PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE TEACHING USINGVIDEO TECHNOLOGYbyMurray R. SmithDiploma of Education, Manitoba Teachers College, 1963B.A. (Anthropology) University of Winnipeg, 1970B.Ed. (Science) University of Manitoba, 1973M.Ed. (Science) University of Manitoba, 1977A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THEREQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESCURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONWe accept this disseratation as conforming to the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAJune, 1993© Copyright Murray Smith, 1993Department ofIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)The University of Briti^ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDE-6 (2/88)iiABSTRACTProfessional development and inservice training are oftenused as synonymous terms. However, for the purposes of thisstudy it is useful to stipulate differences. From my experienceas science consultant, inservice training has been a short termplan the objective of which is to ask teachers to change theirpractices after information has been presented to them.Inservice training seems to assume that teachers possess formsof professional knowledge that may lead to changes in theirclassroom practices. In contrast, professional development maybe defined as a long term support for teachers who seekadditional knowledge to guide their classroom practices. Ifteachers do not possess knowledge that will assist them inclassroom practices, and they wish to do so, then theopportunity to acquire this knowledge should be provided.Providing professional development opportunities toteachers in remote schools is a challenge. There are few peopleoffering professional development opportunities and remoteschools suffer when in competition with their urbancounterparts. Even if experienced personnel were available, thecost of getting teachers to a central site or the presenter toremote schools is more costly than most school divisions canafford. This study explored video technology as a tool toovercome professional development problems of distance, cost andiiishortage of presenters involved in professional development.Central to understanding how video technology may be usedto overcome professional development problems is describing howteachers respond to video technology. Video technology has thecapability of presenting actual classroom practices demonstratedin vignettes. The vignettes used in this study demonstrated howteachers engage students in manipulating materials to discoverscientific principles. A qualitative design was used to collectdata on how teachers responded to these vignettes.The data were collected from four teachers in three phases.These phases were initial interview, classroom observation andfollow up interview. During the initial interview each teacherviewed the vignettes and was interviewed. Data were alsocollected during a classroom visit and follow up interview.Once the data were collected and transcribed they were placed oncards and categorized by topic. The data from one teacher werecross referenced by juxtapositioning the data with other datacollected from that teacher. Data collected from each teacherwere then cross referenced with the other teachers' data usingtriangulation. The data were then reported using a case studyformat which allowed this researcher to include hisinterpretations.Three teachers reported that the vignettes were idealistic,ivand none of the teachers discussed the main message of thevignettes. Instead the teachers used knowledge suggestive ofknowledge categories constructed by Shulman (1987) to interpretthe videotaped vignettes. Further, teachers framed problemswith their classroom practice after viewing the vignettes.Three teachers framed problems with grouping their students forscience and explored aspects of their framed problem. Thenotion that teachers frame problems and explore differentaspects of their problem suggests that teachers engage in acomplex mental process called reflection-on-action by Schon(1983, 1987). Since vignettes prompt teachers to criticallyexamine their practices and provide information that is usefulto them in solving problems with their practice, vignettes maybe used as a professional development tool in remote schools.VTABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT^ iiTABLE OF CONTENTS ^ vLIST OF TABLES viiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viiiCHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM^ 11.0 Introduction 11.1 Background to the Problem^ 11.1.1 Using Technology in Professional Development.. ^ 31.1.2 Teachers Professional Knowledge^ 41.1.3 Reflection^ 51.1.4 Research Method 61.1.5 Videotaped Vignettes and Teacher Reflection... ^ 61.2 Specific Statement of the Problem^ 71.3 Implicatiopns of the Problem^ 81.4 Overview of the Study^ 9CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW and THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK^ 102.0 Introduction^ 102.1 Professional Development of Science Teachers^ 102.2 Video Training: A Historical Review 122.2.1 Video Technology and Teaching Practice^ 122.2.2 Video Technology Used in Inservice Training.. ^ 132.2.3 Recent Developments^ 192.2.4 Summary^ 202.3 Professional Development: A TheoreticaL Framework^ 212.3.1 Schon's Notion of Professional Development... ^ 232.3.2 Reflection^ 242.3.3 Reflection-in-action^ 272.3.4 Reflection-on-action 282.3.5 Reflection-on-action and Reframing Problems ^ 302.3.6 Videotaped Vignettes and Reflection-on-action ^ 302.4 Summary^ 32CHAPTER THREE: DESIGN OF THE STUDY AND METHOD ^ 343.0 Introduction^ 343.1 Context of the Study^ 343.2 Selecting the Study Method^ 343.3 The Researcher^ 353.3.1The Facilitators 363.4 Teacher Selection 373.5 Data Collection^ 383.5.1 Interview Procedures^ 393.5.2 Interview Questions 403.5.3 Initial Interviews 413.5.4 Classroom Observations^ 413.5.5 Follow-up Interviews 423.5.6 Log book^ 423.6Data Verification 453.6.1 Juxtaposition^ 45vi3.7 Generalizability^ 503.8DataPresentation 503.9 Summary^ 52CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION^ 534.0 Introduction 534.1 Kathy^ 534.1.1 Setting^ 544.1.2 Initial Interview^ 554.1.3 Classroom Observation 614.1.4 Follow-up Interview 634.2 Kent^ 674.2.1 Setting^ 674.2.2InitialInterview^ 684.2.3ClassroomObservation 724.2.4Follow-upInterview 744.3 Susan^ 774.3.1 Setting^ 774.3.2InitialIntervlew^ 784.3.3ClassroomObservation 814.3.4Follow-upInterview 824.4 Velma^ 884.4.1 Setting^ 884.4.2InitialInterview^ 894.4.3ClassroomObservation 934.4.4Follow-upInterview 944.5 Summary^ 98CHAPTER FIVE:^ANALYSIS OF DATA^ 1015.0 Introduction 1015.1 Conclusions of the Study 1025. 1. 1Questionl^ 1025. 1.2Question2 1075. 1. 3Question3 1135.2 Major Findings of the Study^ 1165.3 Limitations of the Study 1205.4 Implications for Professional Development^ 1215.4.1 Teacher^ 1225.4.2 Principal 1235.4.3 Consultant 1245.5 Recommendations for Further Research^ 1255.6 Summary^ 126REFERENCES^ 127APPENDIX A: Description of the Vignettes 136APPENDIX B: Classroom Observation Form^ 138APPENDIX C: Letters from the Schools 139APPENDIX D: Samples of Complete Interview Protocols^ 142viiLIST OF TABLESTABLE 1. Timeline of data collection^ 44viiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to express my sincere thanks and gratitude toGaalen Erickson, my research advisor, and to Robert Carlisle andRonald Neufeld, my committee members, for their guidance andencouragement.I would also like to thank Robin Enns, Gerry Wishart and RogerNeil of Brandon University for all their support. In the earlystage of the study support was also provided by Frontier SchoolDivision.Finally, I wish to thank Sally, Karen and Glenda whose love andhelp made it possible for me to complete the study.1CHAPTER ONETHE PROBLEM1.0 IntroductionProfessional development and inservice training are oftenused as synonymous terms. However, for the purposes of thepresent study it is useful to stipulate differences. Within thecontext of my experience as a science consultant, inservicetraining is defined as a short-term plan that tends to focus onspecific issues or problems and is aimed at promoting changes inthe teaching practice of participating teachers. Throughinservice training it is assumed that teachers will gainprofessional knowledge needed to make hoped for changes in theclassroom. In contrast, professional development is defined asa long-term plan of continuing education for teachers who areinterested in continuing growth and enrichment that guides themin both theory and practice. In this researchers opinion,opportunities for professional development should be availablefor teachers.1.1.Background to the ProblemSchools in remote areas are often small, with long2distances separating them from other schools and teachers. Inthese remote schools teachers may be alone in teaching a singleor multigrade class, have few peers within the school, and havelimited access to professional development opportunities.Providing professional development opportunities forteachers in remote schools is a challenge. The few peopleproviding such opportunities are in demand, consequently remoteschools suffer when they compete with their urban counterparts.Elton, Oliver, and Ray (1986) note that not only is it extremelydifficult for academics to be released for a few days to teachappropriate courses, but there is a severe shortage of availabletrainers. Even when experienced personnel are available, it isoften too costly to transport teachers to a central site or movepresenters to a remote site.This study explored video technology as a tool to overcomethe difficulties associated with the delivery of professionaldevelopment opportunities for elementary teachers in remoteareas: availability of presenters, distance, and cost.Professional development, using video technology, is a form ofdistance education in which information is made available toparticipants at a distance (Holmberg, 1979). This study willfocus on how teachers in remote schools respond to videotaped3demonstrations of science teaching as one possible approach toproviding professional development opportunities.1.1.1 Using Video Technology in Professional Development.Advantages and versatility of videotape technology include (1)equipment needed to play videotapes is relatively inexpensive,simple to operate, and available in all school divisions andmost schools; (2) once produced, videotapes are inexpensive andcan be transported easily and at low cost; (3) they can be shownat the convenience of participants in terms of schedules andlocation; (4) participants can replay all or segments ofvideotapes for review and discussion; and (5) videotapes caninclude documentary material from classrooms to demonstrateteaching activities.One disadvantage of video technology is that participantsare unable to interact with the presenters. On the other hand,videotapes can be stopped and started at any time encouragingdiscussion of content among participants and interaction amongcolleagues. Fullan (1982) supports the notion of collaborationamong teachers, stating that they should interact with oneanother, as teachers within the same school can betterappreciate the context of teaching problems than someone not4involved with the school. Further to this position is thenotion that teachers are the primary change agents in schools(Fullan, 1982, Stake, 1987 p.56).1.1.2 Teachers' Professional Knowledge.To change classroom practices teachers will benefit fromunderstanding of problems associated with bringing about change(Fullan, 1982, Gunstone & Northfield, 1988). Central tochanging teaching practices is the reality that the teacher mustsolve the problems that inhibit changing practices. Teachers'then must know not only the "what" or substance of change, butthe "how" or process of bringing about the change. Teachers'actions in the classroom are what denote teachers asprofessionals. Therefore, it is of interest to this study toestablish what knowledge teachers have and use to interpretvideotaped presentations and frame problems with their practice.Teaching practice not only involves a complex form of thinking(Schon, 1983; Kilbourn, 1988), it entails the construction of aknowledge base. Shulman (1987, p. 8) states that teacherspossess knowledge about their profession that can be identifiedand categorized.If this knowledge is to be increased through professional5development opportunities, then it is important to betterunderstand the process teachers use to acquire professionalknowledge. Schon (1983, 1987) states that teachers constructprofessional knowledge by solving problems evident in theirclassroom practice. Further, he suggests that teachers thenapply this constructed professional knowledge to new classroomproblems using a process called reflection. By applyingprofessional knowledge to a classroom problem and reflectingupon it, teachers are in a position to solve problems with theirclassroom practices.1.1.3 ReflectionSchon (1983, p. 277) identifies a type of reflectiongermane to the development of professional knowledge as"reflection-on-action." He argues that when reflecting-on-action, practitioners use their own prior examples, practices,and images of teaching to frame a problem in their classroompractice. To solve the problem, the teacher initiates an actionin the classroom. To initiate this action, the teacher drawsupon information derived from prior classroom experiences. Theteacher then reflects on the action to evaluate the consequencesof the particular action. If the action does not provide adesired solution to the problem, the teacher may try again to6reframe the problem so it can be solved. By engaging in thistype of problem solving, teachers gradually constructprofessional knowledge.1.1.4 Research MethodThis study involving video technology will determine ifteachers reflect-on-action after viewing four videotapedvignettes. "Vignette" is defined as a pictorial representationsuch as a brief scene in a movie (Websters New CollegeDictionary, p.1315, 1983). The vignettes used in this study(see Appendix A) show teachers using materials in a scienceclass. The main point of the vignettes is to show how studentslearn science processes such as observation, prediction, makinginferences as they manipulate materials. Science processes arecentral to the science curriculum in Manitoba, where this studywas done.1.1.5 Videotaped Vignettes and Teacher Reflection Kilbourn (1988) claims that vignettes, cases, and storiesassist teachers in reflecting on their teaching practices.Videotaped vignettes of science classrooms may stimulateteachers to reflect-on-actions or practices pertinent to theirscience teaching. If vignettes help teachers reflect on their7actions, then videotaped demonstrations or vignettes of teachersteaching science should promote the phenomenon that Schon refersto as reflection-on-action.Prior to reflecting on action, teachers may frame problemswith their teaching practice and generate ideas for solvingthese problems. Dewey (1933) states that ideas are suggestionsfor action. After viewing the vignettes, teachers are likely toexpress ideas indicative of the professional knowledge thatteachers use to interpret the vignettes, and it is these ideasthat teachers express after viewing vignettes that are ofinterest to this researcher.1.2 Specific Statement of ProblemThis study examines the ways in which science teachersrespond to videotaped vignettes. The following three questionsare addressed.1. What kinds of ideas did teachers articulate after viewingvideotaped vignettes of elementary science instruction?2. What kinds of professional knowledge did the teachers useto interpret the vignettes of elementary science instruction?3.^To what extent did teachers engage in reflection-on-actionafter viewing videotaped vignettes of elementary scienceinstruction?81.3 Implications of the Study1. By collecting data on the ideas that teachers express afterviewing vignettes, some insight into the constructed knowledgethat teachers use to interpret vignettes may be gained.2. The concept of reflection-on-action assumes that teachersbecome actively involved in the examination of their teachingpractices. If teachers reflect on their actions, this studywill provide useful information to understand better theproblems teachers have in teaching science.3. By using videotaped vignettes, this study will add to theunderstanding of how teachers respond to information provided byvignettes and determine the viability of vignettes as aprofessional development tool.4. This study will contribute information to distanceeducation. Minnis (1985) states that distance education is anemerging discipline and will grow only to the extent that itsresearch base incorporates divergent methods of research. Thisstudy will use qualitative methods to determine the potentialvalue of offering professional development over distances usingvideotaped vignettes. If videotaped vignettes can be used as aprofessional development tool, perhaps teachers in distant areascan be afforded more and more effective professional developmentopportunities.91.4 Overview of the StudyThis dissertation consists of five chapters, organized asfollows:Chapter One presents the context of the problem, theproblem to be studied, and the three questions to be answered.This chapter also presents an overview of the theoreticalframework and general approach to be used.Chapter Two is a review of selected literature providing arationale for professional development, a historical review ofvideo technology used with teachers, and theoretical frameworkto guide the study.Chapter Three describes the design and methods used tocollect, classify, and interpret the data.Chapter Four is a report of four teachers' responses tovideotaped vignettes.Chapter Five presents the answers to the three questionsused to guide the study, as well as the major findings,implications of the study, and recommendations for furtherresearch and study.10CHAPTER TWOLITERATURE REVIEW AND THEROETICAL FRAMEWORK2.0 IntroductionThis chapter reviews the literature, presents the need forprofessional development, establishes an historical context, anddiscusses the theoretical framework of this study. The firstsection demonstrates the need for professional development usingteacher responses to surveys. The second section establishes anhistorical overview of television and video technology used inprofessional development. The third section of this chapterdiscusses the theoretical framework used to analyze the datacollected in this study.2.1 Professional Development and Science Teachers If students are to be prepared for a changing world,teachers must be given opportunities to become informed ofchanges in the field of science education. Therefore, teachersmust be given professional development opportunities.Recommendations of the Science Council of Canada In 1984, the Science Council of Canada reviewed the stateof science education in Canada and made several recommendationsregarding the professional development of science teachers. Thereport recommended that "science teachers should developannually, in consultation with their school principals, a three-11year professional development plan setting out personal goalsand development needs (in relation to the school scienceprogram) and strategies for meeting these goals" (p. 2). Asecond recommendation stated that "science teachers should usea minimum of 15 days annually for professional activities, fiveof which may be during the regular school year (i.e. at theschool board's expense)" (p. 2).While the Science Council's report identified the generalneed for more professional development, it did not address theparticular problems related to meeting teacher or regional needsin regard to remote schools such as those found in northernCanada. To identify specific needs within these schools, thefollowing studies were examined.Manitoba Professional Development Needs The Science Council of Canada's report (1984) was followedby a survey of science teachers in Manitoba. One hundred andfifty Manitoba science teachers of grades 7-9 responded to thesurvey conducted by the Manitoba Department of Education (1985),voicing their concerns about teaching science. Resultsindicated that 75% of the teachers never used the "hands-onmethod" in their science class. This was contrary torecommendations in the curriculum and to procedures promotedthrough inservice training sessions that since 1979 advocated a"hands-on methodology" for science classes.12Following the Science Council of Canada's report (1984) andThe Manitoba Survey of grades 7-9 carried out in 1985, theManitoba Department of Education conducted a second survey thatfocused on grades 1-6 science. This 1986 survey identifiedteachers' preference for local inservice training where everyonewas engaged in the same subject area. Preference for localmeetings was also identified by the Science Council of Canada(1984).It is evident that since the curriculum suggests thatteachers use a hands-on approach in science, local professionaldevelopment opportunities should demonstrate students usingmaterials. Since this is not always possible in a face-to-faceor "live" context, this study examines the viability of videotechnology as one possible approach to offering professionaldevelopment opportunities to rural science teachers.2.2 Video Inservice Training: An Historical ReviewSince 1969 television and videotapes have been used toinform teachers of changes in the education, and provideinservice training for science teachers. This section examinespast use of television and videotapes for this purpose.2.2.1 Video Technology used to Change Teachers' Practices.Klabenes and Spenser (1979) videotaped teachers in theirclassrooms so that these teachers could assess their own13teaching practices. This study showed that teachers assess andchange their teaching practices after viewing a videotape ofthemselves. Perry (1978) also used video technology forassessment purposes and found that when oral feedback was givenas teachers viewed these videotapes, they changed their teachingpractices. However, these studies did not indicate the specificnature of changes that took place. Further, neither studyindicated the ideas the teachers articulated after viewing theirvideotapes. These studies implied that a single personinteracted with the teacher. Having a single person interactwith a teacher is time consuming, costly, and isolates theprincipal and other staff members who may have constructiveideas about solving problems with teaching practice. This studyendeavours to use a research method similar to this professionaldevelopment method while developing a group, school-based model.2.2.2 Video Technology used in Inservice Training.One concern educators have had about televised orvideotaped presentations is the lack of communication betweenthe presenter and the participants. A study by Neufeld & Birch(1985) presented data that compared a conventional teacher classpresentation with a televised presentation to a class. In thestudy, 96% of the televised course participants rated the visualaids superior to those used in the classroom presentation. Withreference to the attention to the message, 85% of theparticipants reported they were more alert during the televised14programs than in a traditional classroom and eighty-nine percentreported that they were equally or more motivated. Ninety-fivepercent reported a similar or more positive attitude towardlearning than toward information presented in a regularclassroom situation. This study clearly indicated thattelevised presentations were positively received byparticipants. However, Neufeld and Birch did not investigatespecific ideas the participants expressed after viewing thetelevised presentation. It is those ideas that would indicatewhat the participants focused on and what knowledge they used tointerpret the videotaped presentation.Other researchers such as El-Meligi (1985) in Egypt reportsimilar findings to those of Neufeld and Birch. El-Meligireported that when teachers viewed videotapes providinginformation pertinent to their teaching, they developed a morepositive attitude toward teaching. However, while providingteachers with pertinent information that may improve theirattitude toward teaching, it may not improve their teachingpractices. That is, a change in attitude does not guaranteethat implementation of ideas results in classroom practice.This study reinforces the notion that video technology canbe a useful tool in providing teachers with professionalinformation and will report classroom activities that take placefollowing viewing of video material.15Video technology has been used to teach specifictechniques. For example, studies by Aijuya-Dosemu and Talabi(1985), and Maugh (1985) examined the potential of technology totrain people to maintain equipment. The first study producedvideotapes on the maintenance of audiovisual equipment, and thesecond study used video technology to train teachers in themaintenance of aquaria. These studies showed that videotapescould be used successfully in teaching equipment maintenancetechniques and verified that simple techniques may beimplemented after viewing a demonstration of these techniques onvideotape. However, teaching is a practice that is more complexthan implementation of equipment maintenance.The notion that video technology may be used to presentideas relevant to teaching practices has been tested. Jones(1973) showed science teachers videotapes of science activitiesbeing performed. He reports that 45% of the teachers, afterviewing a videotape of these activities, stated that thevideotapes improved their teaching of science. Again, thisstudy did not examine the ideas or knowledge the teachers usedto interpret the videotapes.In another study, Sheldon and Halverston (1981) report thatvideotaped inservice training promoted positive attitudes towardscience teaching. This research was disputed by Koballa (1982)who claims that Sheldon and Halverston (1981) did not delay the16post test long enough to test an attitude change. Furthermore,Koballa (1982) questions whether it was prior inservice trainingthat affected the attitudes of teachers toward science teachingor whether it was the videotaped presentation.Most of the research on attitudes use a process-productframework with various scales and instruments that have producedmixed results (Baird, 1988, p. 60). One reason the results maybe mixed is that this is an inservice training model andteachers are expected to reproduce what is on the videotape eventhough they may not have the skills to do so. There may be anattitude change, but there may not be any change in practice inthe classroom. An interesting point raised by Koballa is thatpast experiences may contribute to a teacher's attitude towardinservice training. Further to this observation by Koballa,there is evidence that teachers have experiences that providethem with knowledge that they bring to a situation (Koballa,1982; Gunstone & Northfield, 1988). This previous knowledge mayaffect attitudes as well as the ways teachers interpretvideotaped presentations. Another factor that may affect thefindings of such studies is teachers' lack of science knowledgeor knowledge related to teaching science.To overcome a lack of science knowledge among teachers,Welliver (1969) and Shrigley, Johnson, and Wolfinger (1979)produced televised science lessons. They reported that these17televised science lessons used by teachers to teach science weresuccessful in changing teachers' practices. Welliver statedthat the teachers who used televised science lessons performedthree times as many science activities as teachers who did notuse televised science lessons. Shrigley et. al. (1979) alsoused television and produced science lessons containing pausesin them so that students and teachers could discuss the lesson.This approach was used for several years to guide the scienceprogram for a large area in Pennsylvania. Although videotapedscience lessons changed teachers' practices, this method raisesthe question of teacher dependency on videotaped lessons. Thequestion of dependency on the televised lessons was not dealtwith by Welliver or Shrigley et. al.This study differs from the studies cited above as itcollected data on teachers' interpretation of videotapedvignettes. To interpret the vignettes the teachers must haveused their professional knowledge. By analysing teachers'interpretation this researcher was able to determine knowledgeteachers used to interpret vignettes. Further, this studycollected data on teacher reflection-on-action. This data maybe useful to determine if vignettes promote the development ofprofessional knowledge. It is this researcher's opinion that byreflecting-on-action teachers may develop professionalknowledge, promoted by, but independent of the vignettes. Ifteachers use professional knowledge to interpret vignettes and18engage in reflection-on-action then perhaps vignettes can assistteachers in developing professional knowledge that may lead themto improve their classroom practices.An important study by Piper and Butts (1974) presentedscience inservice training using video technology. Thesevideotaped science sessions were designed to motivate teachersto change their teaching practices. In this study, the sameprograms were transmitted to twenty-six teachers via videotapeand to fifty teachers via colour/cable T.V. The videotapedpresentations preferred to the colour/cable television programs.The reasons were teachers could view tapes at their leisure andreplay them if they wished. In addition to preference, Piperand Butts found that the factors of experience and priorexposure to science inservice training did not affect theattitudes of the teachers toward the televised or videotapedpresentations.Piper and Butts claim that the teachers reported a changein the way they taught science but were not specific aboutchanges that took place. The notion that teachers change theirteaching practices after viewing a videotaped program isproblematic. To change their practices, teachers mustrestructure the thinking that guides their practices (Schon,1983; Kilbourn, 1988). The process used to change teacherthinking is reflection^(Dewey, 1933) and more specifically19reflection-on-action (Schon, 1983, 1987; Kilbourn, 1988;Grimmet, 1988). Reflection, a mental process whereby teachersuse past knowledge to frame problems and then apply knowledgeabout teaching to solve those problems, is discussed later.2.2.3 Recent Developments Wildman and Niles (1987) and Wildman, Niles, Magliaro, andMaclaughlin (1990) used videotapes to encourage reflection amongstudent teachers. These videotaped vignettes of studentteachers were used in conjunction with the supervisors' commentsand questions. They suggest that student teachers were criticalof their own teaching and a great deal of time was used to teachstudent teachers to reflect upon their teaching. When studentteachers reflected upon their teaching, their teaching improved.Mackinnon and Erickson (1988) and Noordhoff and Kleinfeld(1990) videotaped student teachers in classrooms. These studiesencouraged student teachers to reflect specifically upon theirclassroom practices. As well, Mackinnon and Erickson (1988)used what they called "exemplars" of teaching to encouragereflection among student teachers. They state that videotechnology is a useful tool that can provide information uponwhich student teachers can reflect. Further, they claim thatreflection is a process by which student teachers can improvetheir practices. This study differs from the work done byMackinnon and Erickson (1988) and Noordhoff and Kleinfeld (1990)20in so far as data were collected on experienced teachers ratherthan on student teachers.2.2.4 SummaryFrom the above studies, it is evident that videotechnology may have some potential for informing teachers.Neufeld and Birch (1985) state that televised presentations arepreferred over classroom presentations. Piper and Butts (1974)have determined that video presentations are preferred overtelevised presentations. Koballa (1982) questions whether pastexperiences affected the attitude with which teachers viewvideotaped presentations. Piper and Butts suggest that pastexperiences did not affect the way teachers interpret videotapedpresentations while Gunstone and Northfield (1988) reported thatpast experiences are important when teachers interpretpresentations.Klabenes and Spenser (1970) and Perry (1978) believe thatvideotapes alone prompt teachers to change their practices.Wildman and Niles (1987) and Wildman, Niles, Magliaro, andMaclaughlin (1990) hold that videotapes can be used to promotereflection, a process they claim is central to a change ofpractice. Mackinnon and Erickson (1988) and Noordhoff andKleinfeld (1990) state that videotapes of student teacherspromote student teachers to reflect on practices and changethem. This reflection-on-action can be promoted among student21teachers by what Mackinnon and Erickson (1988) call exemplars.What is missing in the literature is data indicating thatexperienced teachers may also reflect-on-action when viewingvignettes of other teachers teaching science. The notion thatvignettes of science classes should assist experienced teachersto reflect on their practice is the focus of this study.2.3 Professional Development: A Theoretical Framework Professional development for teachers assumes teachers areprofessionals and that they have knowledge germane to teachingpractices. It further assumes that this knowledge can beidentified and developed. It is the development of professionalknowledge that should be the focus of professional development.Professional development, related to changing classroompractice of teachers, has been called personal practicalknowledge by Elbaz (1981) and Clandnin (1986). Erickson (1987)states that professional knowledge, which is unique to teachers,involves pedagogical principles and practices. Specifically,pedagogical principles and practices relate to methods,materials, and content, as well as classroom management (Court,1988, p. 96). These pedagogical principles and practices arethe shared property of the teaching profession (Crocker, 1983,1984; Crocker and Banfield, 1986; Crocker, Dodd and Marfo,1988). According to Darling-Hammond (1990, p. 32) how knowledgeof teaching is fashioned and used in the classroom are what22constitute professionalism among teachers. If professionalknowledge is specific to teachers and constitutesprofessionalism among teachers, then this knowledge should bethe focus of professional development.Shulman (1987) states that teachers' professional knowledgemay be divided into eight categories. Four categories thatpertain directly to this study are described below.1. General Pedagogical Knowledge, is the knowledge categorythat refers to those broad principles and strategies ofclassroom management and organization that appear to transcendsubject matter.When Shulman states that teachers have general pedagogicalknowledge, he suggests that teachers have knowledge of how tomanage classrooms that need not be subject specific norassociated with an understanding of students.2. Knowledge of Learners and their Characteristics suggeststhat teachers have knowledge of how students learn and developphysically and morally at different ages.3. Knowledge of Educational Contexts pertains to the structureof learning activities that motivate students to learn, and howto establish and manage groupings within the classroom.4. Pedagogical Content Knowledge is that special amalgam ofcontent and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers,and their own special form of understanding (1987, p. 8).23This category, according to Shulman, suggests that teachers mustmake connections among the first three categories.Shulman's categories of professional knowledge areimportant and relevant to this study in so far as they establisha framework that can be used to organize the ideas expressed byteachers as they interpret the vignettes. Schon (1983, 1987)states that teachers possess professional knowledge as arepertoire of images, understandings, and actions that they usein their teaching. He also provides a framework that shows howteachers use their repertoire to think about their practices.2.3.1 Schon's Notion of Professional Development.Schon (1983, 1987) argues that professional or practicalknowledge resides in practice. That is, Schon's notion ofprofessional knowledge allows teachers to make sense of, and tofunction in, situations of uncertainty and changing contexts.A fundamental plank in Schon's argument is thatprofessional or practical knowledge is undervalued insociety whose academic institutions have traditionallyprized knowledge produced by the sciences and humanities.There is, he argues, a special form of knowledge thatprofessionals have and use, and this knowledge resides inpractice, is constituted differently and held differentlyalso. It is contextually dependent, arising out ofparticular puzzles and uncertainties that professionals arerequired to manage (Munby and Russel, 1989).According to Schon, knowledge about teaching that appearsin textbooks cannot be readily passed to teachers in a lecturetheatre. His notion is that professionals [teachers] create24their own knowledge by solving puzzles or problems withinclassrooms. This solving of puzzles or problems is done througha specialized form of thinking called reflection (Dewey, 1933;Schon, 1983, 1987; Grimmett, 1988; Floden and Buchmann, 1990).2.3.2 Reflection.Court (1988) discusses reflection as capturing the essenceof teacher thinking, because reflection on practice is teachers'thinking about teaching. It seems then that for a teacher tochange his or her practice, reflection is necessary.Dewey (1933) states that reflection follows the scientificmodel, which starts with a problem. That is, a problem givesfocus and purpose to thought (Dewey, 1933; Schon, 1983).Further, this sort of problem solving in a work setting is aform of scholarship (Floden and Buchmann, 1990). An example ofthis kind of thinking, as it applies to teaching, is describedbelow.A teacher detects a problem with his or her teachingpractices.^This problem, which arises from the classroomsituation, prompts inquiry.^The problem is framed, and asolution is hypothesized by applying professional knowledge tothe problem in context.^This hypothesis provides possibleactions which may be enacted to address the problem.^Inaddressing the problem, the teacher derives possible solutions25that may be tested mentally, as in a thought experiment.Thought experiments can be conducted in what Schon (1983)refers to as a "virtual world." He suggests that becauseprofessionals have developed a feel for the media and languageof their practice, they can construct virtual worlds. In thesevirtual words, a professional can carry out imaginativeexperiments in preparation for action. That is, professionalsmay apply their knowledge to problems, hypothesize solutions,and test these solutions mentally (Schon, 1983, p. 166). Thesethought experiments can control the variables and juxtaposeevents at a rate convenient to the professional. Low risk isanother advantage of conducting thought experiments in a virtualworld. The professional in a thought experiment can testhypotheses without disrupting practice and through thisexperimentation may plan future actions by recalling andexamining past actions.To plan future actions, past actions must be analyzed andjudged. Before past actions can be analyzed, however they mustbe brought forward and examined by a process called reflection.Reflection is a two-way process that looks back at pastexperiences and forward to future actions through planning(Grundy, 1986, p. 87; Grimmett, 1988).Shulman (1987) states that reflection is what a teacher26does when he or she looks back at the teaching and learning thathas occurred and reconstructs, reenacts, and/or recaptures theevents, emotions, and accomplishments. It is that processthrough which a professional learns from experience (p. 19).What Shulman suggests here is that reflection is a "lookingback" in one's mind and recalling events and the emotionsattached to these events. Further, he suggests that there is ajudgment involved in reflection as he mentions that the teacher"sees" his or her accomplishments in the classroom. The pointthat Shulman makes is that reflection is not only looking backas in recalling the events, but judging those events.Judging events involves criticism, which is an element ofthinking about experiences and assessing their worth. Schon(1983) states that it is through reflection that a practitionerbrings forward and criticizes the tacit understandings that havegrown around a repetitive experience of a specialized practice.By criticizing past experiences, new sense is made of uniquesituations that the professional has allowed himself or herselfto experience (p. 61). Judging past experiences hasimplications for teachers who are constantly trying to applyprofessional knowledge and plan for an ever changing situation.Besides judging past experiences to determine a plan,reflection may also help a teacher make inferences. To makeinferences about teaching practices, a teacher must have27professional knowledge. This professional knowledge is appliedto the problem that comes from the situation (Schon, 1983) suchas a classroom. Making inferences, according to Dewey is athinking process of arriving at what may be absent on the basisof what is at hand (p. 4). Therefore, inferences may providethe teacher with a possible solution to a problem. Thispossible solution is then incorporated into a plan for teacheraction in the classroom.Reflection then, can be helpful in planning future actions.Reflection may also occur in the midst of action and after theaction has occurred. Schon (1983) calls reflection in the midstof action, "reflection-in-action" and reflection after theaction, "reflection-on-action". Each of these types ofreflection is discussed below.2.3.3 Reflection-in-action.Reflection-in-action, according to Schon (1983), refers toa reflection that a professional engages in while performing anaction. This type of reflection may help the professionalchange his or her action while performing the action. "Schonhas not distinguished the general features of reflection-in-action that pertain to how practitioners solve problems inaction settings from the context bound expression of thesefeatures within a specific professional domain such aseducation" (Grimmett, 1989).28Court (1989), in her dissertation, discusses at lengthwhether the teacher reflects while the action is taking place asin Schon's term reflection-in-action. She suggests thatreflection-in-action is not applicable to the field ofeducation. Central to her argument is that the classroom issuch a hectic environment requiring the full attention of theteacher that little reflection takes place during the course ofthe day (Wildman & Niles, 1987; Court, 1988; Kilbourn, 1988).The issue here is time. Given the classroom milieu, it ismore likely that most reflection done by teachers is done afterthe action and, therefore, reflection-on-action is probably moreapplicable to education than reflection-in-action (Court, 1988).It seems then that reflection-on-action is most germane to theteaching profession, and to this study.2.3.4 Reflection-on-action.The notion of reflection-on-action is most relevant to thisstudy, as it endeavours to determine if teachers reflect ontheir practices after viewing vignettes. Reflection-on-actionhas the same characteristics as reflection with the focus on aspecific action. The main points of reflection-on-action arediscussed below.As in Dewey's description of reflection, Schon'sreflection-on-action starts with framing a problem. By framing29problems, teachers choose the "things" they wish to contend withand establish the boundaries of the problem, as well as how theproblem will be handled (Schon, 1983, p. 40). This, accordingto Schon (1983) and Noordhoff and Kleinfeld (1990), is a kind of"conversation with the situation." This conversation with thesituation frames the problem and may promote a thoughtexperiment. In a thought experiment, teachers not only definethe problem to be solved, but also search for possible solutionsto the problem using their professional knowledge base. The waya problem is framed presents possible solutions to the problem(Noordhoff and Kleinfeld, 1990, p. 173) by determining whatstrategies teachers will use to solve the problem (Schon, 1987,p. 66; Grimmett, 1989, p. 9; Mackinnon, 1989). What skilled andexperienced teachers actually do in attempting to change presentsituations into more desirable future ones is to impose a"design" on a problematic situation. They then work out theimplications of this design, judge what they want to accomplish,and, if necessary, change their design (Noordhoff & Kleinfeld,1990, p. 12; Mackinnon, 1989, p. 29). In this thoughtexperiment, teachers recall the action in the classroom andexplore possible results. These thought experiments helpteachers focus on some aspects of the problem or infer otheraspects pertinent to the problem. This ability to focus onother aspects of the problem is what Schon (1983) callsreframing the problem.302.3.5 Reflection-on-action and Reframing Problems.Reframing a problem, as a result of reflection, meansseeing the situation differently by taking into account newinformation (Mackinnon, 1989). That is, once the problem isframed and some inquiry is initiated, then, new information fromthe vignettes or from professional knowledge may cause theteacher to ref rame the problem. By reframing the problem, theinquirer frames new questions with new ends in view (Schon,1983, p. 269). This requires the teacher to rethink the factorsin the situation, propose strategies to solve the problem, andexplore the consequences of the chosen strategies (Schon, 1983;Grimmett, 1988, p. 9; Noordhoff & Kleinfeld, 1990, p. 174).Again, by the process of reflection-on-action, the teachermentally tests the chosen strategies, hypothesizes, andspeculates about the implications of these strategies for his orher classroom.It is this problem-solving approach by the teacher thatshould be the focus of professional development. The first stepin this approach is to have the teacher frame his or her ownproblem and then, if necessary, reframe these problems so thatthey can be solved. Central to framing and reframing problemsis reflection-on-action.2.3.6 Videotaped Vignettes and Reflection-on-action.Erickson (1987) states that to change practices, teachers31may have to be exposed to principles and practices, not inpropositional form, but in regular classroom settings. Oneapproach to teacher change according to Stake (1987) entails thegeneration of case studies that provide rich descriptions ofpractice. These descriptions can serve as vicarious experiencesfor teachers, which, in turn, may stimulate reflection andinsights, leading to changes in practices (p. 60). If casestudies can stimulate reflection perhaps video vignettes willalso cause teachers to reflect on their practices.Kilbourn (1989) borrows from Schon's notion of reflection-on-action and suggests that vignettes, stories, episodes, cases,and narratives when well written or told, should provideexperienced teachers with opportunities to reflect on action.Videotaped vignettes may be appropriate for promotingreflection-on-action, as they allow the observer to view anotherscience teacher in action.If videotaped vignettes cause a teacher to reflect-on-action, which means that the teacher frames problems andhypothesizes solutions to these problems, then perhaps videotechnology can be used as a professional development tool. Ifthis proves to be the case, then professional development ofscience teachers may be enhanced through the use of videotechnology.3 22.4 SummaryIn this chapter, three interrelated bodies of literaturewere reviewed and analyzed in terms of their respectivecontributions to this study. The review established the needfor professional development in science education, discussedstudies that use video technology as a training tool, andexamined the literature that provides the theoretical frameworkfor the study.The first series of surveys indicate that science teachersneed professional development in conducting science classeswhere the students manipulate materials. These surveys confirmthat professional development sessions should be subjectspecific and take place locally, preferably in the schoolsetting.The second section reviewed studies that use videotechnology in inservice training sessions. These studiesindicate that after viewing a videotaped presentation, teachersreport change in both their teaching practices and attitudes.However, all these studies used self report data and lackdescription of teachers' focus and thought after viewing thesepresentations.The final section established the theoretical framework forthe study.^This framework suggests that teachers have33professional knowledge that they use to understand problems withtheir teaching practices. Problems are examined and proposedsolutions are generated by the process of reflection. Adistinct type of reflection, reflection-on-action, is suggestedas being germane to teaching because it allows the teachers toframe and solve problems with their practices. Further, it wassuggested that vignettes promote reflection-on-action. If itcan be determined that vignettes promote reflection-on-action,then vignettes may be useful professional development tools.34CHAPTER THREEDESIGN OF THE STUDY AND METHOD3.0 IntroductionIn this chapter, the rationale for selecting thequalitative method is presented. Accompanying the rationale areall the procedures involved in collecting observations andinterview data. The instruments used for collecting the datawere audiotape, videotape, log book, and data sheets. Inaddition, the considerations used to select the teachers, andthe interpretation and presentation of the data are outlined.3.1 Context of the StudyThe study involved four teachers who worked in two remoteschools. These teachers taught grades four to six in theirrespective schools. Each teacher's situation was similar: alltaught aboriginal students, had the same texts, had similarworking conditions, taught their own science and had similaraccess to science equipment, and had similar teacher education.3.2 Selecting the Study MethodThe theoretical framework for the study suggests thatteachers use their professional knowledge to interpret teachingsituations and construct problems with their classroom practice.Therefore, a research method conducive to collecting andinterpreting teacher ideas was selected. Quantitative research35methods were rejected as these methods tend to de-emphasizeindividual judgments in favour of established procedures toconstruct arguments (Firestone, 1987).Qualitative methodology was selected over quantitativeprocedure for three reasons. First qualitative research methodsare most appropriate for collecting and interpreting the ideasof research subjects, in this case, teachers. Second, aqualitative research design serves to close the gap betweensubject and researcher and allows the subject to express andexplain ideas (Wood, 1988). Third, qualitative research is mostappropriate for examining teacher reflection (Ross, 1990, p.100).3.3 The ResearcherPrior to becoming involved with this study, I taught grades4-7 for twelve years. For three of those twelve years, I was ateaching principal of a small elementary school in an urbanarea. After leaving the elementary school system, I lived in anisolated community for two years. Here I was employed ascoordinator of a project designed to train preservice teachers.These preservice teachers were of Cree ancestry and were beingtrained to teach in Cree schools in northern Manitoba. Afterleaving this position, I continued educating aboriginal teachersor teachers of native ancestry in a more southerly location foranother year. I then joined a school division as a36mathematics/science consultant.^As a consultant, I wasresponsible for professional development, testing and providingprogram support for remote schools. Over the next 10 years, Ideveloped an interest in providing professional developmentopportunities for teachers in remote schools. In this capacity,I was confronted with problems of distance, cost, staffturnover, and lack of professional opportunities.At the time the data were collected, I was employed as aconsultant in the same school division as the teachers involvedin this study. My interest in this study was heightened becausechanges in teacher behaviour were often lacking in spite ofchanges that were called for by inservice sessions. In thisparticular school division the relationship of consultant-researcher was collegial; that is, as a consultant I had noauthority to insist on change. A collegial relationship wasadopted to encourage teachers to openly share classroom problemswith consultants. Evidence of this collegial relationshipbetween the teachers who participated in this study and me canbe found in the sample interview protocols in Appendix B.Principals who acted as facilitators, assisted in the collectionof data.3.3.1 Facilitators In this paper a facilitator is defined as a person who isaware of the study and although not included as a subject in the37study, lends support to ensure that the study maintains itsschedule. The principals, as facilitators, were useful to thisstudy to verify and provide data not normally attained(Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983; Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 252).The principals further supported the study by helping withselection of teachers who participated in the study andproviding substitute teachers while participants were engaged inthe study.3.4 Teacher Selection The teachers in the study were volunteer subjects from two,small remote schools (i.e., enrolments of approximately 100 -300 students). Like most remote schools, participating schoolshad only one class of each grade from kindergarten througheither grades 9 or 12. In the two schools involved in thestudy, all teachers who taught science at the grades 4 to 6levels were asked to participate in this study. Since eachschool had one class of each grade, six teachers were asked tovolunteer. The study proceeded with four teachers when twoteachers declined the invitation to participate. Therefore,four teachers were involved in the study. One teacher taughtgrade 4; two taught grade 5; and one teacher taught grade 6.These teachers were assured that at no time would theirinvolvement in the study be used to evaluate their teachingperformance. The frames of reference for this study werecompletely supported by the principals (see Appendix C).38Of the four teachers who participated, the researcher hadpreviously worked with one teacher, who had eight yearsexperience. The other three teachers were in their second yearof teaching and not previously known to the researcher. Twoteachers had been educated in small rural towns in the southernpart of the province, the third in a remote community, and thefourth in a large urban centre.All teachers who were invited to participate in this studywere informed of the intent of the study. To ensure that acollegial atmosphere was maintained, and in keeping withqualitative methodology, each of the teachers was asked to givehis or her impression of the process. When asked this question,all said they were pleased with the data collection method andfelt they had benefitted from their involvement in the study.3.5 Data CollectionThe data were collected in three phases: (1) initialinterviews, (2) classroom observations, and (3) follow-upinterviews. The observations and interviews were scheduled ata time convenient to each teacher involved in the study. Byallowing a year for the study and being cognizant of theteachers' busy schedules and other demands placed upon them,this researcher hoped to minimize stress and inconvenience tothe subjects.393.5.1 Interview Procedures The unstructured interview (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, P. 268)or open interview (Rist, 1982, p. 443) method is described ashighly flexible, allowing the researcher to obtain informationby letting the subjects speak freely while constantly checkingfor revealing comments. This open-ended questioning techniqueallowed this researcher to probe for teachers ideas whilechecking for their interpretation of the vignettes andreflection-on-action.Each interview was directed to the teacher involved.Interviews did not follow a predetermined format and were notlimited to a set time frame. This allowed teachers to freelyexpress ideas that were of interest to them. One of theteachers was brief and precise regarding the problems she feltshe would have implementing practices demonstrated in thevideotaped vignettes. Another teacher was quite verbal, and ittook longer to explore this teacher's views. As the interviewsproceeded, certain teacher statements and behaviours emergedthat this researcher chose to follow more closely. The contentof certain teacher statements, pauses, emotional outbursts, andintonations in the voices of the teachers were used by theresearcher as clues to gather and authenticate data as it wascollected. This data signified levels of participant comfortand nervousness about expressing ideas. Every attempt was madeto ensure that the teachers were comfortable sharing their40comments regarding the vignettes.Another strategy used to collect data, without directingthe teacher, was the use of probes. Probes provided anopportunity to intervene and obtain further information orclarification. An example of an intervention/probe would be "DoI understand you to say?" or "Could you tell me more?" Lincolnand Guba's (1985, p. 271) suggestion that probes be used withinthe unstructured interview format permitted this researcher tomake decisions about what was already known and expand thatknowledge to gain insight into the research questions.3.5.2 Interview Questions To provide focus for the teacher interviews, open-endedquestions were developed by this researcher (see Appendix D).Questions used in the interviews were framed to ensure that theteachers had ample opportunity to respond to the vignettes andexpress their ideas. Following are sample questions designed todetermine the teachers' views of teaching science:1. What do you hope to impart to your students through theteaching of science?2. To what extent do you have students manipulate materials inyour classes?3.^If you were a cooperating teacher with the teachers you sawon the videotape, what would be your assessment of theirteaching techniques?414.^What ideas, if any, did you pick up from the vignettes?3.5.3 Initial Interviews The initial interviews were designed to collect dataconcerning the teachers' ideas of teaching science. Aftersharing their ideas of teaching science, the teachers viewed thevideotapes and shared their ideas about the vignettes. All theideas voiced during the interviews were audiotaped. Once thedata from the initial interview were interpreted, a classroomobservation was scheduled.3.5.4 Classroom Observations The classroom observations were used to cross referenceinterview data. To provide a focus to the classroom observationsand facilitate note taking for later analysis, a classroomobservation sheet was used (Lantz, 1984) to collect andorganize data about the structure and organization of theclassrooms where the observed lessons were taught (See AppendixE). These sheets included information on the physicalenvironment of the classroom such as notes, windows,chalkboards, tack boards, equipment, posters, and clippings.Grimmett (1988, p. 7) points out that physical environment hasa direct impact on reflection-on-action. The data about thephysical environments were included in the presentation of thecases to give the reader some context for these cases.42When observing in the classroom, this researcher wascognizant that participating teachers were applying theirprofessional knowledge to the teaching of science. Therefore,every attempt was made to ensure that the classroom observationwas a non-threatening situation for the teacher.The teachers were also asked to express their opinion andconcerns about having their classes videotaped. Thesevideotapes were used to store data for later interpretation.However, the ownership of the videotape remained with theteacher and each teacher controlled who could view the videotapeof his or her class. In one case, the teacher wished thevideotape to be kept confidential. The other three teachers, tothe surprise of this researcher, were willing to share thevideotapes of their classrooms with other teachers.3.5.5 Follow-up Interviews Once the data from the videotapes were interpreted, follow-up interviews were scheduled. The purpose of these interviewswas to collect further ideas teachers may have had regarding thevignettes.3.5.6 Log bookThe researcher also maintained a log book, to recordinformation that was not part of the scheduled interviews. Thisinformation included teacher comments, researcher and teacher43impressions, principals' comments, and the study schedule. Thefollowing excerpt from the log book illustrates this point: "Iwonder if the teacher and I are focusing on the vignettes atthis point in the interview" (Log book, November 17, 1988). Thelog book also allowed this researcher to record the teachers'ideas in chronological order.Table 1 gives the schedule of the interviews andobservations that were done over an eight month period fromSeptember, 1988 to May, 1989. The schools' names have beenchanged in the interest of interviewee anonymity.44Table 1:^Time Line of Data Collection1988 September 15September 29October 11October 13October 19November 10November 17Initial contact with Dog Bay SchoolFollow-up meeting with Dog Bay SchoolTwo initial interviews at Dog BayThird initial interview at Dog BayVideotaping was arranged for NovemberVideotaped all 3 classes at Dog BayFollow-up interviews at Dog Bay1989JanuaryJanuaryJanuaryJanuary 30February 8February 20March 9March 14April 11April 24April 25May 16May 30Videotaped teacher at MilnerVisited Dog BayVisited Dog BayVisited MilnerFollow-up interview at MilnerReturned studies to Dog Bay teachersFollow-up visit to Dog BayFollow-up interview at MilnerReturned draft of study to MilnerFollow-up visit to Milner16^Initial contact with Milner teachers18 Interviewed the teacher at Milner24^Videotaping session arranged at Milner453.6 Data Verification The data were verified through two processes:"juxtaposition" (West, 1977; Yin, 1984; Lincoln and Guba, 1985)and "triangulation" (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Hammersley andAtkinson, 1983; Goetz and Lecompte 1984, Lincoln and Guba,1985).3.6.1 JuxtapositionJuxtaposition provides a check on the data from one teacherby comparing what was said with other comments of that sameteacher. As the study unfolded and particular pieces ofinformation came to light, steps were taken to cross-referenceone piece of information with at least one other interaction;for example, the second interview and/or the classroomobservation.3.6.2 TriangulationBesides cross-referencing the data using the process ofjuxtaposition, the data were also cross-referenced with otherdata collected during the study. This process of cross-referencing data with another data source is calledtriangulation.It is a process of cross-referencing one datum collectedfrom one source with data collected from other sources (Glaser& Strauss, 1967; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983; Goetz & Lecompte,1984, Lincoln & Guba, 1985). According to Glaser and Strauss,46triangulation enhances the scope and clarity of the study.Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) state that it is through theprocess of triangulation that distinction between topical andgeneric levels of analysis is made. Topical data pertain to anindividual teacher whereas generic data pertain to data thatrecurred in all the data collected.Goetz and LeCompte (1984, p. 11) state that triangulationassists in correcting bias that may occur when the researcher isthe only observer of the phenomenon being investigated.Clearly, triangulation is crucial to verification of reflection-on-action and to linking teacher ideas to the vignettes. Theprocesses of juxtaposition and triangulation were used to checkthe data as the data were being categorized.3.6.3 Data CategorizationDepending on the focus of the research, there are many waysto reconstruct the teacher's reality. Rist (1982) lists sevenframeworks available to organize and present qualitative data(p. 446). However, predescribed categories were rejected forthis study because they would have structured the data in waysother than those intended by the teachers. The researchertherefore, decided to use the teacher's own framework tocategorize the data. The notion of using the teacher's ownframework to classify data is supported by Leithwood (1982) andtakes further advantage of involving subjects in all aspects of47the study. After data were categorized, each teacher's commentswere juxtaposed and triangulated until themes began to appear inthe data categories.Categorization of the data to determine themes occurred inthree stages. These three stages were (1) writing interviewtranscripts and carding the data, (2) placing the cards incategories to find commonalities inherent in the data, and (3)interpreting the data.Stage One: Recording and Carding the DataData from the audiotape interviews were typed to formtranscripts. (See Appendix B for a sample of the interviewtranscripts.) Once the interview transcripts were prepared, thedata were placed on 7.5 cm by 13 cm cards. This made it easierto compare and categorize the data. Once the cards had beenprepared, the process of placing the cards into categoriescommenced.Stage Two: Placing the Cards into CategoriesTo place a card into a category, the first card was readand placed on the desk. When the second card was selected, itwas compared with the first and if it had similarities in wordor meaning to the first card, it was placed in that category.However, if the card had different wording or meaning, it wasused to start another category. This process went on until all48the cards had been placed in a category. This method oforganizing data is recommended by several researchers (Rist,1982; Lantz, 1984; Lincoln and Guba, 1985).An example of the type of statement that determined thecategory on questioning practices is: "I think you have tohave the right questioning techniques in order to have goodhands-on science" (Velma, initial interview, p. 16). A secondreference to questioning practices was given by Velma later inthe interview. She stated, "I thought she [teacher in thevignette] did a really good job of questioning. She used goodquestions to check up on the learning of the students" (Velma,initial interview, p. 45).Primary interpretation of the data was done as each cardwas placed in a category. Once all the cards had beencategorized, the second stage of data interpretation commenced.The second stage of data interpretation consisted of rearrangingthe cards to determine emerging themes. During this stage,three themes emerged that indicated what the teachers hadfocused on while viewing the vignettes: teaching practicesinvolving questioning, classroom management, and grouping ofstudents.Stage Three:^Interpretation of the DataOnce the data were categorized, this researcher interpreted49the data to reconstruct what the teachers were reporting aboutthe vignettes. This task was done by interpreting the data infour stages: (1) checking the frequency and distribution of thedata, (2) organizing the data, (3) checking the findings withthe subjects/teachers and (4) reporting the findings. Thefrequency was checked to determine the predominant themes withinthe data from one teacher compared to other data collected.While checking the frequency, the order in which the data werecollected from interviews, classroom observations, and follow-upinterviews was not altered. In keeping with qualitativemethodology and to ensure that the data had been interpretedcorrectly, a copy of the draft presentation was given to eachteacher for his or her comments. This process of confirming theresearcher's interpretation is known as "member checking"(Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p 316). These stages of interpretationled to a description of the ideas teachers expressed afterviewing videotaped vignettes.This process of data interpretation is similar totechniques used by archaeologists who through inferencereconstruct the physical culture from physical artifacts.Physical artifacts of archaeology are constructions producedwithin a culture. This is done by placing the artifacts on atable and grouping them according to similarities of theartifact's features. To do this, the archaeologist must comparethe features of each artifact to the features of all the other50artifacts. The number of groups account for the distribution ofthe artifacts. The number of artifacts in each category accountfor the frequency of the artifacts. By noting the frequency anddistribution of the artifacts, the archaeologist determines thesignificance of the artifacts to the culture being studied andattempts to reconstruct the culture represented by theartifacts.3.7 GeneralizabiltyTeachers construct their own meanings depending on theirprofessional knowledge and the environment in which they applythis knowledge. This study reports how four teachers respondedto videotaped vignettes. Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 297)suggest that readers seek similarities in studies to their ownsituations and likewise, this researcher hopes that readers ofthis study will find applications to their circumstances. Toaid the reader in noting similarities, the method used and thecircumstances surrounding this study are reported. The goal isnot to produce a standardized set of results that otherresearchers studying the same issue would have produced, but toproduce ideas for further research (Eisner and Peshkin, 1990, p.203).3.8 Data PresentationThe intent of the presentation is to provide the readerwith description reinforced with data. In this description, the51researcher attempts to give the reader a clear understanding ofteacher ideas that were generated after viewing videotapes,professional knowledge they used in their reactions to the videomaterials, and the degree and kind of reflection-on-action thatthey engaged in after that experience.In the presentation, consistency of the data wasmaintained. Consistency is defined as descriptions that areconstructed of several kinds of data related to one another.Lincoln and Guba (1985) state that consistency is establishedwhen "each new item of information provided another point ofleverage from which to test interpretations" (p. 359). Theseinterpretations are reported in such a way as to help the readerjudge this study. Along with the description of the data, thisresearcher includes personal inferences to help the reader judgethis study and make comparisons to his or her situation.As indicative of this type of study, this researcher hasrespected the confidentiality and anonymity of the teachers(Ellen, 1984, p. 112; Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 254). Topreserve their anonymity, the locations and names of the schoolsand teachers have been changed.All of the teachers were interested in what had beenwritten about them. Each commented on small factual errors inthe presentation and in the descriptions of the classroom and52school and this researcher made changes in keeping with theircorrections. All of the teachers confirmed that their ideas hadbeen appropriately represented in the presentation.The format of this presentation is similar to a case studyand was chosen because it helps preserve the consistency of thedata and gives the reader a clear indication of each teacher'scomments regarding the vignettes.3.9 SummaryThis chapter stated that a qualitative method is the mostappropriate method for collecting data on teacher responses tovignettes. Criteria for selecting the teachers and conductingthe study were also provided. These criteria were reinforcedwith examples of interview questions. Once the method forcollecting the empirical data was stated, the method of placingthe data into categories and verifying and interpreting the datawere provided. Further, information was provided concerning theformat and criteria used to present data in the followingchapter.53CHAPTER FOURDATA PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION4.0 IntroductionIn this chapter the data obtained from the four teachersinvolved in this study are reported. These data were collectedduring an initial interview, classroom observation, and afollow-up interview. To assist the reader in interpreting thedata, teacher background, setting, and the environment in whichthe teachers worked will be presented. Further, this chapterpresents the researcher's comments to assist the reader injudging the study.4.1 KathyKathy earned her professional teaching certificate from oneof the universities in the southern part of the province. In herfirst year of teaching she had ten students, including severalchildren with special needs. At the time of this study, Kathywas in her early twenties, and into her third year of teaching18 fourth grade students at Dog Bay School. She seemed settledin the school environment and had a good working relationshipwith her students.Kathy grew up on a farm near Dog Bay and had attended DogBay School from grades 1 to 8. Consequently, she knew the54families of many of her students. Kathy's situation was unusualas she was non-native, attended school in a native community,and returned to teach in that community.Kathy taught all grade four subjects and was with her classmost of the day. She instructed all the subjects in herclassroom. When her students went for a lesson in Saulteaux (anaboriginal language), physical education, or library, Kathy wasallotted preparation time. She used this time productively:correcting papers, collecting materials, or preparing studentassignments.4.1.1 SettingKathy had a regulation-sized classroom that she hadarranged to suit her teaching style. The entrance, bulletinboards, and bookcase were along the back wall. Her desk wasopposite the door near the window in the corner of the room.The second wall was covered with bulletin boards displayingstudent writings. At the front of the room in the corner was asmall desk where science materials for lessons were organized.The rest of the front wall was covered with chalkboard. In thecorner opposite to the science desk was a cupboard for storingsupplies. Between the cupboard and the entrance door was a lowshelf where Kathy stored her science materials. Kathy's classarrangement facilitated her teaching of science. She haddefinite ideas about teaching science, which she shared in the55initial interview. Other than class arrangement none of theother aspects of the environment such as political or socialcontext appeared in the interview transcript.4.1.2 Initial InterviewThe initial interview took place in the Resource Teacher'sroom in the afternoon while classes were in session. When askedabout teaching science, Kathy responded:Why teach science? So students can acquire knowledgeof not only learning what is around them but learn howto find out on their own what is around them. Hands-on science cannot just be giving students assignmentswith little directions.Kathy went on to explain her pedagogy as it applied toteaching science.You cannot go ahead and say you should understandthis. They [students] have to work it throughthemselves. Having students solve problems helps themgain confidence.According to Kathy, the purpose of science is to teachstudents about their environment. She seemed committed to usingthe hands-on method that, according to her, is best facilitatedby giving students clear directions. In Kathy's opinion,science then, is an active process in which students gainknowledge and in the process learn how to gain furtherknowledge. Knowledge and confidence, according to Kathy, aregained by solving problems. Since Kathy feels that scienceconsists of learning about the environment, she believes56students should be engaged in problem solving related to theirsurroundings and using a hands-on approach that impliesmanipulation of materials.Murray: How often do you have students manipulatematerials in class?Kathy: As much as possible without groups.Murray: How do you coordinate the activity with thenumber of students you have in the class.Kathy: That's what I still don't know because of thedifferent activities. It depends on the kids and itdepends on the activity. Some things you can give them[students] a lot of freedom with some activities.. .ifthey have the knowledge, depending on the activity.In most schools, as in Dog Bay, there is limited equipmentso teachers must group their students for science. In her firstyear of teaching, Kathy had ten students. With ten students shehad one group who could engage in activities together. Now thatshe has eighteen students a single group is not an option. Bystating "I still don't know" how to coordinate groups Kathy hasframed a problem with her teaching practices related to science.Without further discussion Kathy viewed the videotapedvignettes.After viewing the vignettes the following discussion tookplace:Kathy:^I think the students knew exactly what[activities on the vignettes] was to be done. I thinkit [vignette] was staged.Murray: Could you elaborate on that?57Kathy: If this was not staged and she [the vignetteteacher] can do that and those kids are listening toher, she has obviously planned a lot and the studentsknow what they are supposed to do.Murray:^What makes you say that the videotapedteacher was well planned?Kathy:^That teacher is incredible.^The control[classroom management] she has means the lesson musthave been well planned.Kathy's first impression of the vignettes was that thestudents knew ahead of time what they were supposed to do andconcluded the vignettes were staged. This is an importantpoint: if teachers feel that videotaped material is staged oridealistic, they may respond negatively arguing that replicationof the process demonstrated is not attainable in real life.Kathy's comment that the vignettes were staged was reconsideredafter she had an opportunity to view a videotape of her ownlesson. Based on her own lack of confidence with groupingstudents for science, she concluded that the vignettes may berealistic after all and she decided to use the vignettes as aworking model of a possible classroom situation. In the end,however, Kathy did not reject the vignettes and became involvedin assessing them.In the initial interview she inferred that the students inthe vignettes were on task and listening to the teacher. Sheattributed the students' behaviour to the teachers' ability tomanage the class. Kathy observed classroom management practicesin the vignettes and made inferences about the extent of the58preparation required by the teacher to organize a class in thismanner. Once she had made the inference about planning and itsrole in conducting a science class, this researcher probed tofind out how Kathy viewed her own situation.Murray: What sort of things do you see having tohappen in your class to get the kids to work ingroups?Kathy: Last year we worked as one group and I had myrecorder and all of the students knew what was goingon. To teach the science lesson I have just seen Iwould have to have more than one group in my class.That's going to be scary for me because I may have twototally different answers to the problem in thelesson.Murray: How would you solve this problem?Kathy: I don't see how you can go into a sciencelesson and say, "Okay, we are going to do this" andwhatever happens, happens. Because you may get anumber of things happening that may not lead to thecorrect scientific answer.Prior to viewing the vignettes Kathy had partially frameda problem around grouping. An earlier reference to the problemwas Kathy's statement, "I still don't know [about grouping]because of the different activities." What prompted thisproblem seemed to be the change in the number of students inKathy's class from ten the previous year to eighteen the year ofthe study. This increase in class size was a major concern toKathy as she mentioned it often in conversation. "Last year Iused to have one table and we gathered around it and did theexperiment" (Log entry 13/10/88). This year Kathy has done fewactivities as she realized that this practice would not work in59her larger class. Unable to group her students for science sheconducted large class discussions and wrote notes on thechalkboard.Further, Kathy realized that if she grouped her studentsfor science each group could arrive at a different answer. Therealization that different groups could arrive at differentanswers to the same activity is in Kathy's words "scary." Thisscary situation was avoided in class by conducting large classdiscussions. By conducting large class discussions Kathy hadcontrol of the discussion and was assured that the students weregetting "accurate" information and were coming to a commonconclusion. To think that students in different groups wouldarrive at different answers to the same activity was a problemin Kathy's mind.Having identified a problem she is having with groupingstudents Kathy constructed a thought experiment. This thoughtexperiment permitted her to postulate an outcome, which led toa second problem: how to handle different answers to the sameactivity. Although she solved the first problem of grouping herstudents she seemed unable to solve the second problem. Onereason was that she wanted her students to arrive at what sheconsiders a correct "scientific" answer. Having students learnthe correct scientific answer was important to Kathy. Thisconcern was also stated by Kathy in informal discussions. "My60background in science is weak so I depend on the textbook forscientific explanations" (Log entry 17/11/88). Kathy wastroubled by the possibility that students in different groupingsmight arrive at answers that departed from the textbookexplanation on which she relied. A question related to thisresearch is: can problems of distance education as described inthis paper help Kathy identify and deal with the issues raisedabove?When this researcher probed to determine how Kathy wouldresolve the problem of students arriving at different answers tothe same science activity, she gave no verbal responses. Thevignettes seemed to have helped Kathy frame a problem andprovided information that helped her examine that problem. Ina distance education setting Kathy may have discussed this witha colleague. However, such openness requires takingprofessional risk and collaboration of this kind was lacking atthis school. When asked if she had discussed the vignettes withother teachers, she said that she had not, although she enjoyedhaving this researcher in her class and the vignettes had givenher ideas (Log entry 10/11/88).Clearly, by viewing the videotapes and discussing them withthe researcher, Kathy has identified some important issues. Thequestion that remains is: how will Kathy handle this unresolvedproblem of different groups coming up with different situations?614.1.3 Classroom ObservationFollowing the viewing of the videotape, a classroom lessonconducted by Kathy was observed and videotaped. This lessonoccurred seven days after the initial interview. For thislesson Kathy grouped her students into three groups of fourstudents and one group of three students (three students wereabsent). Four desks were placed in a group. Each group havingboth boys and girls, and academically capable as well asacademically weak students. This allowed the more academicallyable students to play leadership roles in the groups. Onemember from each group was selected to collect the materialsfrom the shelf at the side of the room. By grouping thestudents and desks in this manner, the room appeared morespacious and gave the students more access to the shelving andscience equipment.For the lesson Kathy had chosen an activity requiring ahard-boiled egg. The objective of the lesson was to have eachgroup of students compare a hard-boiled egg to a cell. Thisactivity was accompanied by a written question sheet thatfocused the lesson and kept the students on task. Sheintroduced the lesson with clear and complete instructions. Allof the students seemed well aware of what they were to do.It appeared that Kathy was well prepared for the lesson andthe students moved easily from group work to written assignment.62Kathy interacted with each group to ensure that everyonecontributed to the group activity. At all times she seemed tobe involved with the class and individuals within it, referringto many students by name when answering questions. The onlydistraction during the lesson was caused by one student who didnot wish to cooperate with the other students in the group.Kathy approached the group and quietly explained herexpectations. That solved the problem. "One group had to beorganized which Kathy did without disturbing the other groups"(Log entry 10/11/88). At the end of the lesson, each group wasasked to compare the hard-boiled egg to a cell.After the class she commented that the session did not gowell as too many problems arose. In the opinion of thisresearcher, and contrary to Kathy's assessment, the class waswell conducted. She clearly demonstrated ability to organizeand direct groups.It is worth noting here that Kathy groups her students forlanguage arts and social studies and in these subjects sheencourages students to elaborate and extend topics discussedwithout limiting them to preconceived answers. It is apparentthat Kathy treats science differently. She contends thatstudents should have concluded the lesson with the current"scientific" answer and she is concerned that discussion insmall groups may deter students from arriving at this answer.63Unfortunately, the science lesson on hard-boiled eggs failed toaddress problem solving since the hard-boiled egg activity wasnot a problem with a range of outcomes. Consequently, in thislesson, Kathy avoided the issue of different outcomes.4.1.4 Follow-up InterviewAfter the data from the initial interview and the classroomobservation had been interpreted, a follow-up interview wasarranged. The purpose of this second interview was to collectfurther data on Kathy's impressions of the vignettes.Of special interest to this researcher is the role thevignettes may have had in prompting Kathy to deal with herframed problem of grouping students for science in herclassroom. In the next excerpt Kathy comments that thevignettes prompted her to consider grouping her students forscience....seeing that it [students working in groups on thevignettes] can work...that's when I decided to do it[group her students] ...and I thought that I liked theway the room on that film [vignettes] looked with thedifferent groups working and I decided to give it atry.Later she compared her students to the students she viewedon the vignettes. This comparison is interesting as Kathy hadan opportunity to reflect on her lesson and to compare thevideotape of her class and the vignettes she originally viewed.64Kathy: They [her students] were a bit too noisy; theylooked nothing like those kids on film, yet when Iwatched them [her own class] on the videotape[videotape of her class] it wasn't that bad. Theywere working.Murray: Have your students mentioned anything to youabout the change you have made in your class?Kathy: They [her students] liked the way the roomlooked and they think that they are not in school anymore, it's fun because they are sitting together andthey like that. That's good if they like it. Theywill do the work.Murray: In the first interview you stated that youfelt the videotape presentation you viewed was staged.Kathy: After seeing my videotape, I don't think it[vignettes] was staged. It ran smoothly because theteacher was prepared for the class. My students hadnot done the activity with the egg before. They[Kathy's students] were just well prepared. They knewwhat was expected of them and I think that's the wayit was with the kids counting the bugs on thevideotape [vignettes]. It was proper preparation onthe part of the teacher.At this point it is clear that Kathy is making use of thevideo material in reflective fashion. For example, sheidentified with the setting and demonstrated empathy with theteachers in the vignettes. One result of this comparison isthat Kathy was left with the impression that her class is noisy,but after viewing the videotape of her own class, she seemedsatisfied that her class functioned well. This comparisonconvinced Kathy to change her opinion about the vignettes andhow her own class functioned.Kathy commented on two criteria she used to assess how herclass functioned. First, she stated that the students were on65task. Second, the students made comments to her that they likedthe new classroom arrangement. The reason she gave for thesuccess of her class was that her students were well prepared.This idea of preparing her students became more apparent toKathy only after she had viewed the vignettes. Kathy creditedthe vignettes with assisting her in grouping her students.Further Kathy was surprised at the outcome of her experiment "Iwas surprised that the groups worked so well in science" (Logentry 17/11/88). This comment seems to indicate that Kathy feltconfident her initial problem was solved and was satisfied withthis solution.Kathy also commented again on her opinion that thevignettes were staged, something she believes until she viewedthe videotape of her own classroom. After viewing her ownvideotape, she felt that her classroom was well managed. Itseems that Kathy was so busy solving a multitude of classroomproblems that while she was teaching she did not have time toreflect on how well she was managing her own class. Thissupports Court's contention that the classroom is such a hecticenvironment that little reflection takes place during the courseof the day (Court, 1989). Further, Kathy's comments suggests thevignettes helped her assess various aspects of her classroommilieu. For example, she reported that "One day I had twogroups with a similar problem and I gathered them at the back ofthe room and discussed the problem quietly" (Log entry6617/11/88). It seems the vignettes provided Kathy withinformation she was able to put into practice, and prompted herto assess her classroom practices.674.2 Kent Kent, like Kathy, was a second year teacher at Dog BaySchool. This was his second year teaching grade 5. Kentgraduated from one of the provincial universities with a degreein science. His ability in science was respected among thestaff and because of his background he was considered thescience expert at the school. Kent prefers to teach science inthe science laboratory and because of the small number ofstudents in his class that is where he often teaches.Kent's class consists of ten students, including severalwith special needs. One student has both physical and mentalhandicaps and a full-time teacher assistant works with thisstudent. Although many of Kent's students have special needs,Kent has high expectations for himself and his class.4.2.1 SettingThe science laboratory had counters around three walls.One wall had bulletin boards, which displayed student work. Theback wall of the room had shelves that held microscopes andother science equipment. The third wall was windowed and faceda lake. Student desks were placed in the centre of the room.These desks were movable and could be arranged into groups.Along the front of the room was a long teacher's desk with sinkand gas outlets. To the side of the teacher's desk was asmaller desk that the teacher sat at when correcting student68assignments. The wall behind these two desks was a chalkboardthat spanned the length of the room except for a door. The dooropened into a small storage cupboard where chemicals and otherscience equipment were stored.4.2.2 Initial InterviewThe initial interview took place in the Resource Teacher'sroom in the afternoon. At the outset of the interview, Kentexplained his objectives for teaching science.Science is like the scientific method. It's used ineverything and its logical thought goes through allkinds of patterning, observation skill, and uses finemotor skills. It [science] uses almost anything youwant in the Elementary class.Kent is confident his science background provides him withclear principles for teaching. In his opinion the scientificmethod is very important and he uses it to guide his scienceclasses. He made references to his belief that "Students mustlearn the scientific method and use problem solving tounderstand science" (Log entry, 13/10/88). According to Kent,the scientific method helps students acquire logical thinkingpatterns that can be applied to every subject taught inelementary school. Further, he stated that in science studentslearn fine motor skills, which implies that he has studentsmanipulating equipment in his classes. Kent's ideas aboutscience education are consistent with concepts presented in thevignettes and are reflected by Kent's comments after viewing the69vignettes.Murray: What comments would you make regarding thevideotaped presentation you have just viewed?Kent: If I wanted to right now, I could rewind it[the videotape] and if I thought the experiment wasgood, I could write it down and use the experiment inmy class.Murray:^What comments can you make about theactivities shown on the videotaped presentation?Kent: Some of them [activities] are not viable for asingle teacher in a class to do. One of theseactivities is where the students are testing thepollution caused by car exhaust. ...The idea ofteaching kids about the pollution using the exhaustfrom cars was good. My concern is kids inhalingexhaust. ...The car thing bugs me. You got 10 kidsout behind the car. Where is the rest of the class?What Kent found most interesting in the vignettes weresuggestions of experiments he could use in his class. Hisconstant use of the word experiment was of interest to thisresearcher. He seemed to apply the term to activities whetheror not they demonstrated the science process he described in hisopening comments. Further he questions the activity involvingpollution caused by exhaust fumes from cars. He is concernedabout kids inhaling exhaust and seeing only four students withone teacher behind the car. He wonders where the others are andhow a single teacher, such as himself, could manage thisparticular activity. It is important to note that Kent istrying to transpose activities in the vignettes into his ownclassroom. Kent must be aware that such activities are notreadily transposed from one classroom to another due to the70number of differences in teaching practices and classroommilieu. At this point, however, Kent has not indicated that heis aware of these differences. Apart from the above concerns,Kent contends that the vignettes contain useful information, andhe is open to ideas he can use in his classroom.Murray: If you were a cooperating teacher with theteachers on the videotape, what comments would youmake to them?Kent: For the most part they [teachers] were verygood. Their classes were well controlled andorganized. I would have suggested to one teacher thatwhen adding drops to a solution that you stir thesolution after each drop. I felt that she was guidingthe students rather than letting them find out forthemselves....Another of my concerns was theobservation of burning things over a flame. She madean observation that I thought was pretty narrow and itwasn't very clear. It almost went against what shewas trying to do.Later Kent made the following comments.Kent: One thing that bothered me though was the parton evaluation using anecdotal observations.Murray: What bothers you about anecdotal reporting?Kent: It's fine when you have four kids in front ofyou to do anecdotal observations. But when you have10 or 11 all doing separate things, it is harder.Then what does she do with the evaluations, or doesshe just put it on a piece of paper and ignore it, orwhat? What value is an anecdotal comment?Kent complimented the teachers in the vignettes on theircontrol and organization of their classes. He seemed, however,to have concerns about information he interpreted from thevignettes. He was critical of some teacher actions he viewed inthe vignettes. Kent's comments suggest that the teacher should71follow more precise laboratory procedures. What is important isKent observed the teaching practices of the teachers in thevignettes. Further, he judged those practices and indicated hewould not follow their example. "Some of the teachers on thevideotape were not very good science teachers" (Log entry13/10/88). These judgmental comments may indicate that Kent sawmore on the vignettes than he could use. He observed teacherpractices and questioned their intentions.One of these teaching practices was evaluation. It seemsfrom his comments that Kent wanted to learn more aboutevaluating students using anecdotal reporting. He commented onthe applicability of using this method of evaluation in a largeclass. "Evaluation is a real problem in science if you do notwant to just use paper and pencil tests" (Log entry 10/10/88).This comment seems to indicate that the vignettes did not givehim enough information about what the teacher was writing andtherefore he would not be able to use this information to assessten or eleven students all doing separate and supposedlydifferent activities. One reason Kent may be concerned withanecdotal reporting is the number of special needs students inhis class. This researcher has had some experience withevaluating special needs students and readily agrees that thisis a problem as special needs students may not do well onwritten tests. These students are usually evaluated on whatthey do in class, therefore, anecdotal reporting is important.72Clearly, either the vignettes do not provide enough informationabout anecdotal reporting or Kent is unable to interpret thevignettes for the information he is seeking.What is important here is Kent is observing and assessingevaluation practices, and he seems to be wondering how he canapply these practices to his own teaching. Kent did not commentfurther on teaching practices before teaching a lesson observedby this researcher.4.2.3 Classroom ObservationThe observed science lesson was conducted in the scienceroom. The objective of the lesson was to have students practicecontrolling variables. Two groups of five students were givenfive balls each and asked to measure the height of the bounce ofeach ball. The variable that the students were to control wasthe height from which the ball was dropped. The students wereasked to record the height of the bounce of five kinds and sizesof balls.The number of students in the room led to an informalpresentation. Kent sat on the teacher's desk with the tenstudents standing around him, listening to his instructions.His instructions were brief and were followed by a shortdiscussion during which there were few student asked forclarification. The students were told to ensure the balls were73dropped from the same height, but were not provided with cleardirections or a means of collecting data.Students in the group were not assigned specific tasks toperform during the activity. The introduction to the lesson,grouping students, and collecting data varied significantly fromthe vignettes, however, his students seemed to be interested inthe activity. The size of each group and the lack of specificinstructions led to confusion within several groups. Manystudents observed the activity as they had no task to perform."It seemed Kent's expectations and activity was beyond thecomprehension of the students. He seemed unaware that thestudents were not on task or did not comprehend the intention ofthe lesson" (Log entry 10/10/88). Once he noticed the studentswere not on task, Kent asked several open-ended questions.Kent used open-ended questions, which helped the studentsto focus on their assigned task. The asking of open-endedquestions was observed by Kent in the vignettes. Along withthis observation, he mentioned, "The teachers on the videotapeinteract more with their kids than I do" (Log entry 13/10/88).Perhaps this is a practice that Kent has become more aware ofsince viewing the vignettes.Once the task had been completed to Kent's satisfaction hebrought closure to the lesson.^He gathered the students74together and discussed several errors that had been made duringthe activity. Several students lost interest in the discussion,perhaps due to its length and negative tone. It is thisresearcher's opinion that Kent's lesson was less thansuccessful. He seemed so committed to the scientific processthat he overlooked the students level of competency,understanding, and needs.4.2.4 Follow-up interviewThe follow-up interview took place in the Home Economicsroom seven days after the classroom observation. A substituteteacher was hired to take Kent's class in the afternoon to allowtime for the interview. The interview lasted almost two hours.After a general discussion of Kent's lesson, the interviewfocused on Kent's responses to the vignettes.Murray: Now that you have had time to consider thevideotape, have you had any further thoughts about it?Kent: Yes, I got some ideas on how to do activities.I noticed how she had the materials set out. Ichanged some of the things she did such as putting theitems into little cups instead of having them on asheet of paper.Murray: Is there anything else you thought about afterour last meeting?Kent: One thing that I thought a great deal about wasthe questions.Murray: Are there any other thoughts you would like toshare about the videotape?Kent: I still wonder what the teacher used heranecdotal comments for. The teacher was writingthings down, and I never knew what she was writingdown.75Murray: How would you resolve this question aboutanecdotal reporting?Kent: I'm just wondering if the people we should betalking to about anecdotal reporting is our staff.You get a conference together after [the videotapedpresentation] and ask other people in the school.Maybe somebody has the solution to that [problem]already in their mind and you could share answers.Kent seems to have tried to incorporate some of thepractices he observed while viewing the vignettes. First, hechanged the way he distributed materials. Second, havingcommented on the questioning practices prior to his lesson anddemonstrating open ended questioning practices during hislesson, it seems that Kent is trying to improve his teachingpractices. Although minor in nature, it is these practices thatcan make a science class run more efficiently. What isimportant is although Kent seemed to lack reflection on hisactions, he observed and used practices he observed andinterpreted from the vignettes. In the second interview, heconfirmed that his observations of open-ended questions byteachers in the vignettes prompted him to think about using moreopen ended questions in his science class.One practice that Kent observed in the vignettes and stillremained puzzled about was anecdotal reporting. The teachersdid not discuss or demonstrate how to use the notes made duringthe lesson and he still could not understand the function ofanecdotal evaluation. Kent, by making this observation,indicated an interest in anecdotal evaluation but wanted more76information about this classroom procedure. "I still don't knowhow those teachers were using the notes they made during theclass" (Log entry 17/11/88).When asked where he might obtain more information, hestated that he might turn to his colleagues. This is importantas it indicates that the vignettes may encourage Kent to seekprofessional guidance from his colleagues as a result of viewingthe vignettes. In a situation where information was beingprovided to teachers in remote schools via video technology,this is one way that some confusion may be resolved. Moreover,discussion among staff members might assist in developing schoolplans that would provide consistency within the school, increaseprofessional confidence, and lead to teachers discussingproblems with their practices. Such discussions could lead toprofessional growth.774.3 SusanSusan taught at Milner School, the second school involvedin this study. In Milner School, only one of the three teacherswho taught grade 4-6 volunteered to participate in the study.Susan was in her early twenties and, like Kathy and Kent,was a second year teacher. In her first year of teaching, shetaught in another remote community. This was her first year ofteaching at Milner School. She taught a grade 5 class oftwenty-four students half-time, including the teaching ofscience. The other half of her teaching assignment was spentteaching music to students from kindergarten to grade 6.4.3.1 SettingSusan taught her science classes in a large room that hadbeen designed to accommodate music classes. At the back of theroom was a tiered, carpeted area used for choral practices. Abulletin board and coat rack occupied the other corner at theback of the classroom. The desks occupied a tiled area near thefront of the room. The wall along the front of the room wascovered with chalkboards. In the corner, at the front of theroom, was a small window. Bulletin boards ran along the wallbeside this window. The room would have been quite dark it ifwere not well lit with fluorescent lighting.784.3.2 Initial InterviewThe initial interview took place in a small room adjacentto the library. As in the first school, the principal hired asubstitute to allow the interview to take place during schoolhours. The interview commenced by asking Susan to share herviews regarding the teaching of science.Susan: I think science helps us understand the worldaround us. I think when we do experiments and applythe results to our surroundings, we see how oursurroundings affect us.Murray: To what extent do you have students manipulatematerials in your class?Susan: At the beginning of the year not very much.Now, I try to do an experiment every class. They[students] are more comfortable [with the activities]and are more willing to work now. Now that they areable to work with this stuff [equipment], it is a loteasier to get to the point.Susan's comments indicate that she is committed to thehands-on approach in science. However, to state that thestudents are more able to work with equipment implies that atone time students had difficulty handling materials. Accordingto her, once students learn to handle materials, it is mucheasier to "get to the point." This comment suggests that Susanfeels students understand the point of the lesson better whenthey can manipulate materials. Further, according to her,students manipulate materials to conduct experiments to learnabout their surroundings. That is, students learn throughexperiments about their relationship with their surroundings.After presenting her view of science education, Susan viewed thevignettes.79Murray: What did you observe while watching thevideotape?Susan: The main thing that I kept thinking about wasthe teacher was only working with four kids. Thesecond teacher worked with several groups and this wasa little bit more realistic to me. The kids were veryorganized and either they [students] had done it[activities] throughout the year or they have beendoing hands on since grade 1. I don't think that ifthis was their first experience with hands onmaterials that they would have been that calm.Murray: What other observations did you make whileviewing the tape?Susan: I like to listen to the questions the teachersasked - good questions. I like the way they[teachers] got the groups [students] together andcompiled the information and came up with theconclusions for the experiment. I like that idea.Murray: What did you notice about the questionsteachers asked on the videotaped presentation?Susan: Well, they [teachers] were not asking yes/noquestions. They asked questions where the kids had tothink about the answers, talk about what they weredoing, what they were saying and what was happening.They had to think about what they would do to makethem think and build upon what they already knew.Susan commented that showing one teacher with four studentswas not realistic to her. She also notes how the studentsapproached their assignments. She observed that they were verycomfortable, organized, and calm. This observation about calmstudents prompted her to infer that the students had hadprevious exposure to hands-on science.Further, Susan observed teacher practices in the vignettes.Of particular interest to her was the way the teacher gatheredthe groups together to compare students' results and conclude80the experiment. At the end of the class, one teacher in thevignettes brought all the students together to compile a graphof student information. Once the students were in a group, theteacher asked several questions.Susan commented that these questions prompted students tothink about what they were doing, what was happening, and whatthey were saying. Susan felt these questions encouragedstudents to think and, therefore, helped to increase theirknowledge by building on what they already knew. To determineif Susan observed other practices that could be beneficial toher, the following question was asked:Murray: Did you observe anything on the videotape thatyou could transfer into your classroom?Susan: I don't think there was anything I couldtransfer to my classroom. If anything that could be[transferred] would probably look different in myclass as I deal with things differently than theteachers on the videotape. If they had my class, theywouldn't be reacting the way they did on the tape.This insightful comment by Susan indicates that she wouldpersonalize rather than imitate practices she observed on thevignettes. Further, her comment implies that teachers respondto contexts. Just as she would adapt practices she observedfrom the vignettes to her classroom, so would the teachers inthe vignettes adapt their practices to Susan's classroom. Thisis significant as Susan states that teachers do not justreproduce observed actions but must personalize them. It seemsSusan is engaged in professional development. She is saying81that practices demonstrated in vignettes are not to be justreproduced but analyzed and incorporated into one's personalteaching practices. What is important is Susan may haveidentified the difference between inservice training andprofessional development opportunities. To cross-reference thiscomment of personalizing practices, this researcher observedSusan in action.4.3.3 Classroom Observation This researcher observed and videotaped Susan's lesson sixdays after the initial interview. The objective of the lessonwas to determine which foods contained starch using iodine.Bread, cheese, crackers, and apples were tested using paper asa control. Prior to the activity, Susan demonstrated thereaction using corn starch solution and iodine. Susan mentionedthat iodine was a poison and cautioned students to be aware ofsafety measures. The students were divided into groups of fourand each member of the group was assigned a task. The criterionused to group her students was their ability to work with eachother. Question sheets accompanied by a chart were distributedto students to assist them in organizing their data. Fiveplastic containers, one containing iodine and the other fourcontaining the test items, were arranged on a desk at the sideof the room. One student from each group was assigned toretrieve the material for the group. During the class thisresearcher made this comment: "The directions, assigning groups82and managing the materials went well" (Log entry 24/01/89).The same student who collected the material performed theactivity. Consequently, only two students in each group wereinvolved in the activity. This meant that each group had twomembers who just observed. Since the activity could have beeneasily done by two group members, the observers soon lostinterest in the activity, which seemed to lead to increasednoise level in the classroom. To eliminate some of the noise,Susan moved around the room to ensure that each group was ontask and conducted her class with practised proficiency.The students seemed interested in the colour changes thatoccurred to the test items. Susan encouraged the students toorally describe to the recorder the colour changes theyobserved. However, as the activity progressed more studentslost interest and the noise level in the room indicated thatmany students were not doing the task assigned to them.4.3.4 Follow-up InterviewFor various reasons the follow-up interview had to berescheduled several times. Finally fifty-one days after theclassroom observation the follow-up interview took place. Thisinterview was held in the afternoon in the room adjacent to thelibrary. Susan entered the interview still disappointed withresults of her lesson but remained calm and candid when83questioned.^"Susan is confident of her answers and givesrationale for her responses.^She is a good teacher whochallenges me to consider many of the missing elements whenpresenting inservice training sessions" (Log entry 18/01/89).This researcher was most interested in Susan's responses to thevignettes in the follow-up interview.Murray: Have you tried anything different in yourclass after watching the videotape?Susan: I tried it [grouping students] several times inother classes. It worked well sometimes and thensometimes it doesn't. It depends on the kids ...that's where I'm having problems, with some of thekids. I don't want to go on with large groups whenthey [students] need individual attention. When I'min a large group, I feel I'm losing some of them.Murray: Are there other things you observed on thevideotaped presentation?Susan: I remember watching the way the kids on thevideotape neatly passed things and they went and gotthe material and they brought it to the group and itworked well. It was nice and quiet. The noise levelwas low.Murray: What do you suppose made the group functionthat way?Susan: It could be something I'm not doing that theteacher on the videotape did. Or it could be theother way around. Something I'm doing that she didn't• • •Susan's comment that sometimes her groups work and othertimes they do not identifies a problem Susan is having managinggroups of students in science class. She tries to rationalizethe problem by attributing it to certain students. When hersmall groups fail to function in her classroom the same way asthose displayed in the vignettes, Susan resorts to large group84instruction. Large group instruction is not satisfactory to heras she feels that she "loses" some of her students she restatesher earlier assumption that students learn best when doingexperiments and manipulating materials. She also states that inlarge groups she is unable to provide individual instruction forstudents.In an attempt to solve her framed problem, Susan observesthe teaching practices demonstrated by teachers in thevignettes. She noticed that the classrooms were quiet and wellorganized. She relates the noise level of these classrooms tothe orderly way the students obtained their materials. What isimportant is that Susan seems to be attempting to solve herframed problem of grouping students by observing teachingpractices demonstrated in the vignettes. However, she suspectsthat the solution to her problem is more complex than materialorganization.In an attempt to examine other aspects of her problem, shecompares herself to one of the teachers in the vignettes. Shealso rationalizes that either the teacher in the vignettes isdoing something that she is not or she herself may be the causeof her problems. It seems that Susan takes full responsibilityfor her problem. This is significant as she at first statedthat "kids" were the problem. Unable to solve her framedproblem, she continued to recall information from the vignettes.85Susan: I remember one time when they [classes in thevignettes] were outside and the teacher was askingsomething to do with a car. I remember thinking thatshe's [teacher in the vignette] asking good questionsand the kids really had to think what they were goingto say ...If she asked questions to which kids could just answeryes or no, then I don't think that is a good question.A good question should make them [students] thinkabout their answer and what is happening. This helpsthem to see what is going on.After discussing the rationale for asking goodquestions in class, Susan gave examples of goodquestions.Susan: Why is this happening? What do you think willhappen next? Why does this do this?Murray: Were there any clues on the videotapedpresentation that would suggest to you how the teacheron the videotape got her class to function the waythey did?Susan: The thing I was thinking of while watching it[videotape] was how well they [students] did it[activity]. They were doing exactly what they weresupposed to and there were no detours. I've had toclarify a lot of ideas, and I've had to think a lotmore about what is happening in my room... I think oneof the things she [teacher in the vignette] did wasask kids to respond using specific names. I know I'vedone that.Murray: Do you have any further comments about thevignettes?Susan: To see how she or he did it [conduct a scienceclass] and to see what steps they [teachers] wentthrough, maybe they [vignettes] have some ideas thatyou could try in your class.After comparing herself to the teachers in the vignettes,Susan observed the questioning practices of these particularteachers in the vignettes. Susan specifically identified open-86ended questioning practices the teacher with the car was using.According to Susan, open-ended teacher questions promote studentthinking. To illustrate her point, she identified the type ofquestion that promoted this type of thinking.Further to asking open-ended questions, Susan observed thatthe teacher in the vignette seemed to personalize questions.She said this practice was familiar to her. It seems, then,that Susan observed, rationalized, and empathized with theteacher's practice of asking questions in the science class.Even though she provides information regarding sound questioningpractice, she does not specifically relate these practices toher problem of grouping her students.This researcher then probed to determine if Susan wastrying to observe practices that would solve her problem.Although Susan did not specify practices that would solve herproblem, she did comment that she found the vignettesbeneficial. They provided her with an opportunity to clarifyideas she had about what was happening in her class, showed hersteps that the teachers in the vignettes went through, and gaveher new ideas that she could try.Susan left the interview without solving her framed problemof consistently running a successful hands-on science class. Itappears that her problem is not with her "kids" as she suspects87or with her ability to manage a science class that is groupedfor science. Perhaps this is where her problem becomes mostevident; and, therefore, she framed a problem with grouping herstudents. To this researcher the problem is the way theselected activity was carried out. This activity should havebeen done in smaller groups so every student could be involved.Perhaps if the lessons Susan planned were more complex, theactivity would run more like those demonstrated in thevignettes. If this were a distance education model and therewas no intervention except the videotape, Susan would need moreassistance from other staff members to help solve her framedproblem.Even though the problem remained for Susan, she had anopportunity to assess her teaching practices, receive new ideasas to what to do in science class, and observe step-by-step howanother teacher conducted her science class. These are allopportunities that Susan is not usually afforded during herprofessional development days.It seems that Susan, Kent, and Kathy benefitted from theexperience of viewing the vignettes. As noted previously, theseteachers had been teaching for two years. If teachers who havebeen teaching for two years can benefit from viewing vignettes,perhaps more experienced teachers could also benefit fromviewing them.884.4 Velma Velma, like Kathy and Kent taught at Dog Bay School. Shegraduated from a university in the southern part of the provinceand at the time of the study she was in her third year at DogBay School. However, she was older than her colleagues by aboutfive years and had taught two years in northern schools beforetransferring to Dog Bay School. Her prior teaching experiencesmade her the most experienced teacher in the study. In the yearof the study, Velma was teaching grade 6 with twenty-fourstudents.4.4.1 SettingVelma's classroom had two walls covered with chalkboards.The other two walls were covered with bulletin boards. One ofthese walls had one small window. Near this window was Velma'sdesk and a micro-computer the students used when they wereassigned to do work on it.Velma taught most of the subjects to her class and homeeconomics to other grade levels. For part of each day, Velmawas in the home economics room at the far end of the school.When she wasn't teaching home economics, she had a teacherassistant help her with her classroom duties. The teacherassistant allowed Velma extra time to work with the specialneeds students and sometimes relieved her of the extra workthese students generated. Velma assigned the teacher assistant89various activities such as collecting materials and assistingstudents.4.4.2 Initial InterviewThe initial interview took place in the Resource Teacher'sroom during the afternoon while school was in session. Duringthis discussion Velma shared her views on science education.Velma:.. Science, I really enjoy it, but it's not mytop area as far as my capabilities are concerned... Ispend more time on science because I don't want to goup in front of my class babbling and blunderingaround. So I work on it.In the first part of the interview, Velma commented thatshe found science to be a problem. One problem she commented onwas her inability to find words during her science class. Toovercome this problem and to ensure her science class wassuccessful, she spent more time preparing her science classes.She then commented on her objectives of teaching science.Velma: I think in a sense what science is doing ishelping children to learn how to solve problems...Ifyou can teach something that is relevant to thechild.. .1 try to follow the curriculum as much aspossible, but it has to be relevant [to the child]because otherwise the child hasn't learned anything.What is important to Velma in the teaching of science isthat students learn how to solve problems. Although she triesto follow the curriculum, she also tries to engage students inproblems that are relevant to them. Further, she comments thatif the problems are not relevant to the student, then little90learning will take place. After commenting on her impressionsof her science teaching, she viewed the vignettes.Velma: I think if I would have seen this [vignettes]in my first year of teaching, I would have thoughtthat is the way my classroom should go. But now aftera few years, I know, that it's not going to happen...the way you see it on the videotape...I am skepticalwhen I see such idealistic things happening in theclassroom. I find that really hard. You almostthink: I must really be a terrible teacher, I can't dothat. But maybe I could...Classes don't run thatsmoothly, and I can't always see them [students]coming up with conclusions either.It seems she would like to believe the vignettes are realclassroom situations. However, in her words, experience hasshown her that the classroom does not run as smoothly asdemonstrated in the vignettes and students do not always arriveat conclusions. The vignettes could have made Velma feel shewas a terrible teacher but instead she is challenged by them.She states, "maybe I could" make my class function the same wayas the class in the vignettes. Here again the environments inthe vignettes differed from the environment that Velma wasworking in, but she is aware of and recognizes similar classsituations. "Kathy and Velma vary in their teaching experiencebut seem to be responding to the vignettes in a similar manner"(Log entry 08/11/88). Velma also expressed other views of thevignettes.Murray: If you were a cooperating teacher withteachers on the videotape, what would you say to themregarding their teaching?Velma: I think I would really commend them on their91preparation before the lesson because obviously they[teachers in the vignettes] were well prepared ontheir questioning of individual groups...I thought shedid a really good job of questioning. She used goodquestions to check up on the learning [of thestudents].Murray: What do you mean by good questions?Velma: The questions are good because there is not asmuch room for errors and the students have a widevariety of responses and feel free to answer them[questions] based on their observations...I think youhave to have the right questioning techniques in orderto have good hands-on science.Following her ideas about questioning practices, Velmaframes a problem.Velma: Was she [the teacher in the vignette] making itso all the groups were asking the same questions?.. .Itis quite idealistic in the sense that you have threeor four different groups of four or five students andI would be working with one group and there would beno questions from them. The other groups would besaying, "Teacher, Teacher excuse me". What do I donext if only one group was getting those questions?Velma complimented the teachers in the vignettes on theirquestioning practices. The reason she liked the questions wasthat these teacher questions solicited a variety of answers fromstudents. Velma seemed to want students to derive their ownanswers based on their own observations. She also advocatedthat students feel free to express their answers without fear ofmaking errors.Later in the interview Velma commented that goodquestioning practices are an important part of conducting hands-on science classes. It seems good questioning practices are92important to her: she noted the questioning practices of bothteachers and students in the vignettes. From her observationsof questioning practices Velma considered questions asked bystudents. Specifically, she framed a problem around how tomanage questions from different groups. She observed that thestudents in the vignettes asked questions and she wondered howthe teacher managed questions from different groups of students.Having framed a problem Velma then recalled information providedby the vignettes that may assist her in solving her problem.Velma: Also another thing I noticed [on thevideotape] within a group is that they [students] canhave a discussion and you [teacher] can have thesethree children talking giving their opinions.. .They[students] were used to doing things [scienceactivities] very systematically....the teacher really had to prepare the students.Really sat down with them, explained to them what wasexpected in their groups, prepared them ahead of timeso they understood completely what they are lookingfor.Velma observed that the student groups discussedquestions among themselves. Through these discussions some oftheir questions were answered and, therefore, they did notdirect all their questions to the teacher. Since the studentsanswered some of their own questions, the teacher did not haveto manage all the students' questions. She also observed thatthe students in the vignettes worked systematically at theiractivities. This observation prompted Velma to infer that theteacher must have prepared the groups of students to know whatto look for and how they were to work systematically. Having93observed and made these inferences, Velma later conducted ascience lesson in her own classroom.4.4.3 Classroom ObservationVelma taught her class with practised efficiency.Classroom activities such as reading announcements, handing outnotices, and collecting and returning assignments weredispatched quickly and effectively. "If grouping students forscience is a problem, it is not evident today" (Log entry10/11/88). The lesson that this researcher observed andvideotaped began with a review of the principles to be appliedduring the lesson. As the students identified the principlesthat were taught in previous lessons, Velma wrote them on thechalkboard. She tried to include all of the students' opinionsin this exercise. Each student was asked individually torespond, not just the students who raised their hands. Thestudents were attentive and seemed to enjoy the science class.Velma's encouraging questions and light-hearted approach toteaching seemed well received by all the students.When the principles had been written on the chalkboard,Velma proceeded to group the students. She read the names ofthe students from lists. These lists had been preparedpreviously using Velma's insight into compatibility and abilityof each student. Each student in a group of four was assigneda task such as recorder, reader, materials manager, or observer.94Once the groups had been assigned, the students were instructedto position four desks into working tables. To organize theclass in this manner, desks in proximity to one another weremoved into position quickly and quietly. It was evident thatVelma was well prepared for her class.Once the class had settled into groups, the equipmentmanagers were instructed to get the materials necessary to makethe electric "fairy" which had been organized on a ledge at theside of the room. When the materials had been arranged on thedesks, the readers began to read the directions in an orderlyand organized manner to the group. The others in the grouplistened and began to perform the activity. While this wastaking place, the recorders were given the sheet that Velma hadprepared previously. During the lesson Velma confidentlycirculated around the room answering student questions. Shebrought closure to the lesson when everyone had a working"fairy" and had returned the question sheet. The equipmentmanagers returned the equipment to the ledge at the side of theroom.4.4.4 Follow-up InterviewAfter the data from the initial interview and classroomobservation had been interpreted, this researcher returned fora follow-up interview seven days later. In the followingdiscussion Velma commented on the preparedness of the teachersin the vignettes.Velma: I also was very impressed by how the teacherwas so prepared and everything [materials] were setout. She [teacher in the vignette] had everythingthere, but I don't think that [my preparation] wasprompted by the video. I think I would do that [beprepared] anyway. It is just that it [vignette]reinforced that for me. Being prepared is a veryimportant aspect of teaching science.Murray: Was there anything else you observed on thevideotape?Velma: I think the one thing that I remember seeing onthe videotape, that I really thought about and I hadto do myself, is that the teacher really had toprepare the students. Really sat down with them,explained to them what was expected in their groups.Prepared them ahead of time so they understoodcompletely what they were looking for and it made mereally think about how I was going to set up my groupsituations...Watching how the students worked together on thevideo, I thought, like I don't see how you can getkids to do that [work well together] and so when I wasputting my groups together, I thought about that[grouping] and I thought about students who could worktogether. I also thought of not putting all thestudents that find science easy together, putting myspecial needs with my better students so that theycould work together and hopefully the better studentscould help those that have more difficulty.Then the other day in class one of the kids said, "Youknow what the answer is just tell us." I said, "No,I want you to be able to figure out the answer and Iam here to help you figure out the answer not to tellyou the answers, because you are not going to learn."That settled them down and they began to think againand they tried to solve the problem we werediscussing...Now they are putting up their hands andsaying, "Is this the way you do it?" and they areseeing if they understand it correctly, checkingwhether their procedure is right and whether theyunderstand the question right, especially ones whokept asking the questions all the time. So that isgood, now they know that they have to think beforethey ask and it is just a reassurance thing and9596hopefully we can slowly wean them off that too.What is of interest is that Velma did not think thevignettes helped her prepare for science. She mentioned in theinitial interview that she always prepared for science, but shecommented that the vignettes did reinforce the idea that teacherpreparation was important.What she attributed to the vignettes was learning how toprepare the students for group work. This preparation,according to Velma, included thinking about students who workedwell together, how to give directions to students, and settingexpectations. This is important because she credited thevignettes with helping her make the connection between teacherpreparation and teacher expectations.It seems that the vignettes provided information thathelped Velma solve two problems with her practice: grouping herstudents and managing questions from these groups. These twoproblems, which are interrelated, were addressed as Velmareflected on some of the grouping practices demonstrated on thevignettes. This lead her to reflect on how she would group herown students "I thought about students who would work together".The second problem was managing student questions. Tosolve this, Velma chose not to respond directly to student97questions but encouraged them to think about their ownquestions, in other words to "think again and try to solve theproblem."Further, Velma explained that the way the students nowasked questions solved her problem of not knowing what to say inscience class.^She seemed pleased with the changes in herclass.^Velma was then asked if the vignettes providedinformation that brought about these changes. To this questionshe responded in the following manner:The videotape made me curious whether I could actuallydo it [conduct a successful hands on activity ingroups] in my class. I am trying to recall if Ipicked up something I hadn't thought of before. It ishard to say, really hard because I am not sure whetherit is something I knew and had to have thatreassurance or that reinforcement to come up with itagain.Velma could not credit the vignettes to any changes thatoccurred in her class. However, she stated that the vignettes"made her curious." Further, she stated that she may have hadthe knowledge prior to viewing the vignettes and the vignettesreinforced the idea for her. What is important is that thevignettes prompted her to reflect upon her classroomexperiences. This reflection seemed to encourage her to try toovercome problems she had with her teaching practices anddevelop professionally.Working with Velma was most educational. She provided98insights into her teaching in a congenial manner. Thiscongenial manner was evident in the following log book entry."I feel comfortable talking to you about my lesson even thoughyou are the science consultant. I actually set out to prove thesituation on the videotape could not work in my class and wassurprised to find that it worked" (Log entry 17/11/88).4.5 SummaryThis chapter presents data in a format similar to a casestudy and in the sequence in which it was collected. Further,the researcher has presented his interpretation of the dataalong with evidence from the data to support the description ofthe data. It is hoped the reader has been able to judge theresearch and has been able to apply the data to situationswithin his or her experience.During the initial interview Kathy stated that scienceshould teach students how to learn about their environment bysolving problems. Having stated her perspective of teachingscience she framed a problem with grouping her students forscience. After viewing the vignettes she examined anotheraspect of her framed problem. This aspect was handling thevariety of answers that students working in groups may generate.Possible solutions were derived after Kathy conducted a thoughtexperiment. She then chose an activity and grouped her studentsto perform her chosen activity. This researcher suspects that99the activity she chose ensured that the anticipated outcome toher problem would not arise. More specifically, Kathy ensuredthat her groups would work by deliberately avoiding aproblematic situation.The vignettes assisted her in conducting her thoughtexperiment and provided her with information such as how togroup students, ask questions, and provide support for herstudent groups.Kent did not frame a problem with his teaching of science.However, the vignettes provided him with ideas for his scienceclass, questioning practices, managing materials, and made himconsider aspects of anecdotal reporting. Kent could notdetermine from the vignettes how the teachers in the vignettesused anecdotal reporting. To answer this query Kent suggestedhe may talk to his colleagues about anecdotal reporting.Susan framed a problem with grouping her students forscience. She then viewed the vignettes for information thatwould assist her in solving her framed problem. She observedhow organized the class was and how they were grouped forscience classes. After viewing the vignettes she tried classesthat were grouped for science with inconsistent results. Shewondered how her management of groups differed from the teachersin the vignettes. This reflection-on-action did not help Susan100solve her framed problem. This researcher suggests that Susanwas unable to infer how to engage groups productively from thevignettes.Velma framed a problem with grouping her students forscience. After viewing the vignettes she examined anotheraspect of her problem, how to answer questions from severalgroups of science students. Having observed students in thevignettes discussing answers to their own problems she decidedto group her students. She then told her students that shewould help them solve their problems, not solve their problems.This action changed the types of questions students asked andencouraged them to work more independently. At the conclusionof the study Velma was pleased with her professional growth.CHAPTER FIVEMAKING SENSE OF THE CASE STUDIES5.0 IntroductionIn this chapter the method of collecting and analysing the datais reviewed and the research questions are used to draw conclusionsfrom the data.Professional development opportunities are conceived as valuablefor teachers because they may lead to the improvement of instruction.Teachers in remote locations, however, often do not have access toprofessional development opportunities. One means of offering suchprofessional development opportunities to these teachers is throughthe use of videotaped vignettes of other teachers engaged in teaching.This study is an examination of four teachers' responses tovideotaped vignettes demonstrating science teaching. Four teachers,from remote schools, were interviewed twice and were visited in theirclassrooms. The researcher proposed that the four teachers would usetheir professional knowledge to interpret the videotaped vignettes andpossibly apply what they learned in their own practice. By recordingand analysing the teachers' responses and interpretations of the101102vignettes, the study sought to determine what each consideredimportant to his or her own practice. Further, the study soughtto describe to what extent each teacher reflected upon his orher practice after viewing videotaped vignettes.Specifically, the study collected data on (a) the kinds ofideas the teachers expressed after viewing the vignettes, (b)the professional knowledge that the teachers used to interpretthe vignettes, and c) the extent to which each of the fourteachers framed problems with their own classroom practices andreflected on these problems.5.1 Conclusions of the StudyThis section answers the stated research questions andoutlines the conclusions of the study. These conclusions arederived by comparing and analysing the data collected from thefour teachers involved in the study.5.1.1 What kinds of ideas do teachers articulate after viewingvignettes of elementary science instruction? Before commenting on ideas specific to the research, it isworth noting that three of the teachers were initially skepticalof the vignettes. Velma stated that she was quite skepticalwhen she viewed what she considered to be an idealisticsituation. Kathy expressed her skepticism by stating that inher opinion the vignettes were staged. Susan mentioned that a103second teacher viewed in the vignettes was a "bit morerealistic." These comments indicate that three teachersconsidered the vignettes either to be rehearsed or the videotapewas heavily edited. These initial responses may have beenbecause teachers do not often see videotaped vignettes ofcolleagues or observe their own classrooms while teaching.Despite their skepticism, however, they accepted the vignettesas plausible situations.It appears that when these teachers view vignettesthey are aware of the classroom context in which science wastaught in the vignettes shown to them. After some initialresponses, the teachers in the study commented on the impliciteducational situation, teacher practices, and student-studentinteractions demonstrated in the vignettes. Kathy commentedthat she organized her classroom into groups after viewing thevignettes. By specifically focusing on the appearance of theclassroom in the vignettes Kathy seemed to consider thesituation in which science was being taught. Kent consideredanother aspect of the educational situation. In one vignettethe students were measuring the amount of pollution given off bycar exhaust. After viewing this vignette Kent expressed concernabout exposing students to unhealthy car exhaust fumes.Further, he mentioned the car activity showed one teacher withonly four students. To Kent this student-teacher ratio wasunrealistic. Like Kent, Susan commented on the situation in104which science was being taught. Susan liked viewing an entireclass as she considered several groups to be more realistic thanone teacher with only four students. Further, Susan commentedon classroom contexts as she observed the way teachers in thevignettes gathered groups of students around themselves tocompile information at the conclusion of the activity. Velmaalso commented on classroom contexts as she wondered how shecould handle student questions within her class if she groupedher class for science. She viewed the vignettes and observedhow students carried on discussions in their groups.Kathy, Velma and Kent commented on how well prepared theteachers in the vignettes seemed to be. This preparation wasevident to these teachers in several ways. Kathy and Velmanoticed that the students in the vignettes knew what to do.Kathy inferred that if the students knew what to do it meant theteachers had set expectations. To Kent and Velma preparationincluded having materials set out for easy student access. ToVelma, who was concerned with questioning techniques,preparation meant the teacher knew what questions to ask.Teacher questioning practice was commented on by all theparticipants in the study. Kathy and Kent stated that teachersin the vignettes were asking good open-ended questions. Susanand Velma indicated that the teachers' questions encouragedstudent thinking. While Kent did not elaborate on what he meant105by good questioning techniques, Kathy and Susan inferred that byasking questions a teacher could ensure students were on task.Other comments, discussed below, suggest that the vignettes didnot fulfill the viewing teachers' expectations.Susan's comments indicated that she had not determined whatthe teacher in the vignettes was doing to make her class runsmoothly. This researcher suspects Susan did not notice how theteachers matched the activity with the size of the studentgroups. The vignettes caused Velma to wonder how teachers inthe vignettes were "making the students ask the same question."Kent wondered how teachers use anecdotal reporting which impliesthat given more information he would use this method to evaluatehis students. These comments suggest that teachers usevignettes to seek information useful to them in their teachingpractices. It appears the teachers in the study were convincedthat they were viewing sound teaching practices in the vignettesand asked themselves, "Why?" This indicates that they lookedbeyond the vignettes and reflected on what they saw. Further,they reflected on their own practices such as lesson preparationpractices, set expectations, and material distribution.Velma questioned how the teacher was preparing groups ofstudents to ask questions. By questioning how the teacher inthe vignette prepared students to ask questions, Velma indicatedthat she was aware of teacher-student interaction in the106vignettes. Velma commented not only on student questions butobserved how students in the vignettes discussed questions amongthemselves. Velma was not the only teacher in the study tocomment on student-student interaction. Kathy and Susancommented that they liked the way the groups in the vignettesworked together. Further, Susan inferred that the students musthave had practice working together for some time because of theway students quietly got materials and passed them amongthemselves. She also commented that student-student discussionand thinking assisted students in formulating conclusions toexperiments.In addition to the above responses, Kent commented on theinadequacies of the vignettes. Specifically, he observed ateacher in the vignettes using anecdotal reporting, but statedthat the vignettes did not show him how to use anecdotalreporting in his classroom. Unable to find a solution hesuggested that he should discuss this problem with hiscolleagues. If videotaped vignettes encourage teachers todiscuss unresolved problems with colleagues, as Kent suggests,then vignettes may promote staff problem solving. Thissuggestion may assist Susan as she tries to solve a problem withher science class.More important, there is evidence teachers actively respondto vignettes. They seem to be seeking information from the107vignettes that is useful to them. However, it is interesting,to note what teachers omitted from their comments. For example,none of the teachers mentioned the scientific processes such asobservation, prediction, inference, and so on. This issignificant because the importance of scientific processes wasthe focus of commentator comments and captions in the vignettes.It seems that these scientific processes may not have beenuseful to the teachers and therefore were ignored. The questionthat now needs to be answered is "what" knowledge seems to beused when teachers interpret vignettes.5.1.2 What kinds of professional knowledge did teachers use tointerpret vignettes of elementary science instruction? Shulman's (1987) categories of professional knowledge wereused to interpret the ideas that the teachers expressed afterviewing the vignettes. Four of Shulman's categories germane tounderstanding the knowledge teachers may use to interpretvignettes are general pedagogical knowledge, knowledge oflearners and their characteristics, knowledge of educationalcontexts, and pedagogical content knowledge. Shulman'scategories are now used to categorize the knowledge the teachersused to interpret the vignettes.Kathy and Velma used their general pedagogical knowledgewhen they inferred that the teachers in the vignettes were wellprepared. Further, Kathy inferred that the teachers in the108vignettes had set expectations for their students. Similarly,Kathy, Susan, and Kent noticed the questioning techniques of theteachers in the vignettes. Kathy and Kent specificallycommented on the open-ended questions asked by the teachers inthe vignettes. Since questioning techniques transcend subjectmatter, these teachers appeared to have used their generalpedagogical knowledge to interpret these aspects of thevignettes.After viewing the vignettes Susan and Kent changed the waythey organized materials and students. Kent stated that hechanged the way he distributed materials in his science class.Susan commented that she grouped her students together tocompare their findings after conducting an activity as a resultof having viewed this practice in the vignettes. The importanceof these somewhat isolated anecdotes is that technicalstrategies may be identified by teachers in vignettes andimplemented into their classrooms. Susan mentioned that shepersonalized questions as did the teachers in the vignettes.Organizing materials and students and personalizing questionsare practices germane to teaching all subject areas. Bycommenting on these practices teachers seem to be applyinggeneral pedagogical knowledge when interpreting vignettes.Further they must have used this knowledge to incorporateactions into their teaching practices.109Another type of knowledge these teachers may have used tointerpret the vignettes is knowledge of learners and theircharacteristics. Velma stated that students in the vignetteswere encouraged to use their own observations and were notafraid to make errors and noticed that students went about theirtasks systematically. Clearly, Velma interpreted the vignetteswith some prior understanding of learners.Similarly, other teachers in the study noticed the studentsin the vignettes. Kathy, for example, commented that thestudents in the vignettes knew what to do. To make this commentKathy must have had knowledge of what students do when assigneda task. Knowledge of students assisted Kathy in inferring thatthe teacher in the vignettes must have organized her studentsand set expectations for them. Susan concurred with Kathy andVelma as she commented on how organized the students in thevignettes performed their tasks. In the following comment Susanseemed quite cognizant of students when organizing her classroomfor science:"I don't want to go on with a large group when they[students] need individual attention. When I'm in a large groupI feel I'm losing some of them."After viewing the vignettes Kent commented that theinterest of the students was "keeping them in line." Theseinterpretations of the vignettes suggest these teachers wereusing knowledge of learners and their characteristics.110The learners in the vignettes were organized into groups.To interpret how students function within groups, teachers haveto have previous knowledge of how groups function or knowledgeof educational contexts. These teachers' responses indicatethat the educational context in which science is taught was themost problematic issue for them in the study and, therefore, wasof prime interest to this researcher.The criteria that Susan used to judge the educationalcontext demonstrated in the vignettes were noise level and thecalmness of the students. Kathy specifically stated that sheobserved how well the groups worked. Susan commented that sheliked the way the teacher grouped her students to compileinformation collected during the activity. Velma noticed howthe groups functioned as she commented on how groups of studentsget involved in discussions. It is interesting to note Velmamade this comment after framing a problem around answeringstudent questions. Each of these comments suggest that teachersuse knowledge of educational contexts to interpret vignettes.Besides knowledge of educational contexts other comments suggestthat teachers use knowledge categorized by Shulman (1987) aspedagogical content knowledge.There is little evidence in the study to suggest teachersamalgamate distinct categories of knowledge. Velma states thatshe considers both content and pedagogy:111"I try to follow the [science] curriculum as much as possiblebut it has to be relevant [to the child] because otherwise thechild hasn't learned anything".Although concerned about content Velma considers bothcontent and pedagogy important to her students' learning.Kent focused more on content than did the other teachers inthe study."Science is like the scientific method its logical thought goesthrough all kinds of patterning, observation skills, and usesfine motor skills. It [science] uses almost anything you wantin the Elementary class."In this comment Kent suggested that all subjects in thecurriculum could be structured around developing student skills.Later in the interview Kent used this assumption to assist himin assessing the benefit of activities. This is evident in hiscomment that one of the teachers he viewed might be guidingstudents rather than allowing them to "find out" for themselves.Kent made a second reference to the learning of science in hiscomment, "Students must learn the scientific method and useproblem solving to understand science."Susan commented that teachers in the vignettes would adapttheir teaching to different situations. She stated they wouldact differently if they were teaching her class. This commentimplies that Susan is aware that teachers' practices depend uponstudents, content, and situation. This comment occurred when112Susan was interpreting the vignettes and seemingly seekinginformation to solve a problem she was having grouping herstudents for science class. Although she made this comment shefailed to interrelate these components to solve her problem.Kent also referred to the context of the classroom when hewondered how a teacher with a number of students could do someof the activities shown in the vignettes. No other evidence wasfound that suggested teachers relate content to pedagogy.This lack of relating content to pedagogy was surprising tothis researcher. It was a surprise as it may mean that teachersuse discrete knowledge to interpret vignettes and professionaldevelopment sessions. This evidence concurs with Gunstone andNorthfield (1988) who state that teachers use their priorknowledge to interpret professional development sessions. Thedata in this study indicates that teachers seem to possess anduse knowledge similar to the categories suggested by Shulman.That is, Shulman's categories can be useful in understanding howteachers frame problems and solve problems using theirpedagogical knowledge.1135.1.3. To what extent do teachers engage in reflection-on-actionafter viewing videotaped vignettes of elementary science instruction? After viewing vignettes Kathy and Susan identified similarproblems with their science teaching practices. These teachersframed a problem in terms of developing appropriate strategiesfor grouping students in their science classes. Although eachof the teachers framed a problem around grouping their students,they examined different aspects of this common problem.Kathy's approach was to conduct a thought experiment aboutstudent grouping that assisted her in examining concerns she hadwith teaching a particular science lesson. This thoughtexperiment resulted in an hypothesized outcome for grouping herstudents in a science lesson, but left her puzzled as to how todeal with the potentially different answers students may derivefrom the same activity. Further, she hypothesized that thesedifferent answers may not be scientifically correct. In orderto circumvent this potential problem Kathy chose to engage thestudents in a simple comparison activity. In so doing sheattempted to minimize the range of student responses and thelikelihood of obtaining "incorrect" responses. Although Kathygrouped her students, she only partially reached her earlierstated goals of engaging students in meaningful problem-solvingactivities. That is, the lesson content and her instructionalactivities still did not provide the sorts of challenges andexplorations between students and materials that she had114envisioned earlier. It is also interesting to note that shegrouped her students because she liked the appearance of theclassroom in the vignettes. It seemed that the vignettesassisted Kathy in that they suggested an approach that she mightuse to address some of her educational goals.Susan, like Kathy, was concerned with grouping her studentsfor science. Initially she identified her students as theproblem. She then stated that sometimes her groups worked whileother times they did not. Having stated this problem she seemedto be viewing the vignettes for clues that would assist her insolving her problem. She reflected on her teaching as shecommented that the vignettes made her "think about what goes onin my classroom." Further, she attempted to reflect-on-actionwhen she stated, "It could be something I'm not doing that theteacher on the videotape did, or it could be the other wayaround, something I'm doing that she didn't." Clearly, thevignettes prompted Susan to examine her teaching practicerelated to grouping her students in her science class.Velma framed a problem around grouping her students aswell. She then identified an aspect of this problem asanswering student questions when students were placed in groups.After viewing the vignettes she commented "I thought about that[grouping] and I thought about students who could worktogether." Further, while viewing the vignettes she inferred115that students in groups were discussing the questions and,therefore, the teacher in the vignettes did not have to answerall the questions raised by students. This inference encouragedher to group her students and then announce to them that she wasthere to help them, not simply to answer their questions. Thisaction caused her students to change the questions they asked.This response to her action surprised Velma and may haveincreased her knowledge of students and their characteristics.It seems the vignettes provided Velma with information thatcaused her to reflect on her actions, and assisted her insolving a problem answering student questions when students wereplaced in groups.Kent commented on evaluating students using anecdotalmethods demonstrated in the vignettes. Given that he hadseveral special needs students in his class this method ofevaluation would have been helpful to him. However, theinformation he wanted was lacking in the vignettes so he did notsolve this problem to his satisfaction. His interest in thisaspect of the vignettes showed that he was reflecting onevaluation practices. Further, the vignettes appeared to havehelped him formulate this problem with his teaching practice.The vignettes appear to have assisted these teachers withframing problems with their practice and provided information tosolve these problems. Further, it seems these teachers improved116their practice as a result of reflecting on action after viewingvideotaped vignettes. This study concurs with Kilbourne (1988)who suggested that vignettes promote teachers to reflect-on-action.5.2 Major Findings of the Study1. TEACHERS APPLY PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE TO INTERPRET VIGNETTES.Teachers in the study apparently apply general pedagogicalknowledge, knowledge of learners and their characteristics,knowledge of educational contexts, and pedagogical contentknowledge to interpret the vignettes. Most of the comments madeby teachers involved with the study were about practices thatcould be used in teaching any subject. These comments includeteacher organization of materials and students, settingexpectations, questioning practices, material organization,grouping students and personalizing questions.2. AFTER VIEWING VIGNETTES TEACHERS MAY FRAME PROBLEMS WITHTHEIR TEACHING PRACTICESThree of the four teachers in the study framed problemswith their existing classroom practice. A central issue in eachof these cases was the grouping of students. However, eachteacher articulated this problem differently. Kathy wonderedhow she would handle the different answers provided by eachgroup to the same activity. Susan searched for the answer as towhy her students did not appear to be on task. Velma wondered117how she would handle the questions from different groups. Whatis important is that teachers framed problems with theirteaching practices and identified aspects of these problemsafter viewing vignettes of elementary science teaching.3. TEACHERS MAY REFLECT-ON-ACTION AFTER VIEWING VIGNETTES OFELEMENTARY SCIENCE INSTRUCTION BUT MAY NOT SOLVE THEIR FRAMEDPROBLEMS.Kathy framed a problem with grouping her students for thepurposes of engaging them in problem-solving activities.However, she only partially solved her problem because once thestudents were grouped she engaged them in an activity that didnot require them to solve a problem. She was prompted to solvethe problem of grouping her students as she "liked the way theclass looked in the vignettes." To overcome the problem ofgrouping her students she must have reflected and initiatedaction.Susan provided insight into reflection on practice when shestated that she has had to "clarify a lot of ideas and think alot more about what was happening in my room." She clarifiedher ideas on grouping her students and commented "It worked wellsometimes and then sometimes it doesn't." According to her, thereason groups worked or did not work depended on the "kids."Later she reflected on her actions as she stated, "It could besomething I'm doing that the teacher on the videotape did or it118could be the other way around." It appears that Susan reflectedon her classroom actions/practices as a result of viewing thevignettes.Like Susan, Velma also framed a problem that concernedgrouping her students. Velma's problem was how she would dealwith a variety of student questions and grouping her studentsfor science class. By reflecting on her problem she commented"I thought about that [grouping] and I thought about studentswho could work together." Further, she then told her studentsthat she would only help them solve problems not provide answersto them. Once she had told her students that she was not goingto give them answers they began "to solve the problem they werediscussing." After reflecting on her problem and testingactions she seemed pleased that her initial problem was solvedand her class seemed to function well.It seems that the vignettes assisted these teachers inframing a problem with their practice and provided informationthat motivated them to reflect on their practice to solve theseproblems. Further, it seems that these teachers improved theirclassroom practices.4. THESE TEACHERS WHEN VIEWING VIGNETTES DID NOT ATTEND TO ORALCOMMENTARIES OR CAPTIONS.No evidence in the data suggested that teachers, whenL19viewing vignettes, attend to oral or captions in the vignettes.The vignettes provided several captions and oral commentariesabout the use of science processes in the science class.However, none of the teachers mentioned the science processes inthe interviews. This lack of comment about science processessuch as predicting, measuring, comparing and so on suggeststeachers apply their own interpretation to vignettes. Theseinterpretations seem to depend on problems teachers have framedwith their teaching practice. Further, if information is notrelated to their problem, the teacher may ignore informationprovided by the vignettes.5. THESE TEACHERS INTERPRETED THE VIGNETTES IN WAYS THATWOULD ASSIST THEM IN THEIR TEACHINGDuring the interviews teachers discussed issues that wereof interest to them and their teaching practices. Kent'scomment, "I was looking at how she had the materials set out.I also saw how those lessons worked," and Susan's comment, "Iremember watching the way the kids on the videotape neatlypassed things and the way they [students] went and got materialsto the group and it [lesson] went well" suggest that theteachers were looking for ways to improve their own teachingpractices. Velma commented on the way students discussedquestions among themselves and then encouraged her students todo the same. It appears that vignettes demonstrate to teacherspractices that can be useful to them to improve their practices.1205.3 Limitations of the StudyThe factors that may limit the generalizability of thestudy are the setting, the nature of the relationship betweenthe researcher and teachers, and the time frame used incollection of the data.The first factor, the isolated setting in which the studywas conducted, has some unique characteristics which must beconsidered when interpreting the findings of the study. Inparticular, the nature of the relationship between theresearcher (who served as consultant in the School Division atthe time) and the teachers was an important factor inestablishing the type of "trust" which facilitated theprocedures involved in carrying out the study. For example, therole of the researcher/consultant was one of providing newmaterials for teachers in the Division, of offering advise andsupport to teachers rather than evaluating their practice, andof soliciting other forms of support such as providingsubstitute teachers to allow the teachers in the study toparticipate in videotape viewing sessions and interviews. Thesetting and the relationship between the researcher and the fourteachers must be considered by the reader in interpreting andgeneralizing the findings.Finally, the time frame used in the collection of the datamust be considered as a possible limiting factor since, in121several instances, up to two weeks lapsed between the classroomobservations and the interviews. This duration may well havecontributed to the interpretations of the classroom events andactions being "reconstructed"somewhat by both teacher and theresearcher.5.4 Implications of the Study for Professional Development inRemote Schools In my experience as a science consultant, professionaldevelopment means that teachers are asked to implementsuggestions from a presenter. This format of professionaldevelopment has resulted in limited changes in teacher practice.It seems that teachers are unable to reproduce actions andincorporate them into their practices. This study offers analternative to this method of professional development. Thestudy proposed that videotaped vignettes could be used as a toolto overcome shortages of presenters, and provide low costprofessional development opportunities. Vignettes can be sentto schools or transmitted via satellite. Once the vignetteshave been viewed by teachers, the implications of the innovationdemonstrated in the vignettes can be discussed by the teachersinvolved. This discussion may focus on the implications theinnovation has for each teacher and school. Informationprovided by the vignettes and the problems framed by teacherscan be discussed at the school level. A structure promotingthis discussion should involve the teachers, principal, and if122need be a consultant. The following discussion examines theroles of the teacher, principal, and consultant in thisstructure.5.4.1 TeacherKent suggested that teachers could discuss amongstthemselves the implications of the vignettes to their classroompractices. Susan commented that these practices may not betransferred unchanged from the vignettes but personalized byindividual teachers. Teachers must be the ones to frame andsolve problems with their practice if they are to improve theirclassroom practice. They may be able to do this by usinginformation from vignettes coupled with a problem solvingformat.One format for solving problems that has been found to besuccessful is action research. The goal of action researchaccording to Grundy and Kemmis (1982) is to promote thedevelopment of judgment. Wise judgment is acquired throughrational reflection on classroom practices. A teacher is askedto formulate a problem and hypothesize solutions, which areattempted in the classroom. The hypothesized solution may comefrom a thought experiment as in reflection-on-action. To ensurethe success of such a plan, teachers must be encouraged to sharetheir problems and reflect-on-action. By involving teachers inaction research the school environment is being affected by123increasing dialogue, collegiality, experimentation, continuousassessment, and effective school development (Fullan, 1987,Kemmis, 1987). These dimensions of action research provideopportunities for enhanced professional development for teachersand an improvement in a school climate where learning isencouraged for students and teachers alike.To ensure continued professional development, teachersshould meet regularly, share their problems, and keep a writtenlog book of their continued progress as professionals. The logbook should contain framed problems, information provided byvignettes and discussions, and hypothesized actions and observedoutcomes of these actions. Fullan (1991) sees teachers andothers working in small groups interacting frequently in thecourse of planning, testing new ideas, attempting to solvedifferent problems, and assessing effectiveness (p.142). Thisstructure for school level professional development should alsoinvolve the principal.5.4.2 Principal The principal must be included in professional developmentopportunities as he or she is responsible for evaluating staffand ensuring that an acceptable standard of education ismaintained within the school. However, in a school where thestaff is taking control of its own professional developmentopportunities, the principal must take a leadership role and act124as a facilitator.As a facilitator, the principal's role should be one of areflective leader. Fullan (1991) states that principals shouldcritically reflect on whether their own conceptions of the roleare placing unnecessary limits on what can be done (p.168).What is important is that principals must stay informed of theproblems teachers are attempting to solve and support theirefforts. Principals should monitor meetings and agree with thestaff on the criteria used to evaluate effectiveness. Thisevaluation should support communication and productive problemsolving. This may be done by encouraging the staff to frameproblems and reflect-on-action. At times problems may arisethat neither staff nor principal can solve. At such times anoutside consultant should be contacted.5.4.3 Consultant In a remote school the consultant can provide advice viacomputer, telephone, or satellite transmission. Working withteachers and staffs who have framed problems the consultant canbring vignettes and information that may assist teachers tosolve their problems. If the particular problem is a subjectarea problem, then a consultant, with expertise in that area,should be contacted. Time should be allotted for teachers toview vignettes, frame problems, and discuss these problems tosupport reflection-on-action. The benefit of contacting a125subject-area consultant is that reflection-on-action conductedby teachers should require input consistent with a subject area.One benefit of reflecting-on-action within a subject area isteachers may increase their pedagogical content knowledge.Another benefit of involving outside consultants is thatprincipals and staff can be informed of innovations or trends ineducation such as sustainable development.5.5 Recommendations for Further Research 1. Studies should be done in an urban setting to determine ifurban teachers respond to vignettes in a similar manner toteachers in remote schools.Urban teachers have more access to professional developmentopportunities than teachers in remote schools. Studies shouldbe undertaken to determine if teachers in urban areas framesimilar problems and conduct thought experiments or reflect-on-action similar to the teachers in this study.2. Studies should be conducted to determine what factors need tobe considered to promote professional development using videotechnology.This study determined that teachers are skeptical ofvignettes but, when individually approached, engaged inprofessional development. What needs to be done now is toexamine the factors involved in using video technology with astaff.1263. Vignettes with demonstrations of other subject areas shouldbe carried out to determine the problems teachers frame inresponse to these vignettes.Vignettes of social studies, language arts and healtheducation may enable teachers to frame problems in differentways. This information could help determine the use ofvignettes as a professional development tool.5.6 SummaryThis chapter has answered the research questions and,provided the major findings, implications, and recommendationsassociated with the study. The data in the study suggest thatteachers possess knowledge of pedagogy. Further, they use thisknowledge to interpret videotaped vignettes. Theseinterpretations may make it possible for teachers to frameproblems with their teaching practices.Teachers seem to use mainly general pedagogical knowledgeto frame and solve problems with their classroom practices. Thelack of evidence of pedagogical content knowledge suggests thatteachers have specific problems when teaching science.Vignettes may assist teachers in framing problems with teachingscience and provide information to solve these problems. Thereis evidence in this study to suggest that videotaped vignettescan provide information that may be used to further professionaldevelopment for teachers in remote schools.127REFERENCESAijayi-Dosemu, Y., & Talabi, J. K. (1985). Effects of videotapemediation on the development of skills in audiovisualinstruction. Journal of Educational Television, 11 (3),207-210.Baird, J. (1988). Teachers in science education. In Fensham,P.(Ed.). Development and dilemmas in science education,London: The Falmer Press.Baird, J. R., & Mitchell, I. J. (Eds.). (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study-- The peel prolect. Melbourne: Monash University.Bates, A. (1991, September). [interview with Anthony Bates,author of articles on video technology use in distanceeducation].^Open Learning Agency, Vancouver, BritishColumbia.Boomer, Garth (1987, February). Changing hearts and chanqingminds or changing structures? Address at Darling DownsInstitute of Advanced Education, Toowoomba, Australia.Breckman, K., Buller, E., Fontaine, D., Ilavasky, J.,McConaghy, G., Osbourne, K., Riffel, T., Roy, G., Wadelius,V., & White, R., (1986).^Professional development: Aninterorganizational consultation paper. Available fromProfessional Development Consultation Committee, 311 - 1181Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba.Clandinin, Jean. (1985). Personal practical knowledge: A studyof teacher's classroom images. Curriculum Inquiry, 15(4),361-385.Clift, R., Houston, R., & Pugach, M.^(Eds.).^(1990).Encouraging reflective practice in education: Ananalysis of issues and programs. Columbia University,New York: Teachers College Press.Connelly, F. Michael, Crocker, Robert K., & Kass, Heidi (1985).Science Education in Canada. Toronto: Ontario Institutefor Studies in Education.Court, D. (1988). Questions of value: An inquiry into the nature of teacher thinking.^Unpublished doctoraldissertation. University of British Columbia.128Crocker, Robert K. (1979). From curriculum to classroom: Aninterview study of teacher perspectives on curriculumchange in primary science.^Queensland: Department ofEducation.Crocker, Robert K. (1983). The functional paradigms ofteachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 8(4), 350-361.Crocker, Robert K. (1984). Determinants of implementation of anelementary science program. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 21(2), 211-220.Crocker, Robert K. (1985). Elements in teacher functionalparadigms. J. Housego and P. Grimmett (Eds.). Teacher andteacher education.^Vancouver: Western EducationalDevelopment Group, University of British Columbia.Crocker, Robert K., & Banfield, Helen. (1986). Factorsinfluencing teacher decision on school, classroom andcurriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(9),805-816.Crocker, Robert K., Dodd, Jennifer, & Marfo, Kofi. (1988,April). Functional paradigms in teacher translationof curriculum policy into instructional practice.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching.Chicago.Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Teacher professionalism: why andhow? In Lieberman, A. (Ed.). School collaborative cultures: Creating the future now. New York. The Falmer Press, 25-51.Dewey, John. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relationof reflective thinking to the educative process. Chicago.Henry Regnery Co.Doyle, W., & Ponder, G.A. (1977-78). The practicality ethic inteacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1-12.Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: Sometheoretical and empirical issues in the study of students'conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in ScienceEducation, 10, 37-60.Driver, R., & Oldman, V. (1986). A constructivist approach tocurriculum development in science. Studies in Science, 13,105-122.129Eisner, E., & Peshkin, A. (1990). Qualitative inquiry ineducation: The continuing debate. Columbia University, NewYork. Teachers College Press.El-Melige, M. Helmy. (1985). Distance teaching and learning: Acase study. Paper presented at the World Assembly of theInternational Council on Education for Teaching (32nd),Vancouver, B.C.Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher's "Practical Knowledge": Report ofa case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 2(1), 42-71.Ellen, Roy F. (1984). Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. London. Academic Press.Elton, L., Oliver, E., & Wray, M. (1986). Academic stafftraining at a distance - A case study. Programmed Learningand Instruction, 23, 29.Erickson, G. (1984, April). Some issues on cognitive structure and cognitive change in science education: One perspectivefrom North America. Paper presented at a meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La.Erickson, G. (1987, April). Constructivist epistemology and theprofessional development of teachers. Paper presented at ameeting of the American Educational Research Association,Washington, D.C.Erickson, G. (1988, June). Processes and products from the (SI)2 proiect: Anatomy of a collaborative approach. Paperpresented at a meeting of the Canadian Society for theStudy of Education, Windsor, Ontario.Fernsternmacher, G. (1988). The place of science andepistemology in Schon's conception of reflective practice?In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.). Reflecting in teachereducation (pp. 39-47). New York: Teachers College Press.Firestone, W. A. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric ofquantitative and qualitative research. Educational Researcher. October, 16-20.Floden, R., & Buchmann, M. (1990). Philosophical inquiry inteacher education.^In Houston, R. (Ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education. New York. MacMillanPublishing Co.Freiberg, J., & Waxman, H. (1990). In Clift, R., Houston, R., &Pugach, M. (Eds.). Encouraging reflective practice ineducation. New York. Teachers College Press. pp. 119-138.130Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. Toronto:OISE Press.Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning ofeducational change. Toronto: OISE Press.Gilliss, G. (1988). Schon's Reflective Practioner: A modelfor teachers.^In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.).Reflection in teacher education (pp. 47-53). New York:Teachers College Press.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research.Chicago: Aldine.Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D., (1984). Ethnography andqualitative design in educational research. San Diego,Academic Press.Goodlad, John. (1984). A place called school. New York.McGraw-Hill.Grimmett, P. (1989). A commentary on Schon's view ofreflection. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 5(1),19-28.Grimmett, P. (1988). The nature of reflection and Schon'sconception in perspective. In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson(Eds.). Reflection in teacher education, pp. 5-150. NewYork: Teachers College Press.Grimmett, P., Mackinnon, A., Erickson, G., & Rieken, T. (1990).Reflective practice in teacher education. In Clift, R.,Houston, R., & Pugach, M. (Eds.). Encouraging reflectivepractice in education. New York: Teachers College Press.Grundy, Shirley. (1986). Action research and human interests.The Australian Association of Adult Education. Inc.Canberra, Australia.Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improvingthe usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey - Bass.Gunstone, R., & Northfield, J. (1988). Inservice education: someconstructivist perspectives and examples. Paper presentedat the meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans.Habermas, Jurgen. (1972). Knowledge and human interest. London:Heinemann.131Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principlesand practices. London: Tavistock Publications.Hargreaves, A., & Wood, P. (1984). Classrooms and staffrooms.London: Open University Press.Harty, H., & Enochs, L. (1983). Towards reshaping the inserviceeducation of science teachers. School Science andMathematics, 85(2), 125-135.Hewson, P. W., & A.Beckett Hewson, M. G. (1984). The role ofconceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design ofscience instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1-13.Hills, J., & Gibson, C. (1988). Reflections on Schon's thereflective practitioner. In Grimmett, P., & Erickson, G.(Eds.). Reflection in teacher education. New York: TeachersCollege Press.Holmberg, Borje. (1979). Practise in distance education: Aconceptual framework. Canadian Journal of UniversityContinuing Education, 6, 18-30.Jones, Robert Morris. (1973). An application of systems analysis techniques in the development of instructional televisionunits for inservice elementary teachers. Ed. D. thesis,School of Education, Oklahoma State University. (ERICDocument ED 083 832).Jones, S. (1985). Depth Interviewing. In Walker, R. (Ed.).Applied qualitative research. Aldershot, England: GowerPublishing Co.Kaplan, Abraham. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology forbehavioral^science.^San^Francisco:^ChandlerPublication Co.Kemmis, Stephen. (1987). Critical reflection. In Wideen &Andrews (Eds.). Staff development for school improvement,(pp. 73-91). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.Kilbourn, B. (1988). Reflecting on vignettes of teaching. In P.Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.) Reflection in teachereducation, (pp. 91-111). New York: Teachers College Press.Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity inqualitative research. Beverly Hills: Sage.Klabenes, Robert, & Spencer, Carl. (1970, March). Videoinservice: Helpful help for classroom teachers. Educational Technology, 21-22.132Koballa, T. R. (1982). Comment on "Effects of a televisedscience in-service program on attitudes of elementaryteachers." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(6),531-432.Lantz, O. C. (1984). The role of chemistry teachers' functionalparadigms in translating curriculum materials intoclassroom practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Alberta, Edmonton.Liethwood, K. A. (1977). Alternative methods for evaluation thenature and degree of program implementation. Toronto: OISE.Press.Leithwood, K. (1982). Studies in curriculum decision making.Toronto: 0.I.S.E. Press.Lewin, Kurt. (1984). Action research and minority problems. Theaction research reader. Deakin University, Victoria.Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1990). Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now. New York: Falmer Press.Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills: Sage.Louden, W. (1989, in press). Reflection and the development ofteachers knowledge. In A. Hargreaves & Fullan (Eds.).Understanding teacher development, (pp. 1-34). New York:London and Teachers College Press.Lortie, Dan. (1975). The school teacher. University of ChicagoPress.MacKinnon, A., & Erickson, G. (1988). Taking Schon's ideas to ascience teaching practicum. In Grimmett, P., & Erickson, G.(Eds.). Reflection in teacher education. New York: TeachersCollege Press.MacKinnon, A. (1989). Conceptualizing a 'reflective practicum' in constructivist science teaching. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. University of British Columbia,British Columbia.McCutcheon, Gail (1981). On the interpretation of classroomobservations. Educational Researcher, 10, 5-10.Maugh, T. H. (1985). A new trend: Training on "the Tube."Science, 227(4694), 1569-70. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. EJ 317405).133Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1989). Educating the reflectiveteacher: An essay review of two books by Donald Schon.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21 (1), 71-80.Minnis, John R. (1985). Ethnography, case study, groundedtheory, and distance education research. DistanceEducation. (6)2, 189-197.Neufeld, G. R., & Birch, D. L. (1985). Innovations in distanceeducation applied to the professional development ofteachers (A Canadian perspective). Unpublished manuscript.Nolan, J., & Huber, T. (1989). Nurturing the reflectivepractitioner through instructional supervision: A review ofthe literature. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,4(2), 126-145.Noordhoff, K., & Klienfeld, J. (1990). Shaping the rhetoric ofreflection for multicultural settings. In Clift, R.,Houston, R., & Pugach, M. (Eds.). Encouraging reflectivepractice in education. New York: Teachers College Press.Oberg, Antionette. (1986). "Encouraging and recountingreflections on practice." Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies,Winnipeg.Olson, J. (1982). Innovation in the science curriculum. NewYork: Nichols.Perry, B. L. (1978, January). The effects of three methods of interactive programmed training on the accuracy ofclassroom assessors. A paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the Georgia Educational Association, Atlanta,Georgia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED169121).Piper, M., & Butts, J. T. (1974). The development and evaluationof a televised science inservice program. (ERIC Document ED091 202).Posner, G., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A.,(1982). Accommodation of scientific conception: Toward atheory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.Pugach, M., & Johnson, L. (1990). Developing reflective practicethrough structured dialogue. In Clift, R., Houston, R., &Pugach, M. (Eds.) Encouraging reflective practice ineducation. New York: Teachers College Press. pp. 186-207.134Reynolds, Carl L. (1985, October). Young teacher seminar: Amodel for rural teacher education in-service. Paperpresented at the Annual National Rural Teachers EducationalConference, Bellingham, W.A.Rist, R. C. (1982). On the application of ethnographic inquiryto education: Procedures and possibilities. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 19(6), 439-450.Ross, Dorene.^(1990). Programmatic structures for thepreparation of reflective teachers. In Clift, R., Houston,R., & Pugach, M. (Eds.). Encouraging reflective practice ineducation. New York: Teachers College Press. pp. 97-118.Russel, T. (1987, April). Learning the professional knowledge ofteaching. Paper presented to the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.Sanders, D. P. & McCutcheon, G. (1984, April). On the evolutionof teacher's theories of action through action research. Apaper presented at a conference of the American EducationalResearch Association, New Orleans, La.Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: Howprofessionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. SanFrancisco: Jossey - Bass.Science Council of Canada (1984). Science for every student: Educating Canadians for tomorrow's world. Report 36. Hull,Quebec: Canadian Government Publishing Center.Science teacher survey, grade 7-9 (1985). Winnipeg: ManitobaEducation, 1181 Portage Avenue.Science teacher survey, grade K-6 (1986). Winnipeg: ManitobaEducation, 1181 Portage Avenue.Sheldon, D. S., & Halverston, D. (1981). Effects of a televisedscience in-service program on attitudes of elementaryteachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(3),249-254.Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations ofthe new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.Shulman, L. S. (1987b). Those who understand knowledge andgrowth in teaching. Education Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.135Shrigley, R., Johnson, T., & Wolfinger, D. (1979). ISEE-ITV andprofessional reinforcement: A teacher's model forimplementing curriculum change at the district level.Science Education, 63(1), 3-8.Stake, Robert. (1987). A evolutionary view of programming staffdevelopment. In Weeden, M., & Andrews, I. (Eds.). Staffdevelopment for school improvement: A focus on the teacher.Philadelphia: Falmer Press.Tom, A., & Valli, L. (1990). Professional knowledge of tIn Houston, R. (Ed.). Handbook of research on education. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.Wax, R. H. (1971). Doing fieldwork: Warning and advice. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Welliver, Paul W. (1969). Using educational television as aneffective tool in science supervision. Science Education,53, 95-99.Werner, Paul W. (1969). An interpretive approach to curriculumimplementation. In Leithwood, K., & Hughes, A. (Eds.).Curriculum Canada III, (pp. 137-160). Canadian Associationfor Curriculum Studies and C.S.C.I.West, G. R. (1977). Participant observation in classrooms: Theneed, rationale, technique and development implications.Canadian Journal of Education, 2(3), 55-74.Wideen, Marvin F., & Andrews, Ian. (1987). Staff development forschool improvement. London: Falmer Press.Wildman, T., & Niles, J. (1987). Reflective teachers: Tensionsbetween abstractions and realities. Journal of TeacherEducation, 38(4), 25-31.Wildman, T., Niles, J., Magliaro, S., & McLaughlin, R. (1990).In Clift, R., Houston, R., & Pugach, M. (Eds.). Encouragingreflective practice in education. New York: TeachersCollege Press, 139-162.Wood, P. (1986). Inside schools. London, England: Routedge &Kegan Paul.Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills: SagePublications.eachers.teacher136APPENDIX ADESCRIPTION OF THE VIGNETTESThe twenty minute videotape used in this study was producedby the Alberta Department of Education in 1982. The videotapewas produced to introduce teachers to the inquiry method ofteaching science. The videotape demonstrated ten activitieswhere students manipulate materials.The science processes of observation, controllingvariables, hypothesizing, predicting, classifying,communicating, and measuring were related to science teaching.A description of the activities follows:ACTIVITY 1. ISOPODSStudents were provided with a piece of tin foil, hot andcold water, two hamburger containers and five isopods. Withthese materials the students were asked to determine thetemperature of water isopods prefer. The videotape demonstratesstudents constructing a small trough and suspending it betweenthe hamburger containers. After adding water (hot at one endand cold at the other) to the trough the students introduceseveral isopods. Each group of students record the number ofisopods in each section of the trough. In this activity thestudents were asked to control variables.At the end of the lesson the teacher engaged the studentsin a large group discussion and graphed the results of theircollective data. This activity which involved observation andrecording of data demonstrated students collecting andinterpreting data.ACTIVITY 2. MYSTERY POWDERSIn this activity the students were asked to determine thecontents of foil tart containers. To determine the contents thestudents held the tart trays with wire loops and observed thecolour changes as the Plaster of Paris and sugar were heated.The teacher encouraged students to make predictions by askingopen-ended questions such as "What do you think is going tohappen?" before the activity.ACTIVITY 3. BATTERIES AND BULBSStudents predicted and then gave reasons(s) for theirprediction(s) before testing the battery/batteries and alightbulb connection(s). In doing this activity students were askedto consider variables.ACTIVITY 4. ELECTROMAGNETSStudents were asked to make an electromagnet by coilingcoated wire around a large nail and attaching the coil to two137batteries. As the number of coils and batteries increased thestudents recorded the number of paper clips the electromagnetattracted. The intent of this activity was to have students seerelationships between variables.ACTIVITY 5. CLASSIFYING MATERIALSStudents were asked to classify materials using a magnet.By classifying objects in this manner students exploredproperties of objects. Later the students were asked to justifythe groups of objects they created.ACTIVITY 6. CIRCUIT BOXESThis activity instructed students how to construct acircuit board. As the students did this activity the teacherasked open-ended questions. The teacher also challenged thestudents by asking them "What would have happened if . . ."ACTIVITY 7. CAR EXHAUSTThis activity demonstrated how a study of car exhaust couldbe used to make inferences. Four students with one teacher helda piece of white paper a specified distance from a car exhaustpipe. By observing the different amounts of matter given off bythe exhaust students determined the pollution created by thecar's exhaust.ACTIVITY 8. TESTING AN INDICATORScientific thinking was promoted by having students measureamounts of vinegar and ammonia and then testing them. Asstudents added drops of vinegar and ammonia to an indicator theynoted colour changes. A second colour change was noted whencarbon dioxide was added to the indicator.ACTIVITY 9. TEST GASESCarbon dioxide was produced by adding vinegar to bakingsoda. Students were asked to examine what happens when aburning splinter is introduced to a container of carbon dioxide.Throughout the activity the students were asked to makeinferences and hypotheses.ACTIVITY 10. EXPANDING BALLOONS:Students used carbon dioxide to make a balloon expand. Todo this the students required a 10 cm glass tube with two one-holed rubber stoppers at either end. A balloon was attached tothe upright stopper. When 15 cm each of citric acid and bakingsoda were added to 25 cm of water the reaction produced gas,which caused the balloon to expand.APPENDIX BCLASSROOM OBSERVATION FORMSHELVINGWINDOWSCHALKBOARDSDESK ARRANGEMENTBULLETIN BOARDSTEACHER'S DESK PLACEMENTCLASSROOM EQUIPMENT (computers, sink, animal cages)TEACHER-STUDENT INTERACTION138139APPENDIX CThe following letters were unsolicited and show the supportof one of the principals for the study. The other principal andsuperintendent gave verbal support and made arrangements fortravel, purchased videotapes, and arranged teacher substitutes.Hiring substitutes allowed the teachers to take part in thestudy during regular class time.sc,s,0+1. °0^FRONTIER SCHOOL DIVISION NO. 48DUCK BAY SCHOOL-'I r■^DUCK BAY, MANITOBA ROL ONO(204) 524-2394'II'S IN k-``September 21, 1988Murray SmithArea II Math-Science Consultant121 1st Street S.W.Dauphin, ManitobaR7N 1M9Dear Murray:The Duck Bay School Staff and I are very intrigued withthe Video Inservicing project you are initiating in Area IISchools. We are extremely pleased you have selected DuckBay School as a site for part of your study. We feel this willbe a very positive learning experience for everyone involved.You are entering this project with all of our supportand cooperation. We are looking forward to getting thingsunder way.Thank you for choosing Duck Bay School as one ofyour participants.SincerelyNorm BrownPrincipalNB/pf/rml^ r_.^.^c p^s 19s81 40FRONTIER SCHOOL DIVISION NO. 48DUCK BAY SCHOOLDUCK BAY, MANITOBA ROL ONO(204) 524-2394141February 28, 1989Mr. Murray SmithFrontier School Division 11/r8121 1st Street S.W.Dauphin, ManitobaR7N 1M9Dear Murray:On behalf of the Duck Bay School Staff I express oursincerest thanks for the time you spent with us Monday, February20, 1989.The session was very interesting and informative.^We haverecognized areas which need work and we feel we are headed inthe right direction.Once again thank you. Noifjn BrownPrincipal142APPENDIX DSAMPLES OF THE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTSFirst Interview with Velma, October 11, 1988(The interview was conducted in the Resource Room at Dog BaySchool during school hours)1. Murray^How long have you been teaching?2. Velma^I have been teaching for four years. I taughttwo years in another school and I taught thepast two years in Dog Bay and this is my thirdyear in Dog Bay.3. Murray^What sort of goals and objectives do you hope toachieve in teaching science?4. Velma^I think in a sense what science is doing ishelping children to learn how to solve problems.5. Murray^Do you think science has to use the scientificmethod all the time?6. Velma^Not always. I don't always use it anyway.7. Murray^Umm.8. Velma^Right now we are learning about nature and to thestudents this is interesting as they live in thecountry.9. Murray^Would that be a problem solving activity?10. Velma^No, I guess not. In a sense it wouldn't.11. Murray^To what extent in your classes do you havestudents manipulate materials to solve problems?12. Velma^At this time of year I don't have too many(problem solving) activities because basicallywhat I'm doing is developing a control of theclassroom, getting a feel of whether they canwork together in groups and stuff and whetherthey can work on their own. Basically atmospherecontrolling, but once we get beyond that I hopethat we can do more of the experiment typethings. Once you get past the first month ormonth and a half we can get right into other143things.13. Murray^This classroom control has to be a component ofthe classroom14. Velma^Yes.15. Murray^The hands-on activities have not really caught onin this province. Even my own daughter in Grade10 gets very few hands-on activities.16. Velma^I think you have to have the right questioningtechniques in order to have good hands-on too.They have to understand why they are doing that.I spent all my time in junior high school onhands-on. We spent all our time in the lab. Iremember that well.17. Murray^How did the kids like that?18. Velma^Oh, yes. We dreaded the days we had to go to theclassroom and do book work, but we did have toand then we were challenged to do our ownprojects. This was in Austin where I went tojunior high school and that was a few years ago.But when you get into high school we did feweractivities.19. Murray^Isn't that interesting.20. Velma^But grade 10 you did some grade 11 also. I likehands-on. The kids like it and they remembermore I think when you do hands-on. And then theyare not day-dreaming. If you are discussingthey can use hands-on as long as the students aregrouped.21. Murray^To what extent do you find your students talkingto one another about the activity? Do you seethat as a problem?22. Velma^Some of them do. I tried one group activity thisyear, and found two groups that would talktogether. Basically they wrote down their ownanswers. If they disagreed or whatever, theywould just sit there. I tried to get it acrossthat they need to talk together.23. Murray^Do they do the activities?24. Velma^Yes, but they don't talk to each other unlesssomebody does something wrong.14425. Murray^How easy is it to teach science in this school?Do you find equipment and support for yourscience program?26. Velma^It's not too bad. You have to really beorganized in order to do science because to be ascience teacher you have to get your stuff fromthe science room. Therefore you have to knowahead of time. I found that in the last coupleof years. I also have boxes of equipment in ourclassroom. I didn't have one in the other schoolwhen I taught 5 and 6 there.27. Murray^Do you have any other thoughts on teachingscience?28. Velma^Like with science, I really enjoy it but it's notmy top area as far as my capabilities areconcerned. I know last year, the grade 6 teacherdid not open that box at all. We have to get onprocedures and hands-on procedures because withthe Science Fair we have in our division, thekids would have to understand that. I remembergoing crazy my first year because I hadn't taughtmy students the procedures and therefore they didnot understand the procedures. I think I havealways wanted to be innovative things, I like totry new things.^No I don't think^I have changedthat way.^Sometimes I'm frustrated that I don'tcome up with more new ideas to try in myclassroom.29. Murray That's some of the excitement of teaching.30. Velma There is so much to do in preparing kids work.31. Murray Do you think it is worth the preparation?32. Velma Yes,^because^number^one^your^students^enjoythemselves and very often when you start askingthey suddenly start thinking.33. Murray What do you do with the processes which are inthe K-6 guide?34. Velma Chuck them.^You look at them a few times and youthink, oh yes, you go out and teach these.But I have a hard time. If you can teachsomething that is relevant to the child, I tryand follow the curriculum as much as possible butit has to be relevant because otherwise the childhasn't learned anything.14535. Murray^Let's watch the video tape and see what you thinkof it.ALBERTA VIDEO TAPE SHOWN36. Velma^The kids must have been with the processes.^Theydefinitely have done these things before.37. Murray^Are there any other observations about thevideotape you wish to share?38. Velma I thought it was great the way they got them todo things like that. They likely learned morethan if you said, "Well if you had two differentcars what would happen?" I mean that isn't goingto have the same effect as if they go out thereand actually do it.39. Murray I'm still wondering about your first question.It's a good one.^How much programming was donewith those kids before they went into theclassroom?40. Velma It seemed that almost all of them were learningand I can see some of my kids not catching on.It is quite idealistic in the that you have 3 or4 different groups of 4 or 5 students and I wouldbe working with one group and there would be noquestions coming from them. The other groupswould not be saying teacher, teacher excuse me.What do I do next if only one group was gettingthose questions. Was she making it so all thegroups were asking the same questions? Somegroups were thinking. Maybe some groups don'tneed it as much as others, I don't know. Itlooked really good, I thought. I would like tosee my science class run like that but it seemsreally idealistic in some ways.41. Murray^Could you get your class to preform the way theclass performed on the tape?42. Velma^Maybe if you do enough programming before. Like"You don't kill those bugs" or "we won't doexperiments any more. We won't get to do thesekinds of things." I would have to do that beforebecause I could see the boy and girls doing theirexperiments and killing the bugs. If they didn'tkeep them alive, you couldn't finish theexperiment. Possibly you know they had learnedthat this was the expected behaviour and that wasthe way they were used to doing hands-on146activities. They were used to doing things verysystematic. They would look at theirinstructions and follow them very closely. Thestudents on the videotape had work sheets andthey knew their predictions.^It wasn't like theclass^comes^up^with^a^hypothesis^at^thebeginning.^It seems they were given theirprocedure and they had prediction sheets.43. Murray If you were a cooperating teacher with some ofthe teachers on the video tape, what would youcomment to them regarding their teaching?44. Velma I think I would really commend them on theirpreparation before the lesson because obviouslythey were well prepared on their questioning ofindividual groups.45. Murray Do you think you could tell them things that theycould improve upon?46. Velma It's hard to say.^I didn't understand thepurpose of some of the lessons.^There was adefinite direction to her lesson and she wasletting the students arrive at the purpose of thelesson with the bugs. They were just trying tofind out what environment their bugs preferred.The one with the bugs, I liked that. I thoughtshe did a really good job of questioning. Sheused good questions to check up on the learning.It was good. You could use different techniques.It is so visual for the child. They couldunderstand the lesson when they were adding uptheir data on the board.48. Murray^What was it that you paid attention to on thevideotape?49. Velma^The preparation and questioning.CLASS VIDEOTAPED NOVEMBER 10, 1988SECOND INTERVIEW, NOVEMBER 17, 1988 (The interview took place inthe Home Economics room).1. Murray^In the lesson that you did, did it turn out theway you had planned it?2. Velma^Just about . . . I didn't expect it would takeas long as it took for them to complete it.Basically, as far as the kids coming up withresults . . . they did better than I thought147they would.^I didn't expect the backgroundinformation that they had would be incorporatedso well into their lesson. I thought they haddone really well. We had dealt with the threescientific laws but they would think about thosewhen they were doing this whole experiment . . .I was really surprised they actually thoughtabout them and used them.3. Murray^Were there any other surprises that came up?4. Velma^Yes, they were good. They were well behaved andthey worked together really well. The groupsthat worked together were really working well.5. Murray^One of the things that surprised me during thelesson was the group that got it didn't realizethat every other group had already done it. Whenit actually happened for them, they all put uptheir hands for your approval.6. Velma^That didn't surprise me. They are very much thatway and it is not just that particular group. Inoticed that today, when we were going a stepfurther with it, that there was more of that.You know, "We got it to work Ms. Luba, we got itto work" . . . When they raise their hand, "Come over here, we want to show you that we gotit to work." It wasn't just "We did it", but theywanted me to see that they could do it. Inoticed that even today it was the same thingagain, that they really needed me to see thatthey had done it.7. Murray^Do you think they are looking for your approvalor checking with you that they are doing itcorrectly?8. Velma^I think they are checking, trying to prove to methat they are doing it. For some reason, Ithink they think that they have to prove to methat they have done it and I don't know why theywould because I have never doubted anything thatthey have done.148First Interview with Kathy, October 11, 1988(The interview was conducted in the Resource Room at Dog BaySchool during school hours)1. Murray^We are going to talk about science and then I'dlike to get your reactions to a videotape. Thiswould be your second year of teaching?2. Kathy :^Yes, it is my second year of teaching.3. Murray^What goals and objectives do you hope to achievethrough the teaching of science?4. Kathy^Why teach science? So the students can acquirea knowledge of not only learning what's aroundthem but also learning how to find out on theirown what's around them. Hands-on Science can'tbe, "Okay kids here's a bunch of stuff go learnwith it." That's what I see a lot of peopledoing. It's like learning what you want, thesame thing with learning centres. Hand-on isfine after they know what they are supposed to bedoing with their hands.5. Murray^What do you see as the happy medium?6. Kathy :^That's what I still don't know because there aredifferent things, different ideas. I'll begiving more things which they will find moredifficult. It depends on the kids and it dependson the activity. Some things you can give thema lot of freedom with. Even if you manage toaccomplish what the teacher wanted you to do.You may not know what you have done at thispoint. I'd like to mention that saying I thoughtI should, and they don't know why they are doingit.7. Murray^They do that automatically, is that what you aresaying?8. Kathy :^Yes, and at different places. They have noreason for it because they don't understand it.They are just mimicking what the others aredoing.9. Murray^Are you saying students do certain things butdon't know why they are doing them.10. Kathy :^Yes, in some situations.14911. Murray^You used the word "think," How do you definethinking?12. Kathy :^That's a tough question.13. Murray^It is and it is one that is bothering me at themoment.14. Kathy :^Thinking, your ability to reason, to take something and to say now that's what I have to do.15. Murray^I see thinking is the process of learning.16. Kathy :^That's basically what it is.17. Murray^Coming back to something else that you alluded towas that your giving reason and I'm gettingmeaning out of what I am doing. Now, you saidthat's how we do it. We work with things and wemimic other people. Is that another way ofgetting to know what to do.18. Kathy :^They are really getting to know what to do thoughmimicking. That's what I'm confused about.They're just going through the motions. BecauseI see someone else doing it. My mind is stillone step behind that persons because I'm doing itand saying, "Why am I doing this"? Meanwhilethat person has got it all set up and doing therest of it but I'm still not quite sure why I didthis and before I can do that and understand thatI have to stop and think.19. Murray^Are there other ways that we make meaning of theworld? Like we experiment with things. We copyother people. What about talking? Is thathelping us understand the world we live in?20. Kathy :^What do you mean by talking?21. Murray^Like discussing as we are doing now. Are we notlooking for meaning?22. Kathy^I guess so.23. Murray^What is your class like to teach?24. Kathy :^Last year I had students with learning problemsand behavioural problems. You couldn't do anyteaching unless you had them strapped to theirseats. So it was really a perfect chance for meto see that the ideal class does exist. There150are some kids that are different. So I had achance to see that last year. I'm glad I hadthose first and now these because if I would havehad these first and last year's class this year,I probably would have been in tears by now. Ididn't realize that's the way it can besometimes.25. Murray^Are you saying that you have a really good classthis year.26. Kathy :^Yes, It's a group that I student taught with forsix weeks and they were all sweet little cleverstudents.ALBERTA VIDEO TAPE SHOWN HERE43. Murray^What would you tell the teacher on the tape ifyou were a cooperating teacher with her?44. Kathy :^Are those really my kids?45. Murray^No, a cooperating teacher is where you would gointo the other class and you would be working onsolving a class problem. You've gone in, youhave seen these teachers in action. What sort ofcomments would you make to them regarding whatyou have seen in their science classes?46. Kathy :^I think those kids knew what was going to bedone. I think it was the video's problem, notthe teachers.47. Murray^What sort of things do you see having to happento get the kids to that level, to work in groupson things?48. Kathy : We worked as one group and I had my recorder andeverything but then we all knew. That would havebeen scary for me because I would have had twototally different answers but maybe one group didnot want to do it and we would have to do it allover again.49. Murray^Did you get any ideas from the videotapedteachers?50. Kathy :^Actually yes. With the ecology bit of it, therearen't too many experiments you can do other thangrow bread mould and we already did that. We allgot to draw it and had a chance to participatewith that as a class. I'd be interested in151seeing what the teacher did before. Do yourealize I didn't answer that question that youasked me?51. Murray^Not specifically. You started to with, you wouldbe interested in seeing what the teacher didbefore. So maybe one of the things that you wouldask if you just dropped in and you saw thatlesson.52. Kathy :^That's right. I would have asked that.53. Murray^But you also said something about and youmentioned this earlier you were interested in howthe class was set up and that is one thing youzeroed in on in the video.CLASS WAS VIDEO TAPED NOVEMBER 10, 1988SECOND INTERVIEW, NOVEMBER 17, 1988(the interview took place in Home Economics Room at Dog BaySchool)1. Murray^How did you feel about that lesson that you didfor the videotape?2. Kathy^It was really organized. I knew that I was goingto be on tape. I wanted things to work out. SoI really did a lot of planning with the kidsbefore hand. We went over the cell. They knewfrom last year what a cell was but they didn'tknow the cell parts. What they said and noticedwas all on their own. They didn't know what theywere going to see unless they had seen a boiledegg before and put it into the vinegar. Theythought it was going to explode and all kinds ofwonderful things. They never saw it, just wentin that closet and they kept looking to see whathappened.3. Murray^Have you done a follow up? Have they seen theeggs?4. Kathy^We did that when we came back on Monday. We leftit all weekend and what I did again was I had myegg and showed them how to take it out of thevinegar and put it on a paper towel and dry itoff and . then I gave each group their own egg andthey dried it off and then they had the salt onthe paper towel and I went around sprinkling salton his paper towel and they rolled the egg insalt and left it there. While the egg was152sitting there in the salt, they came up, as agroup, at the back table and watched me tear thecell membrane off the egg and the egg went slimyand everybody went "ooh." They looked at that.I was too frightened to let them actually do thatwith their own egg. I really didn't want to. Ifigured a lot of them have seen a raw egg beforeso they know what it looks like.5. Murray^This is my interpretation. You told me that oneof the goals of science was the inquiry approachand what I saw is what I understand is an inquiryapproach. I identify that as the inquiryapproach, where they are coming up with theirideas with the hands-on material.6. Kathy^It depends on the kids and it depends on theactivity.7. Murray^So, what you are saying to me is that you aretrying to find a match between your kids and theactivity and you mentioned that if it was toodifficult it was wasting their time. This is apoint that you mentioned about grouping kids.That you would lose a certain amount of controlover what they were learning and I felt that wasbothering you. You wouldn't know what the groupat the back was really doing. Were they gettingthe right answers?8. Kathy^Yes. I guess, because you want them to get acertain thing out of it yet I don't think you cango into a lesson and just say, okay we are going todo this and whatever happens, happens because thenyou get too many things and it is hard to plan alesson if you don't know what you want kids to getout of it. Thereis so many other things that theycan get on their own by working on their own butthere is still something that you want them tolearn^ There has to be. There has to be areason for doing this. When I am working withfour different groups, I can only really see whatis going on in one group at one time. So thosefour kids, I know that they are doing this.Basically, I guess you do get the feeling ofwhether they are getting it or not, but you are notthere all the time.153First Interview with Kent, October 11, 1988The interview was conducted in the Resource Room at Dog BaySchool during school hours)1. Murray^How long have you been teaching?2. Kent^Two years.3. Murray^I understand that you have a science background.4. Kent I have a Bachelor of Science, Botany major andPsychology minor. I have most first year sciencecourses. University physics, biology, chemistryand calculus and earth science as well geography.So I have a wide range and took weather andclimate and things like that.5. Murray^You have a very strong science backgroundcompared with most teachers.6. Kent^Yes, I would guess that would be compared to mostteachers, but not compared to my friends. One ofthem is going for his Phd right now.7. Murray^What are you objectives in teaching science?8. Kent^What purpose does it play? Science can beapplied to anything. They use science to teachyou how to plan a lesson. I think it is the mostdirectly applied subject next to math. Scienceis like the scientific method. It's used ineverything and it's logical thought goes throughall kinds of pattering, observation skills, usesfine motor skills. Uses almost anything you wantin an elementary class. In fact I always thoughtof science as the centre of any integrated unit.I wouldn't start with language arts as mostteachers would.^In fact I do have an integratedunit dealing with science structures.9. Murray Is this a unit you planned yourself?10. Kent Yes.11. Murray What was the content?12. Kent I think I mentioned it tohands-on bridge buildingscience, language arts.you before.^It's aunit.^So it has art,They have to write upinstruction on how to build a bridge. They haveto make a blue print. Then they have to build154the bridge out of toothpicks. They must use theleast amount of toothpicks, using a trial anderror method. You can use math with weights andgraphing. They have to apply the metric system,addition, multiplication and they learn aboutgrams.13. Murray^And you have all this written up?14. Kent^Well I have most of it written up right now. Themath and language arts end of it I could expandon. They have a contract at the beginning andthey form a company. After naming the companythey select a president and chief engineer.They name who is which and then expand on theiridea and select a definite goal of problemsolving.15. Murray^You mentioned problem solving. You mentioned thescientific method. How are those tied togetheror are they separate?16. Kent You can apply science or the scientific method toany problem solving situation because it startswith a hypothesis. You have an idea that you maywant to prove or disprove. Why or how you aregoing to prove this leads to objectives. You goon through each step. You must use materials anduse your math similar to a math word problem.17. Murray^Do you use that in your teaching of science?18. Kent In my teaching of science do I use that? Onceevery six day cyclic we have an experiment. Sowe go through the object, apparatus, method,observations, and conclusions. Right now, theyare doing one on mould that will be continuedbecause they have to do observations. They aredoing it once every three days.19. Murray^How easy is it to teach science in this school?20. Kent It's easy. Last year I had a science shelf ofmaterials, that was it. Here we have tons ofresources to use. Fossils, preserved insects andthings like that. Last year I didn't have alibrary. This year we do. (Last year K taught atanother school in the same division.) Thescience teacher is great and I can talk to himabout the things I can use. It is a lot easierto keep interested in science.155ALBERTA TAPE SHOWN HERE32. Murray What were your impressions of the tape?33. Kent It wasn't bad.^It was clear as to what it wantedyou to know.34. Murray What was the message on the tape?35. Kent It's pretty clear that it is really pro hands-onscience.^Learning through discovery^and thescientific method. It also uses the experimentalapproach. It was well put together and veryclear. But seemed a little staged. One thingthat bothered me though was the part onevaluation using anecdotal observations. I don'tknow about that. It's fine when you have fourkids in front of you to do anecdotal observationbut when you have ten or eleven all doingseparate things it is a lot harder. I don't knowabout the carbon dioxide thing. I guess it wouldbe alright if you were outside. The idea wasgood though, teaching kids about pollution usingthe exhaust from cars. My concern is kidsinhaling exhaust. Another one of my concerns wasthe observation of burning things over a flame.I thought the teachers observations were prettyagainst what she was trying to do. You observednecessarily right. Like I said, science teacheslogic and that's not logic.36. Murray37. KentIf you were a cooperating teacher with theteachers on the video tape, what comments wouldyou make to them regarding their teaching?For the most part they were very good. The classwas well controlled and organized. I would havesuggested to one teacher that when adding dropsto a solution that you stir the solution aftereach drop. I felt the teacher was guiding thestudent rather than letting them find out forthemselves. That was the whole point of theexperiment. The car thing still bugs me. Yougot ten kids out behind a car where is the restof the class? Two are measuring the distancefrom the exhaust and the rest are standingaround. Activities like this are difficult tomanage.38. Murray^It might be something you would have to work outwith an assistant.15639.40.KentMurrayIt takes more than what we saw on tape to do someof those experiments.^Some of them are notviable for a single teacher and class to do.In your own class is grouping a problem forscience then?41. Kent Not really.^They will even choose their owngroups but what is hard for me is makingobservations.^I would never use more than two ina group because I only have ten kids in theclass.^I try and keep them in small groups sothat they can get feedback from someone.42. Murray Why do you group in science?43. Kent It's important in anything.^Two heads are betterthan one and if one kid has a problem another mayhelp him. If you get the two together theylearn to work responsibly. There's a socialfactor involved. It's easy in science becausethey're interested in what's going on. Theyalmost go automatically to the task without a lotof teacher persuasion.44. Murray^What would you be taking away from the videotape?45. Kent:^Some on the experiment ideas I would use. Idon't do all my experiments discovering some aredemonstrations, some are planned out for them andthey just simply come up with the conclusion.Later I hope they can do the whole experimentthemselves. However the discovery experiment isbest. That way they can plan everything out forthemselves and its more their own work. Laterthey write it out for me. They have to come upwith a hypothesis and a procedure.46. Murray^What things didn't you like about the tape?47. Kent^One thing I missed with the tape is discussingideas with other teachers. This is something youwould get at an inservice. Teachers that mightknow more than you. They might have tried thisand can give you advice which would save you alot of trouble.Second Interview with Kent, November 17, 1988(The interview was conducted in the Home Economics Room at DogBay School during school hours)1. Murray^This is the transcript from our last interview.157I have highlighted some of the things that I wantto check with you. That's to make sure that Iunderstand what you're saying.2. Kent^Okay.3. Murray^Your lesson was teaching variables andcontrolling variables and you're using balancingballs. Do you think that you have achieved thatgoal in the lesson?4. Kent^In that one lesson?5. Murray^Yes.6. Kent^I think that I could introduce it to them, but Idon't think that there's a lot more to it thanjust the one lesson, and then go on from there inthe same general direction through the wholeweek. Just keep re-teaching it through allassignments.7. Murray^You were pleased with the results from thatparticular lesson.8. Kent^I was thinking about it after and I thought thatthe lesson was a little simple. I think thatthey could have done something a little morecomplicated, or that maybe a little bit moreguidance, but as far as I could see, theyunderstood that if they did different things, theball would react differently in the end. I'll befinding out more by what they handed in.9. Murray Good.^Okay.^Now, when I talk about thevideotape I mean the original videotape that welooked at.10. Kent Okay.11. Murray Now that you have had a couple of weeks toconsider the videotape.^Have you thought anymore about the videotaped presentation?12. Kent Yes, I got some ideas on how to do activities.I noticed how she had the materials set out.^Ichanged some of the things she did such asputting items into little cups instead of havingthem on a sheet of paper.^We did the one on thedifferent types of powders.^I tried that, and wedidn't heat it or anything, what we did was wefound the properties of three different types of158substances, sand, sugar, salt. We put it underthe microscope. So we did use some things fromthat.13. Murray^Besides ideas what else did you observe on thevideotaped presentation.14. Kent^Yeah, I got some ideas on how to do it. I waslooking at how she had the materials set outthere. I did things different, like puttingthem in little cups and stuff, instead of havingthem on just a sheet of paper.159First Interview with Susan, January 18, 1988(The interview took place in the library conference room atMilner School during school hours)1. Murray^How long have you been teaching?2. Susan^This is my second year of teaching.^Last year Iwas in another school.3. Murray I would like to ask you some questions aboutscience then after showing you a videotape I'dlike to get your opinions about the videotape.What is your objective in teaching science.4. Susan I think science helps us understand the worldaround us.^I think when we do experiments andapply the results to our surroundings we see howour surroundings affect us.^i think that wouldbe my major goal in science.^Science is allaround us and^adapting it to our surroundings.5. Murray To what extent do you have students manipulatematerials in your class?6. Susan At the beginning of the year not very much.^NowI try to do an experiment every science class.We have done quite a few experiments and they arereally enjoying it.^They are more comfortableand are more willing to work now.^Now that theyare able to work with this stuff it is a loteasier to get the point across.7. Murray Why do you think they enjoy doing experiments?8. Susan They understand it more.^It is a lot better thangetting notes and reading a notebook and seeingother people do it.9. Murray Was the change in your teaching style as easy aswatching someone else work with your class andthen saying to yourself "This is something weshould be doing."10. Susan I did a lot of hands on last year.^However wehave more equipment here.^I prefer to have thekids actually doing something.11. Murray Why do you prefer it, than another way ofteaching?^Wouldn't another way of teaching beeasier just to talk about science?12. Susan No, because often I was worried that it would be160boring and I was worried that I would lose theirattention. With 24 kids I want all of themlearning and doing something. If I were to standup and talk I don't think the same kind oflearning would happen. It is better if they doit and they learn it better than having me tellthem.13. Murray^So, you feel that your science program is fairlysuccessful?14. Susan^I think it is getting better. It has room to geteven better.15. Murray^What are some of the techniques that you use inscience?16. Susan^I usually keep in mind my objective and how Iwant to come across it through discovery. Forinstance in magnetism, the unit we are studyingnow, I want them to experiment and come up withtheir own conclusions. I don't tell them myobjectives. I want them to give me theirunderstanding of magnetism after theirexperiments. I think they have a betterunderstanding of the scientific principles doingit that way. An understanding that sticks withthem. I use questioning while they are working.I go around and talk to them about what they aredoing.23. Murray^Tell me about the questions you use in class?24. Susan^I go around and ask them what they are doing andhow is it working and what if you did it thisway, whatever comes to mind.ALBERTA TAPE SHOWN HERE35. Murray Have you had the opportunity to watch someoneelse teach?36. Susan Other than student teaching, no.37. Murray What did you observe while watching thevideotaped presentation?38. Susan The main thing I kept thinking about was theteacher was only working with four kids.^If Icould only work with four kids it would bewonderful and I would probably get great results.The second teacher worked with several groups161and it was a little more realistic to me. Thatwas the only thing that bothered me about thetape. The kids were very, very organized andeither they have done it throughout the year orthey have been doing hands on since grade 1.I don't think that if this was their firstexperience with hands-on material that they wouldhave been that calm. They were very calm.40. Murray^The kids were calm?41. Susan^Yes, they were quite comfortable with thematerial. They obviously handled the materialbefore and were well organized.44. Murray^Your kids have had experience manipulatingmaterials?45. Susan^Although they haven't had much they are stillexploring. When they get materials they willplay and fiddle with them. That is alrightproviding some good things come out of the play.46. Murray^What other observations did you make whileviewing the videotape?47. Susan^I liked to listen to the questions the teachersasked - good questions. I liked the way they gotthe group together and compiled the informationand came up with the conclusions for theexperiment. I like that idea. I've tried itand it didn't work that well, other things couldhave caused problems there too.SUSAN'S CLASS WAS VIDEOTAPED ON JANUARY 24, 1989Susan's Interview, April 27, 1989(The interview took place in the conference room off of thelibrary during school hours)1. Murray^In the last interview you said "I think they allwork." I'm taking it that those were ideas.2. Susan^Yes.3. Murray^In the first interview you said, "All of thequestions the teachers were asking were havingthe students think about what they were doing andthey were learning in the process. They wereanswering her questions but at the same time theywere figuring things in their heads and it wasbuilding upon what was going on." How do you see162questioning in promoting thinking?4. Susan^It was just like I said there. I think that whenyou're working through something and if someonehappens to ask you a question, you have toexplain it to them in such a way that they'regoing to understand what you're saying. Whenyou're explaining it to someone else, you'reclarifying it in you own mind.5. Murray^And this promotes learning?6. Susan^Um-hum. They're learning it; I mean they'retaking it in and it can stay there. Usually ifyou have to explain it, it's like teaching alesson. When you teach a lesson, you oftenunderstand it so much better once you'veexplained it to the kids. If it's somethingyou're not too sure of, and you've researched itand you know what you're going to say to thekids, and once it's been explained, and you haveto explain it to someone who really understandit.7. Murray^What implications does this have for group work?8. Susan^Kids working together, asking questions andhaving to talk about it together. They probablyhave similar questions and they're having toanswer them so the interaction is clarifyingthings for them.9. Murray^Is there anything else you noticed on thevideotape?10. Susan^I remember one time when they were outside andshe was asking questions about something to dowith a car, and I remember thinking that she'sasking good questions. The kids really had tothink about what they're going to say to her, butthey were questions that were natural things, Imean they were just coming naturally.11. Murray^Now in relationship to that you mentioned "I likelistening to the questioning that the teacherswere doing. Good questions. I like the way theygot the group together and compiled theinformation and came up with the conclusions ofthe whole experiment. I like that idea. I triedit in the beginning and it didn't work that well.Other thing could have caused problems theretoo." Now that to me indicates that you picked163something up from the tape that you were zoomingin on the questioning. Did it have any impact onwhen you went into the classroom to questionstudents?14. Susan^Yes. I've tried it several times after that inother classes too, and it works well sometimes,but then sometimes it doesn't. It all depends onthe kids at the time. That's where I'm havingproblems with some of my kids. And I don't wantto go with a large group they need individualattention. And I don't know why, other thankids.15. Murray^Do you mean the questions keep the kids on task?16. Susan^No, it may not. Nothing keeps them on tasksometimes.^But I remember when I was watchingthat video I was very impressed by the way sheended the lesson by bringing the whole grouptogether and compiling all that information. Iliked the way she did that. I'm not sure how itworked for her, but I can't really get it to workfor me the way it worked for her. And I don'tknow why, other than kids.