Presentation on theme: "Creativity in science and mathematics in the early years Presentation based on D2.2 Conceptual Framework"— Presentation transcript:
Creativity in science and mathematics in the early years Presentation based on D2.2 Conceptual Framework http://www.creative-little-scientists.euhttp://www.creative-little-scientists.eu Coordinator Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece: Dr. Fani Stylianidou Lead partners for this deliverable Open University, UK: Prof. Anna Craft, Prof. Teresa Cremin, Dr Jim Clack; Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln, UK: Dr. Ashley Compton, Jane Johnston, Alison Riley Contributing partner Institute of Education, University of London, UK: Dr. Esme Glauert, Dr. Andrew Manches
The project seeks to provide A clear picture of existing and possible practices in science and mathematics education in the early years Implications for development of childrens creativity and the emergence of appropriate learning outcomes, including childrens attitudes to science and mathematics Policy guidelines, as well as curricula and exemplary materials for teacher education
Focus on potential for creativity in early years mathematics and science CLS Work PackagesTimescale WP1Management FrameworkCompleted WP2Conceptual frameworkCompleted WP3Desk study of policy documentation and teacher survey Leading to Comparative Report In progress October 2012 WP4In depth fieldwork in schoolsJanuary to April 2013 WP5Development of teacher training materialsIn progress Ends October2013 WP6Dissemination of materials and activitiesongoing
Presentation based on D2.2 Conceptual Framework Focus on synergies and differences between IBSE and CA 2.2 Science and Mathematics Education IoE UK 2.2 Science and Mathematics Education IoE UK D2.2 Conceptual Framework OU and BG UK D2.2 Conceptual Framework OU and BG UK 2.4 Teacher Education AUC Belgium 2.4 Teacher Education AUC Belgium 2.4 Comparative Education UEF Finland 2.4 Comparative Education UEF Finland 2.3 Creativity in Education OU UK 2.3 Creativity in Education OU UK Synergies and differences between IBSE and CA
Overarching concerns Aims and values Bridging perspectives Beyond the rhetoric of creativity
Comparing IBSE and CA Inquiry-based science education Widespread promotion of IBSE Varied definitions – what scientists do, how students learn, pedagogical approach Features include: questioning, giving priority to evidence, formulating explanations & connecting to scientific knowledge, communicating and justifying explanations ( for example Minner et al 2010) Creative approaches Problem finding & problem solving, playful exploration, individual, collaborative and communal engagement Roles of innovation, originality, ownership and control, connection making Involves risk taking, independent judgment, resilience Importance of intrinsic motivation, curiosity (for example Chappell et al 2008)
Synergies and differences 1.Play and exploration 2.Motivation and affect 3.Dialogue and communication 4.Problem solving and agency 5.Questioning and curiosity 6.Reflection and reasoning 7.Teacher scaffolding and involvement 8.Assessment for learning
1 Play and exploration Role of play and exploration in learning from earliest years solving tasks, making causal inferences, social experimentation Importance of context to foster interest, engagement rich physical environment, relevance, links to everyday life Need for sufficient time and space Importance of varied ways of representing & expressing ideas Key role of the adult in scaffolding inquiry and creativity
2 Motivation and affect Importance of links to prior knowledge and everyday experience Practical exploration of immediate surroundings Affective dimension – integral part of learning – not just a catalyst Role of aesthetic experience Power of narrative and dramatic story making
3 Dialogue and collaboration Communication to externalise, share and develop thinking Developing metacognitive awareness Considering alternative strategies and explanations Support of the adult, sensitive to childrens capabilities – Fostering a supportive environment, ground rules for collaboration – Listening to childrens ideas – Open dialogue – Positioning and interventions vary over time
4 Problem solving & agency (Barrow 2010) Question provided by teacher Learner poses a question
Beyond simple dichotomies (Kind and Kind 2007) )
5 Questioning and curiosity Time and experience needed to foster childrens own questions Recognising questions implicit in childrens actions Need for teacher modelling of curiosity and self reflection Varied forms of teacher questioning for different purposes – Responsive to childrens interests – Fostering understanding and metacognition – How far do children understand open questions?
6 Reflection and reasoning Greater focus in IBSE than in CA Challenges in coordinating and differentiating theories and evidence Influence of childrens pre-conceptions However growing awareness of childrens capabilities Key roles of the teacher – Developing metacognitive awareness – Building on varied forms of expression as starting points – Fostering appreciation of scientific argumentation and explanation
7 Teacher scaffolding and involvement Scaffolding to foster independent inquirers, problem solvers, creative thinkers Dynamic nature - fostering independence over time Role of standing back – Acting as fellow collaborator, provocateur – Challenge to traditional power relations Complexities of the issues involved – two edged sword of pedagogy (Bonawitz et al 2011) – efficiency and innovation (Schwarz et al 2005) Issues in transition from pre-school to primary education
8 Assessment for learning Vital to inform sensitive and responsive approach to early years teaching Importance of holistic, multimodal approaches, digital technologies Assessment in context Role of child in self and peer assessment - evaluating ideas, metacognition, reflecting on learning within a community
Identifying factors associated with creativity in early years science and mathematics education Aims, purposes, priorities – cognitive, social and affective dimensions – links to creative dispositions Pedagogy – nature of learning activities, teacher role, assessment approaches Contextual factors – curriculum content, location, materials and resources, time, groupings Teacher- related factors – attitudes, beliefs
Research questions 1.How are the teaching, learning and assessment of science and mathematics in Early Years in the partner countries conceptualised by teachers and what role if any does creativity play in these? 2.What approaches are used in the teaching, learning and assessment of science and mathematics in Early Years in the partner countries and what role if any does creativity play in these? 3.In what ways do these approaches seek to foster young childrens learning and motivation in science and mathematics, and how do teachers perceive their role in doing so? 1.How can findings emerging from analysis in relation to questions 1-3 inform the development of practice in the classroom and in teacher education (ITE and CPD)?
How you can be involved Express interest via the website www.creative-little-scientists.eu click on Participate (main menu at the top of the page)www.creative-little-scientists.eu Encourage teachers to participate in the survey – https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CreativeLittleScientists-EN – https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CreativeLittleScientists-SCOT – https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CreativeLittleScientists-NI – https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CreativeLittleScientists-WALES Suggest schools that might be interested in the in depth research Participate in focus groups linked to development of teacher education materials Participate in dissemination events
Acknowledgements Presentation based on D2.2 Conceptual Framework http://www.creative-little-scientists.euhttp://www.creative-little-scientists.eu Coordinator Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece: Dr. Fani Stylianidou Lead partners for this deliverable Open University, UK: Prof. Anna Craft, Prof. Teresa Cremin, Dr Jim Clack; Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln, UK: Dr. Ashley Compton, Jane Johnston, Alison Riley Contributing partner Institute of Education, University of London, UK: Dr. Esme Glauert, Dr. Andrew Manches This publication/presentation reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.