Presentation for McLain et al. (2021) at the PATT38 Conference on Tuesday 27th April 2021. Reference: McLain, M., McLain, D., Wooff, D. & Irving-Bell, D. (2021). Preservice Teachers’ Perspectives on Modelling and Explaining in STEM Subjects: a Q Methodology Study. Techne: Research in in Sloyd Education and Crafts Science, 28(2), pp.367–374. Available at https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/techneA/article/view/4292

1. Preservice Teachers’
Perspectives on Modelling and
Explaining in STEM Subjects: a
Q Methodology Study.
Matt McLain, Drew McLain, David Wooff and Dawne Irving-Bell

2. Problem
• There is limited research literature on teacher modelling and demonstration;
• It is a common pedagogical tool used in many practical and STEM subjects;
• The research instrument used in McLain (2021; 2018) is cumbersome and was used
with relatively small numbers;

3. Literature
• Direct Instruction (Sherrington, 2019; Rosenshine, 2012; Kirscher, Sweller and Clark,
2006) and Cognitive Apprenticeship (Collins et al., 1991)
• Tension between behaviouralist and constructivist perspectives
• McLain (2021) identified two architypes for teacher modelling / demonstrating:
• ‘the teacher as expert’ and ‘the teacher as facilitator’
• Limited STEM specific literature on teacher modelling and explanation
• In science, the focus seems to more on engagement with principles and concepts than
on processes (e.g. King et al., 2015; Lin, Hong & Chen, 2013)
• Very little in D&T (cf. McLain, 2021; 2018)

4. Methods
• Research Question: What do preservice teachers of
STEM subjects believe about effective teacher
modelling and explaining and, in particular,
demonstration?
• Q Methodology (Watts and Stenner, 2013)
• Qualitative and subjective (views, beliefs and values);
• Quantitative – Factor Analysis comparing participants;
• Q-Set – 26 statements developed by McLain (2021);
• Q-Sort (physical) – ‘forced choice frequency
distribution’.

5. Discussion
Factor Analysis
The analysis identified 7 factors
(groups):
• There was greater alignment between
the views of student teachers of STEM
subjects than the wider group of
‘practical’ subjects;
• Therefore, the two groups that were
predominantly comprised of STEM
student teachers became the focus of
this paper;
Factor F2
Learning as a continuum led by the teacher
• continuity of modelling and explaining in the
context of a sequence of lessons;
• building on prior learning through questioning
• ‘signposting’ the next steps for learners later in
the lesson or in a future lesson
• use of examples, analogies and similes to
illustrate concepts or processes within the lesson
• conscious of potential problems, including risks
and hazards.
• questioning to encourage learners to speculate
and recall knowledge
• focused on the main points/steps being
modelled/explained
• use of examples to illustrate these steps/stages
• running commentary
• monitoring learners understanding when they are
applying knowledge/skills
Factor F5
learning as an experience scaffolded by the teacher
• addressing misconceptions
• learners’ engagement with the task before
intervening
• moving around the room to support learners
when they are applying knowledge/skills
• information about potential problems, including
hazards and risk, being made available to learners
in the lesson
• use of questioning to encourage pupils to
speculate
• questioning to help learners recall knowledge,
including from prior lessons and other subjects
• preparation
• prompting learners to identify potential problems,
including hazards and risks, for themselves
• running commentary

6. Conclusion
• 2 architypes:
• the teacher as the expert and as the facilitator;
• There were similarities between both groups;
• The tension between behaviourist and constructivist theories is apparent;
• The findings align with those of McLain (2021), which focused on D&T teacher educators
• Note: this study did not include D&T student teachers

7. Implications
• The 26 statements could be used and adapted as a discursive tool for STEM teacher
education;
• There are opportunities for collaboration and co-teaching of STEM student teachers
in some areas;
• E.g. teacher modelling and explaining;
• Further analysis is needed of the other 5 factors not discussed in this paper;

8. A little advertisement!
Consider submitting a blogpost on
your teacher education research.
The blog is to share ideas and good
practice.
Our audience includes:
• University and school based teacher
educators
• School based mentors
• D&T CPD providers
https://dttegroup.edublogs.org/

9. References
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 38–46.
King, D., Ritchie, S., Sandhu, M., & Henderson, S. (2015). Emotionally Intense Science Activities. International Journal of Science
Education, 37(12), 1886-1914. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1055850
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of
Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 12.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Lin, H., Hong, Z., & Chen, Y. (2013). Exploring the Development of College Students' Situational Interest in Learning Science.
International Journal of Science Education, 35(13), 2152-2173. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.818261
McLain, M. (2021). Developing perspectives on ‘the demonstration’ as a signature pedagogy in design and technology. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(1), pp.3-26. DOI: 10.1007/s10798-019-09545-1
McLain, M. (2018). Emerging perspectives on the demonstration as a signature pedagogy in design and technology education.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(4), 985-1000. doi:10.1007/s10798-017-9425-0
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know. American Educator, 36(1), 12-
19. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Rosenshine.pdf
Sherrington, T. (2019). Rosenshine's Principles in Action. Woodbridge, UK: John Catt Educational Limited.
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation. London: SAGE.