Innovations in Mathematics, Science and Technology Teaching

1. Innovations in Mathematics, Science and Technology Teaching Konrad Krainer 2008 MAV Annual Conference

2. Content Part 1: The IMST Project Part 2: Two teachers’ professional growth Part 3: Summary and outlook

3. 1. The IMST Project Double meaning of IMST: IMST = international (English) abbreviation Imst = Town in Austria

4. Impulse for initiative and challenge Impulse: • Bad results in TIMSS (upper secondary) • Research project IMST (1998-99)  IMST (2000-2009; since 2007 also primary) • Manifold reasons for bad results (not only teachers) Challenge: • “Fragmentary education system” (many initiatives)

5. Goals and intervention strategy Goal: • Raising the quality of learning and teaching in mathematics, science and technology Intervention strategy: • Supporting (groups of) teachers (schools, regions, universities, …) in their efforts to improve their practice (wherever they start from) • Establishing “Learning systems”

6. Learning system Autonomy Reflection Action more ! Action research Constructivism System theory Networking

7. INNOVATIONS Practice „Good practice“ Professionalisation T -Teams IMST Tailor-made support

8. What is „good teaching“? 10 „tension fields“ of teaching, for example: • Pre-knowledge and target knowledge • Basicsand applications See e.g. Lernende Schule, issue 28 (2004); Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, vol. 8.2 (2005)

9. Implementation and communication Network of people and institutions (AECC): • Supporting intensively 50 to 150 projects (Fund) • Providing extra PD activities (e.g. “examination culture”) • Establishing networks as a distribution strategy: e.g. 9 Regional (and 2 District) and 1 Gender network(s) Communication: • Website http://imst.ac.at (inkl. Wiki), quarterly Newsletter, annual 4-day-Conference

10. Evaluation and impact • Process-oriented: steering information for the staff (e.g. internal interviews) • Outcome-oriented: Effects at different levels (e.g. effects seen by teachers and principals) • Knowledge-oriented: Theoretical and practical knowledge about fostering innovations at different levels (e.g. interconnection between support given to Ts and Ts’ & Ss’ motivation) Meta-evaluation by external experts

11. Example: T and S-Questionnaire Müller, Hanfstingl & Andreitz, 2007: • T felt supported by collegues and principal T assess their S as more motivated; S (of these T) feel more intrinsically motivated. • However, if T feel pressure  T‘s and S‘s intrinsic motivation sinks. • (Innovative) Teachers should not be left alone when trying to improve their practice! See example!

12. 2. Two teachers’ professional growth Case 1 – Gottfried (Case 2 – Maria) • Interest: General feedback about his teaching • Looking for Ss’ specific needs and problems • Further development of an existing questionnaire • Surprise: Students have different view of working at the blackboard ( why?) • -> Detailed new questionnaire & field notes

13. Case 1 – Gottfried (continuation) • Students’ work at the blackboard: open learning environmentversus feeling like a fool (class-mates) • Errors: Welcome versus should better not happen • Positive experience –> collegial feedback from Ts • Initiated mutual classroom visits (3 teachers) • Two years after: more students chose M in final exam; better able to “argue more clearly his viewpoint”

14. Case 2 – Maria • Maria, same Secondary School (so far, no collaboration with Gottfried) • Supported also by Helga Jungwirth • Topic: Using open learning in Trigonometry • Transparencies used at her plenary-talk-contribution at a GDM-conference

15. Starting points • School year 2000 / 01 • Questionnaire on mathematics instruction • Interviews with students • Desire for open learning • School year 2001 / 02 • Elaborating a new content with open learning • Understanding difficulties when students work autonomously

16. Implementation • 3 phases with different parts of contents • Working in pairs after a working plan • Elaborating new contents with working sheets • Stabilizing and practicing with file-cards • Audio-taping of students‘ discussions • Written feedback

17. Analysis • Audio-taping • Problems with reading texts • Getting familiar with working method • Working in pairs positive • Written feedback • Very positive • Individual working pace • Help in the case of difficulties • More fun with open learning

18. Results • Even weak students show high motivation • Autonomous work has to be practiced • Highly concentrated work • Revealing observation of students‘ learning was possible

19. Effects so far [after 2 years] • Presentation of my project in a meeting of the school‘s mathematics group • Two other math colleagues used my material in other 10th grade classes • Change of experience with these colleagues • Using open learning also this school year [2002/03]

20. Additional remarks on Case 2 – Maria • Maria resumed (2002) „that several students came out of their shell and contributed to solutions in a more intensive way as they usually did when elaborating things with the whole class“. • Presentation of her results in a school board meeting (teachers, students, parents) • Growing collaboration with Gottfried (group of three teachers – mutual classroom visits)

21. The merging of the cases – contributions to school development • The principal supported Gottfried‘s and Maria‘s work and made it visible to other teachers • „Mutual classroom visits“ and „questionnaire for evaluating teaching“ became integrated into the two-year school development program • Gottfried (2005 in Benke):„… In particular, young colleagues regard that as a chance to observe senior ones and to ask for further information.“

22. Impacts on science teaching & school development • Gottfried and Maria listened to other IMST-teachers‘ reports about „laboratory teaching“ in science • Effect at their school (Maria): „Through that participation also others got somehow more open, we try out something new.“ „Leaping over“ from math teaching to science teaching. • A new subject (with lab teaching) was introduced • Prinicipal: Focus on evaluation/M –> sustainable SD

23. Progress & Explanation • Progress at different levels: Indicators • Students: Choice of mathematics in their final exam, better achievements (G); successful argumentations and problem solving; high motivation and satisfaction (M). • Individual teachers:Extended perspectives for teaching and assessing, higher self-confidence, better able to argue (G); more aware of conducive and hindering general conditions für students‘ learning, setting priorities more consciously (M).

24. Indicators (2) • Team of teachers:Exchange of instructional material in M; formation of peer-groups (mutual classroom visits); innovations lept over to science teachers, introduction of laboratory teaching • School (as an organisation): Report in conferences and school board meetings; questionnaire-evaluation and mutual classroom visits integrated in school development program (and in practice); new subject in science.

25. The theoretical perspective Assumption that • social systems (society, educational system, school, classroom, student, …) • can be very different, but can be regarded through the lens of some general dimensions Social systems can be seen as“learning systems” • when the interaction of the actor(s) within the system or with relevant environments are characterized by four – closely interconnected – dimensions

26. Learning systems – 4 dimensions Attitude towards and competence in • Experimental, constructive and goal-directed work (action) • Reflective, (self-)critical and systematically based work (reflection) • Autonomous, self-initiative and self-directed work (autonomy) • Communicative and cooperative work with increasing public relevance (networking)

27. Student Examining results, questions, test Working on a topic, elaborated tasks and goals Pairs / Class Focus: (Maria‘s) Students‘ learning T = facilitator

28. Teacher Audio-tape, Q, observations & learning control (data & writing) Designing a rich learning environment Colleagues (M & Science) Focus: Teachers‘ Learning (Maria) Support by IMST

29. M Teachers Discussions, feedback, reflection on new goals Written & oral reports, visits, new subject School Focus: School‘s Learning Support by principal (& external feedback)

30. IMST leader Reflection & Discussion Presenting two stories / IMST G1: Teachers & teacher educators Focus: MAV 2008 MAV environment

31. 3. Summary and outlook Altogether: • Synergy and widespread of two teachers‘ well-planned activities, fostered through participating in an externally organised project and internal collaboration and support by the principal. • Commitment with a national project and proudness that the initiative comes from math & science, has become an opportunity to build a lasting infrastructure (IMST).

32. Summary and outlook (2) Promote learning systems! • Doing innovation and evaluation (action and reflection). • Important for oneself and others, forming and participating in internal and external teams, communities & networks (autonomy and networking). • If part of a larger (nation-wide) project: collective learning of the whole educational system!