT and online CoPby researchers and practitioners Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    8. 8. Project presentation• Problem school interaction research practices practices How to improve? Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    9. 9. Project presentationFocus INTERACTION Nature Dynamic Difficulties Online Procedures context IMPACT practices research Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    10. 10. Project presentation• Methodology – qualitative case-based study (IPEC CoP) / action-research – data gathering tools • interviews (focus-group – initial and final perceptions) • logs (interaction analysis) – process (Wenger), collaboration (adaptation of Gunawardena et al., 1997), leadership (Reeves-Lipscomb et al., 2004) • documental analyses (lesson plans, students’ worksheets, final reflections, reports, publications, …) • online questionnaires – teachers’ problems, sense of community - McMillan e Chavis (1986), obstacles to the interaction, …) Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    11. 11. Project presentation• Tasks I.perceptions Lessons planification Action F.perceptions Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    12. 12. Participants• Researchers number – 10 (U.Aveiro, U.Évora, U.Lisbon) degree – PhD (8), 2 finishing their PhD research areas – Science Education / 3 ICT in Education • background in Biology, Engineering, Geology and Physics • epistemology of science, problem solving, assessment and evaluation, language, STS, ICT professional experience – more than 15 years experience in teachers education – 15 to 30 years Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    13. 13. Participants• Teachers number – 30 genre – F (70%) education – graduation (5 years). ~ 40% had a post- graduation degree (MsD) teaching areas – biology/geology, physics/chemistry, ICT (2) professional experience ~70% more than 10 years experience in teachers education – 30% in initial teachers education and almost 50% in in-service teachers education. research experience – 24% research projects and 35% MsD. Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    14. 14. Participants (data analysis)• PhD and MsD students Margarida Marques – MsD (doing the PhD), dynamics of interaction, curriculum management, sense of community, obstacles… Sérgio Pinho – MsD, leadership roles Carla Rosa– assessment competencies (G2) Graça Cruz – reflexive competencies (G2 and G3) Carla Lopes – research technician and PhD, collaboration /assessment of outdoors activities (new project) Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    15. 15. Establishing the CoP - potencial• Tasks (before May 2006) – regional meetings • gather participants, focus interviews – online questionnaires • teachers characterization, problems, curricular themes – first general meeting • personnel contact – develop trust, sense of community • familiarization with the technology • share and discuss results (focus interviews) • discuss procedures Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    16. 16. Establishing the CoP - coalescente• Tasks (2006) – May to end of Oct. (online). • working groups (4) • information sharing (practices, literature, …) • negotiation of interests and themes – Oct. to Dez. 2006 (mostly online) • working plans – goals – working plan (task, calendar, …) – evaluation Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    17. 17. Dynamics of interaction - active• Explored tools (LMS) Chat Forum Exchange ofGroups Publication* Access E-mail Publication** Access filesGroup 1 0 116 114 156 5352 18Group 2 137 465 317 649 9580 37Group 3 1716 908 106 95 3597 0Group 4 158 506 153 429 3984 14 Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    18. 18. Dynamics of interaction - active• group 1 – goal: • project based/interdisciplinary teaching strategies – difficulties: • conciliate Noudar Project (EDIA) • reduced online discussion – interaction: beginning very active – “empty” “ Our absence is related with the fact that we have a lot of work (…) we are finishing the development of materials for the Moudar project, then we will have more time to interact” Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    19. 19. Dynamics of interaction - active• group 2 – goals: • preparation of a fieldtrip to a quarry - Quinta do Moinho • research indicators – outdoors (Orion, 1994, Marques, 2006) “(…) S. Pedro da Cova is not very interesting, it is from the pedagogical point of view less interesting. Since we have sustainability concerns, he [an expert in Geology] suggest a visit to another quarry - Pedreira da Madalena (granítica), na Quinta do Moinho, no Canidelo. It is a quarry where granite is being explored taking into account the actual directives (either Portuguese and from the EU) and that we can visit with our students (…)” Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    20. 20. Dynamics of interaction - active• group 2 (cont.) – products: • lessons plan (before, during, after), worksheets, implementation in several classrooms (involvement of other school teachers), evaluation of the developed materials (students and teachers), … – difficulties: • definition of the educational objectives and competences that students would develop and how to assess them – interaction (blended): • high participation - fluctuate (Wenger, 1998), in forums (2 years) • main decisions and discussion – face to face meetings - culture Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    21. 21. Dynamics of interaction - active• group 3 – goal: • development of pedagogical materials (ICT integration) – natural resources management (energy – Problem resolution) – problem: How to improve the energetic management in our school? – products: ~ G2 – worksheet to explore a film about the use of natural resources – difficulties: • ~ G2 (2th meeting – assessment of competencies - Roldão) – interaction (blended): only during 2007 • chat (short period ~ 12 sessions) • face to face meeting Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    22. 22. Dynamics of interaction - active• group 4 – goal: • develop assessment instruments to use in project-based approaches – difficulties: • several members quit – three (“lack of critical mass”) • one of the members interacted in a very fluctuant way (involvement in other activities – coordinator of the group that aim ICT integration in the school) – interaction (online): • forums, chat, Skype, … • about specific questions and with others group (richness) Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    23. 23. Dynamics of interaction – roles G2 Total Líder intelectual Facilitador Mentor Part. Activo ProfE ProfDParticipantes ProfC ProfB ProfA Inv 2 Inv 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 Nº de unidades codificadas Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    24. 24. Dynamics of interaction - roles Líder intelectual Facilitador Mentor Part. Activo ProfJ ProfI ProfHParticipantes ProfG ProfF Inv6 Inv4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Nº de unidades codificadas Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    25. 25. Dynamics of interaction - collaboration V – Afirmações de acordo_aplicação dos novos significados construídos IV – Teste de sínteses ou Co-Construções propostas III – Negociação de significado - Co-Construção de tarefas no âmbito do projecto comum II – A descoberta e exploração de dissonância ou inconsistências nas tarefas, ideias, conceitos ou afirmações I - Partilha - Comparação de informação Prof E Online - sharing Prof D Face to face meetings Prof CParticipantes Prof B Prof A Inv 2 Inv 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Nº de unidades codificadas Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    26. 26. Dynamics of interaction - collaboration Afirmações de acordo_aplicação dos novos significados construídos Teste de sínteses ou Co-Construções propostas Negociação de significado - Co-Construção de tarefas no âmbito do projecto comum A descoberta e exploração de dissonância ou inconsistências nas tarefas, ideias, conceitos ou afirmações Partilha - Comparação de informação Prof J Prof I Prof HParticipantes Prof G Online - negotiation Prof F Number of sessions Inv 6 Inv 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Nº de unidades codificadas Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    27. 27. Dynamics of interactionLeadership roles Collaboration Level of Contexts participation (age, tasks, time, … ) and ICT use culturesCollaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    28. 28. Impact• teachers’ perceptions ICT competences Online (Dis)equilibrium Questioning Enrichment Reflection Interaction Co-construction Actualization Sharing Collaborative teaching Dialogue Becoming closer Innovation Involvement Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    29. 29. Elements of the IPEC CoP• domain – shared learning agenda: science teaching – sustainability (practices based on competence development – fieldtrip, problem solving) – value: innovation (organization of fieldtrip, PSolving, ICT integration)• community – shared vision of science education, interactions, relations, trust, diversity, …• practice – pool of ideas, materials, tools, information, histories, … disseminated in various national meetings Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    30. 30. Final thoughts• Research and school practices have their own dynamics but can be articulated to: – researchers • promote the knowledge of difficulties emerging from school practices - identify topics and areas of difficulties – research problems • develop quality teaching materials (based on research, innovative, …) – teachers • facilitate the access to research literature • promote more thoughtful practices and teachers professional development Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    31. 31. Final thoughts• IPEC – contributed for a school that “facilitate the development of each one potential” (my father, following Padre Américo) – impact on researchers’ practices?? – impact on professional practices (participants and that were not involved in the project) – impact of the developed materials in students learning Those last are rarely achieved through other type of professional development initiatives, as MsD (Costa et al, 2003, Loureiro et al, 2006) Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    32. 32. Thanks you for our attention! Maria João Loureiro mjoao@dte.ua.ptCollaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    33. 33. Initial perceptions (school practices)• aims/objectives of Science Education – focus: education / instruction – content centered teaching strategies – official curricula – “I can’t separate the development of knowledge from the development of competencies [skills, attitudes, …]”• lessons plans – teacher / student centered • STS and interdisciplinary approaches – “I try to relate the content with their [students] lives.” – “… pedagogical pair … the math is after physics and so students can try math models to the phenomena under study” – practical activities: exp. work, fieldtrips, “research” activities, discussion and argumentation (journal articles), problem solving. Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    34. 34. Initial perceptions (school practices)• evaluation and assessment – insufficient evaluation culture – “70% test, 15% for personal work, 15% for observation …” – “ we evaluate the product and not the process” – diversity of evaluation methodologies – “we use different methodologies … portfolios, presentations and communication of their work, …” Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    35. 35. Initial perceptions (interaction)• research possibilities for school practices – practice innovation (change, reflection) – “introduce pedagogical content knowledge in the organization of teaching strategies” – “… research gives us insights to our reflection … increase our critical skills related to our practices” – more thoughtful practices – “[from] what we read, we acknowledge written information that things ought to be made like that [as we think they should].” Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    36. 36. Initial perceptions (interaction)• school practices possibilities for research. – give importance to actual practices – “… by observing individuals [teachers] in that context [classroom], one can see the problems from another perspective." – emergence of new research problems – “research is being developed in some areas and not in others more pertinent [teachers-students and students-students interactions, leadership]” – “.. We should find proposition suitable to motivate students that doesn’t like to learn” – "...we are researching new methodologies and the point is the relationships [between teachers and students]." Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    37. 37. Initial perceptions (constraints)• intra and inter communities connections• attitudes toward innovation emerging from research• nature of teachers’ training• school resources and management• representations• theoretical discourse Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    38. 38. Research being carried out• Evaluation of the interaction dynamic – Guna model – Roles• Impact on curricular management – obsjectives / activities – innovation• Evaluation of competencies – Reflexive – Assessment and evaluation competencies Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    39. 39. Perceptions about research• what influence the research agenda? – international research community – institutions • national research politic (FCT) • research centres/universities (local politics, projects, dissertations, thesis,) • Need to improve professional school practices – personal aspects • relations and communication among researchers (work with friends) Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    40. 40. Perceptions about research• ICT exploitation – create favorable context to innovation• research limitation – analytical and compartmented (PS, practical work, STS, HC, ICT, …) • epistemological complexity of education – fragile because it is reactive • Need to clarify the projects (problems) Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    41. 41. Perceptions about …/methodologies• empirical work – turned to school practice and not to theoretical reflection• qualitative vs quantitative approaches• similar methodologies – case studies, action-research• Meta-analyses and literature reviews – researchers professional development (end of the carrier) Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    42. 42. Perceptions about …/validation• we learn how to do research doing – permanent process, interrogation, reflection, …• we recognize the our research limitations – personal (epistemologies), methodologies, tools, …• rigor exigency in the validation process – preliminarily results Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    43. 43. Perceptions about …/dissemination• research transfer to school practice – language (to difficult) – results are not operational (PS, STS, …)• teachers’ resistances – organizational – cultural – personal Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    44. 44. Perceptions about …/ethics• idiosyncratic sense of the communities and mutual respect – researchers and teachers• work to vs with teachers• need to be cautious in the activities (overload) – readings, tasks, …• contribute to non isolation (researchers and teachers) Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    45. 45. Perceptions about …/constraints• task overload and dispersions – projects, lecturing, supervising, administrative work, …• community heterogeneity – need to create networks – need of an active voice in the educational politic – Inconsistencies of the educative system (teachers education, competencies-based curriculum vs national exams, …) Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    46. 46. Teachers’ expectations• innovate – Reflect about our own practice• collaborate• in-dept – thoughtful practice• evolve – use e-learning platforms Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    47. 47. Researchers’ expectations• respect and account – personal and professional “parcours”• invests in collaborative research• accept changing process – attitudes, procedures, …• improve participated practices Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010
    48. 48. Doubts/questions …• organization of working groups – guidelines? – how to promote the interactions/roles? – how to analyze the interactions? – how to shape de group (logic)?• evidences – of interactions? – their impact on teachers and researchers practices? Collaboration and Social Roles: IPEC| IODL & ICEM, Anadulo Univ, 2010

    ×