Innovations in Mathematics, Science and Technology
Teaching
Konrad Krainer
2008 MAV Annual Conference
Content
Part 1:
The IMST Project
Part 2:
Two teachers’ professional growth
Part 3:
Summary and outlook
1. The IMST Project
Double meaning of IMST:
IMST = international (English) abbreviation
Imst = Town in Austria
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)
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”
Learning system
Autonomy
Reflection Action
Networking
more !
Action research
Constructivism
System theory
Tailor-made support
T - TeamsT - TeamsPracticePractice
IMST
INNOVATIONS
„Good practice“
Prof
essi
onal
isat
ion
What is „good teaching“?
10 „tension fields“ of teaching, for example:
• Pre-knowledge and target knowledge• Basics and applications
See e.g. Lernende Schule, issue 28 (2004); Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, vol. 8.2 (2005)
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
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
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!
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
Case 1 – Gottfried (continuation)
• Students’ work at the blackboard: open learning environment versus 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”
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
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
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
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
Results
• Even weak students show high motivation
• Autonomous work has to be practiced
• Highly concentrated work
• Revealing observation of students‘ learning was
possible
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]
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)
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.“
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
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).
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.
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
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)
Focus: (Maria‘s) Students‘ learning
Student
Examining results,
questions, test
Working on a topic, elaborated tasks and goals
Pairs / ClassT = facilitator
Focus: Teachers‘ Learning (Maria)
Teacher
Audio-tape, Q, observations & learning control (data & writing)
Designing a rich learning
environment
Colleagues (M & Science) Support by IMST
Focus: School‘s Learning
M Teachers
Discussions, feedback, reflection on new goals
Written & oral reports, visits,
new subject
School Support by principal (& external feedback)
Focus: MAV 2008
IMST leader
Reflection & Discussion
Presenting two stories / IMST
G1: Teachers & teacher educators MAV environment
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).
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!