The document discusses a study where biology teachers collaborated with researchers to develop professional development training on mathematics skills needed for the new A-Level biology curriculum. A community of interest involving 3 biology teachers, a biology education researcher, and a mathematics education researcher worked together over 3 sessions to design a one-day training course covering exponentials/logarithms and statistics. The preliminary findings suggest that involving teachers in the design process had benefits for teacher professional development and confidence in teaching mathematics, though longer term involvement may be needed to significantly impact confidence. A survey also found that the one-day training was valuable for elaborating on new content but had little overall effect on teachers' mathematics confidence.

1. Theoretical background and rationale
Recent changes in the A-level (16-18 yr olds) curriculum mean that Biology
teachers are confronted with more mathematics to teach (DfE, 2014). This
initiative set out to design a one day course for these teachers to address
some of the gaps in mathematical content knowledge, to build maths
confidence. We report on a study in which three biology teachers, a biology
education researcher and a maths education researcher collaborated in a
Community of Interest (CoI) (Fischer, 2001) to develop a professional
development day covering maths skills in A level Biology. Within these CoIs
teachers who co-design and use resources for teaching, can contribute to
their own professional development (e.g., Jaworski, 2006). The day was
approached as a boundary object (Akkerman & Bakker, 2014) as it resides
on the boundary of two distinct dimensions, one the practical-theoretical cut
between practice and research, and one the two disciplines maths and
biology.
Involving teachers in the design of continuing
professional development (CPD) – Maths in the
new A level Biology curriculum
Dr. Christian Bokhove and Dr. Carys Hughes CSciTeach MRSB
Author contact details
Email: a.n.other@soton.ac.uk
Conference Name 6-7 May 2010
Research design and methodology
The study consists of two parts. In part A, which is process oriented, the CoI
of three Biology teachers, one maths education researcher and one biology
education researcher, set out to design the one day course. In part B the one
day course was delivered to a group of Biology teachers (N=22).
Part A was constructed along the lines of a course design and review model,
excluding the assessment element (Butcher, Davies, & Highton, 2006). Three
two-hour sessions with the teachers were organised. The first session
considered the aims of the one day course, the second the mathematical
content, and the third the actual delivery and teaching/learning methods.
During the session field notes and recordings were made. After delivery of the
CPD there was an evaluative focus group.
Part B involved the delivery of the one day course to 22 biology teachers.
This day focused on exponentials/logarithms and statistics. The aims,
accompanying content and pedagogical design of the day were designed by
the CoI. We were interested in hearing about maths confidence, evaluation
and impact, and used a range of questionnaire instruments to collect data. For
example, to gauge maths confidence we used two subscales of modified
Fennema-Sherman Attitude Scales (Fennema & Sherman, 1976) on personal
confidence about maths and usefulness of maths.
Conclusions and discussion
The preliminary findings of this study suggest that it is beneficial for teachers’
professional development to work in a CoI with researchers to design CPD
for their peers. However, our conclusions are limited by the following factors.
• It will be important to be realistic about the feasibility of involving teachers
in a design process or even to attend a one day course. We specifically
tried to (i) keep the design process ‘short and sweet’ and planned in
twilight sessions, (ii) offer the day for free to increase uptake, and (iii)
planned the day after exams, avoiding peak workload moments.
• Data collection: all data collection that was planned after the one day
course was hard to collect. Nevertheless, it is very worthwhile to further
investigate the potential of the approach.
• The fact that the teachers involved in the CoI reported an increase in
maths confidence, but the teachers who attended the course and
completed the maths confidence survey did not brings into question
whether “maths confidence” has been adequately measured. It also
suggests that the longer term involvement in the CoI had more impact that
a one day course.
Key objectives
The study intended to answer the following questions about the design of the
day course:
1. In what way can these teachers contribute to the design of the delivered
session?
2. What impact does the involvement in the design process have on their
professional development?
3. What impact does a one day maths course for the new Biology A-level
curriculum have on participants’ maths confidence and teaching practice?
Findings
Part A – Teacher involvement in course design
1. The teachers identified aspects of maths that biology teachers would find
hard to teach, the level at which the maths should be pitched and
appropriate biological contexts in which to teach the requires maths skills.
2. The teachers expressed improved confidence in teaching the maths in A-
level biology, which they felt would transfer to their students, improving
their confidence in maths in biology also. They felt less “scared” is a
student did not “get it” first time, as they could now explain the maths
process is different ways, use different language, or a different example.
The greatest perceived benefit to the teachers was the CoI, in which
knowledge and resources were shared.
Part B – Impact of one day course
3. An initial survey of participants indicated that teachers valued the
elaboration of new content on exponentials/logarithms. The statistical
content was well-known already but the chosen teaching and learning
methods allowed attendees to compare and discuss their own pedagogies
in teaching statistics, which built confidence. Finally, the maths confidence
questionnaire showed that the teachers thought they could learn maths,
and found it important for their work, but that they needed support
because it was difficult. However, in general there was no effect on their
maths confidence. A follow up survey 4 months after the course indicated
that maths confidence may have fallen slightly.
REFERENCES
Akkerman, S., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of educational research, 81(2), 132-169.
Butcher, C., Davies, C. & Highton, M. (2006). Designing learning. From Module outline to effective teaching. London & New York: Routledge
Department for Education (2014). GCE AS and A level subject content for biology, chemistry, physics and psychology.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1976). Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 6(1), 31
Fischer, G. (2001). Communities of interest: learning through the interaction of multiple knowledge systems. In the Proceedings of the 24th IRIS Conference S. Bjornestad, R. Moe,
A. Morch, A. Opdahl (Eds.) (pp. 1-14). August 2001, Ulvik, Department of Information Science, Bergen, Norway.
Jaworksi, B. (2006). Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: critical inquiry as a mode of learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(2),
187-211.
Contact: c.bokhove@soton.ac.uk, c.f.hughes@soton.ac.uk
We thank the teachers for their participation: Hilary Otter,
Rebecca D’Silva and Nicky Miller
Resource page produced for the maths in
biology course
How many times can you fold a sheet of
A4 paper and how does this link to maths
and biology?
What are your experiences of collaborating
with teachers in communities of interest?