Innovations in Mathematics, Science and Technology

Teaching

Konrad Krainer

2008 MAV Annual Conference

Content

Part 1:

The IMST Project

Part 2:

Two teachers’ professional growth

Part 3:

Summary and outlook

1. The IMST Project

Double meaning of IMST:

IMST = international (English) abbreviation

Imst = Town in Austria

Impulse for initiative and challenge

Impulse: • Bad results in TIMSS (upper secondary)• Research project IMST (1998-99) IMST (2000-

2009; since 2007 also primary)• Manifold reasons for bad results (not only teachers)

Challenge:• “Fragmentary education system” (many initiatives)

Goals and intervention strategy

Goal: • Raising the quality of learning and teaching in

mathematics, science and technology

Intervention strategy:• Supporting (groups of) teachers (schools, regions,

universities, …) in their efforts to improve their practice (wherever they start from)

• Establishing “Learning systems”

Learning system

Autonomy

Reflection Action

Networking

more !

Action research

Constructivism

System theory

Tailor-made support

T - TeamsT - TeamsPracticePractice

IMST

INNOVATIONS

„Good practice“

Prof

essi

onal

isat

ion

What is „good teaching“?

10 „tension fields“ of teaching, for example:

• Pre-knowledge and target knowledge• Basics and applications

See e.g. Lernende Schule, issue 28 (2004); Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, vol. 8.2 (2005)

Implementation and communication

Network of people and institutions (AECC):• Supporting intensively 50 to 150 projects (Fund) • Providing extra PD activities (e.g. “examination

culture”)• Establishing networks as a distribution strategy: e.g.

9 Regional (and 2 District) and 1 Gender network(s)

Communication:• Website http://imst.ac.at (inkl. Wiki), quarterly

Newsletter, annual 4-day-Conference

Evaluation and impact

• Process-oriented: steering information for the staff (e.g. internal interviews)

• Outcome-oriented: Effects at different levels (e.g. effects seen by teachers and principals)

• Knowledge-oriented: Theoretical and practical knowledge about fostering innovations at different levels (e.g. interconnection between support given to Ts and Ts’ & Ss’ motivation)

Meta-evaluation by external experts

Example: T and S-Questionnaire

Müller, Hanfstingl & Andreitz, 2007:

T felt supported by collegues and principal T assess their S as more motivated; S (of these T) feel more intrinsically motivated.

However, if T feel pressure T‘s and S‘s intrinsic motivation sinks.

(Innovative) Teachers should not be left alone when trying to improve their practice! See example!

2. Two teachers’ professional growth

Case 1 – Gottfried (Case 2 – Maria)

• Interest: General feedback about his teaching• Looking for Ss’ specific needs and problems• Further development of an existing questionnaire• Surprise: Students have different view of working at

the blackboard ( why?)• -> Detailed new questionnaire & field notes

Case 1 – Gottfried (continuation)

• Students’ work at the blackboard: open learning environment versus feeling like a fool (class-mates)

• Errors: Welcome versus should better not happen• Positive experience –> collegial feedback from Ts• Initiated mutual classroom visits (3 teachers)• Two years after: more students chose M in final exam;

better able to “argue more clearly his viewpoint”

Case 2 – Maria

• Maria, same Secondary School (so far, no collaboration with Gottfried)

• Supported also by Helga Jungwirth • Topic: Using open learning in Trigonometry

• Transparencies used at her plenary-talk-contribution at a GDM-conference

Starting points

• School year 2000 / 01

– Questionnaire on mathematics instruction

– Interviews with students

• Desire for open learning

• School year 2001 / 02

– Elaborating a new content with open learning

• Understanding difficulties when students work

autonomously

Implementation

• 3 phases with different parts of contents

• Working in pairs after a working plan

– Elaborating new contents with working sheets

– Stabilizing and practicing with file-cards

• Audio-taping of students‘ discussions

• Written feedback

Analysis

• Audio-taping– Problems with reading texts– Getting familiar with working method– Working in pairs positive

• Written feedback– Very positive– Individual working pace– Help in the case of difficulties– More fun with open learning

Results

• Even weak students show high motivation

• Autonomous work has to be practiced

• Highly concentrated work

• Revealing observation of students‘ learning was

possible

Effects so far [after 2 years]

• Presentation of my project in a meeting of the

school‘s mathematics group

• Two other math colleagues used my material in other

10th grade classes

• Change of experience with these colleagues

• Using open learning also this school year [2002/03]

Additional remarks on Case 2 – Maria

• Maria resumed (2002) „that several students came

out of their shell and contributed to solutions in a

more intensive way as they usually did when

elaborating things with the whole class“.

• Presentation of her results in a school board meeting

(teachers, students, parents)

• Growing collaboration with Gottfried (group of three

teachers – mutual classroom visits)

The merging of the cases – contributions to school development

• The principal supported Gottfried‘s and Maria‘s work

and made it visible to other teachers

• „Mutual classroom visits“ and „questionnaire for

evaluating teaching“ became integrated into the two-

year school development program

• Gottfried (2005 in Benke): „… In particular, young

colleagues regard that as a chance to observe

senior ones and to ask for further information.“

Impacts on science teaching & school development

• Gottfried and Maria listened to other IMST-teachers‘

reports about „laboratory teaching“ in science

• Effect at their school (Maria): „Through that

participation also others got somehow more open,

we try out something new.“ „Leaping over“ from math

teaching to science teaching.

• A new subject (with lab teaching) was introduced

• Prinicipal: Focus on evaluation/M –> sustainable SD

Progress & Explanation

• Progress at different levels: Indicators– Students: Choice of mathematics in their final

exam, better achievements (G); successful argumentations and problem solving; high motivation and satisfaction (M).

– Individual teachers: Extended perspectives for teaching and assessing, higher self-confidence, better able to argue (G); more aware of conducive and hindering general conditions für students‘ learning, setting priorities more consciously (M).

Indicators (2)

– Team of teachers: Exchange of instructional material in M; formation of peer-groups (mutual classroom visits); innovations lept over to science teachers, introduction of laboratory teaching

– School (as an organisation): Report in conferences and school board meetings; questionnaire-evaluation and mutual classroom visits integrated in school development program (and in practice); new subject in science.

The theoretical perspective

Assumption that • social systems (society, educational system,

school, classroom, student, …)• can be very different, but can be regarded through

the lens of some general dimensions

Social systems can be seen as “learning systems”• when the interaction of the actor(s) within the system

or with relevant environments are characterized by four – closely interconnected – dimensions

Learning systems – 4 dimensions

Attitude towards and competence in• Experimental, constructive and goal-directed work

(action)• Reflective, (self-)critical and systematically based

work (reflection)• Autonomous, self-initiative and self-directed work

(autonomy)• Communicative and cooperative work with

increasing public relevance (networking)

Focus: (Maria‘s) Students‘ learning

Student

Examining results,

questions, test

Working on a topic, elaborated tasks and goals

Pairs / ClassT = facilitator

Focus: Teachers‘ Learning (Maria)

Teacher

Audio-tape, Q, observations & learning control (data & writing)

Designing a rich learning

environment

Colleagues (M & Science) Support by IMST

Focus: School‘s Learning

M Teachers

Discussions, feedback, reflection on new goals

Written & oral reports, visits,

new subject

School Support by principal (& external feedback)

Focus: MAV 2008

IMST leader

Reflection & Discussion

Presenting two stories / IMST

G1: Teachers & teacher educators MAV environment

3. Summary and outlook

Altogether: • Synergy and widespread of two teachers‘ well-

planned activities, fostered through participating in an externally organised

project and internal collaboration and support by the principal. • Commitment with a national project and proudness

that the initiative comes from math & science,has become an opportunity to build a lasting

infrastructure (IMST).

Summary and outlook (2)

Promote learning systems! • Doing innovation and evaluation (action and

reflection).• Important for oneself and others, forming and

participating in internal and external teams, communities & networks (autonomy and networking).

• If part of a larger (nation-wide) project: collective learning of the whole educational system!