YEARS K–6 IDEAS FOR THE CLASSROOM
Using Online Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) for
K-6 Teachers’ Professional Development in Science Education?
Investigating ways primary teachers’ PLN activities may inform
development of their science teaching.
By Ruth Fentie; Ruth is a PhD student at UTS, Sydney
children has been highlighted as an ongoing issue with recent
global STEM initiatives raising the visibility of this issue (Prinsley
& Johnston, 2015). Science uptake for higher education subjects
(J. P. Kennedy, Lyons, & Quinn, 2014) and science-related career
choices, where women remain under-represented, are issues
to be addressed (Science in Australia Gender Equity (SAGE),
2016). Yet TIMSS (2015) key findings reported no statistical
difference in science outcomes between male and female yr 4
students. So the age at which a gender gap becomes an issue
is unclear (Thomson, Wernert, O’Grady, & Rodrigues, March
2017). Teacher professional development, as a way to minimise
the gender gap, and low science priority in higher education and
career choices, has been offered as an important part of a suite
of solutions (Prinsley & Johnston, 2015). Engaging children’s
interest in science early; offering and maintaining quality science
education are the basis of professional development in primary
(K-6) teaching. “Quality” science education has had some
shifting priorities historically, which adds to the complexity of any
solutions to improving student outcomes in science.
This doctoral research study aims to explore the potential value
of online Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) for primary
teachers’ professional development in science education. In
other words, does PLN activity, such as using social media along
with other digital tools and resources, inform primary teachers’
development about teaching and learning science? PLN is
defined in this study as “uniquely personalised, complex systems
of interactions consisting of people, resources, and digital tools
that support ongoing learning and professional growth” (Trust,
Krutka, & Carpenter, 2016, p. 35). While these authors have a
more recent wording of their definition which makes “face-to-
face” explicit in a blended online “complex amalgam” of support
(Trust, Carpenter, & Krutka, 2018), this research refers to use of
online spaces and investigates the personalisation features. It is
a multiple, mixed method study with an interpretivist theoretical
underpinning, and analysis of data will be conducted through a
socio-cultural lens.
The study has 3 phases, where the initial aim is to find primary
teacher participants, internationally, who are interested in science
education, are active online, and use links, groups, resources
and digital tools for their professional learning of ways to develop
their teaching. Phase 1 of the study involves asking K-6 educators
to complete a 15 minute online, anonymous survey to share
perceptions of ways PLN activities support their development of
science teaching knowledge and practices. The online campaign
has commenced, and, if you are on Twitter, Facebook or Edmodo
in science education or primary education groups, you may have
already seen my survey advertisement asking for participants
(https://bit.ly/2G4jwc5). Questions are mostly rating-style items
with some open-ended responses. After the survey, participants
can opt in (or not) to further phases to contribute more.
Professional development incorporates many factors for it to
be effective, such as: active process, prolonged duration,
reflection and feedback, content-focused, collaborative in work-
related contexts, mentoring and expert support, and using
effective practice models (Darling-Hammond, Hyler, & Gardner,
2017). While long-term and blended models (online and face-
to-face, formal and informal) have some reported successes,
research indicates that professional teacher development when
‘provided’ can have limited success. Constraints identified are:
duration of program; ongoing ‘post program’ support; tailoring
to personalised reflective goals of teachers; implementation in
differing classroom contexts, cost and scalability (M. Kennedy,
2016; Luft & Hewson, 2014; Smith, 2015). Teacher involvement
and agency over online Professional Learning Network (PLN)
activities, by contrast, have the potential to mitigate some
limitations of provided professional development.
Later phases of the study are to access greater depth of
understanding. Sub-questions to be answered address the
extent and quality of development from PLN activities, through
online chats; participant-created artefacts; and, finally a follow-up
interview. The key focus is the value of professional development
in Science for primary teachers.
What aspects of professional development can
build science teachers’ knowledge?
Much historical research signals that science content knowledge
(Appleton, 2007; W. Harlen, 1997; W. Harlen & Holroyd, 1997;
Whittaker, 1983 cited in Kinder & Harland, 1991; Newton & Newton,
2001) and pedagogical content knowledge (Gess-Newsome et al.,
Why do teachers need to develop their knowledge
of science teaching?
Effective professional development in science for teachers of K-6
53
SCIENCE EDUCATIONAL NEWS VOL 68 NO 1