The European TEMI project involves Italian teachers: first
outcomes
Sara R. Barbieri, Marina Carpineti and Marco Giliberti
University of Milan, Italy.
Abstract
The aim of the European project TEMI (Teaching Enquiry with Mysteries Incorporated) is to
help transform science and mathematics teaching practice in Europe, by giving teachers new
skills to engage their students and exciting new resources together with the extended support
needed to effectively introduce inquiry based learning into their classrooms.
In the present work, we will illustrate the pilot training session, performed by the University of
Milan and addressed to a cohort of 14 secondary school teachers. During the session, teachers
directly experienced a guided inquiry IBSE and became familiar with the method that they
would subsequently implement with their students.
Here we will discuss strengths and weaknesses of the pilot cohort in order to refine the method
implemented in the first cohort and to improve the results of the subsequent sessions planned by
the project. Besides, we propose some results of the final test given to teachers to get an
evaluation of the first training cohort.
Keywords
Pedagogical methods and strategies, in-service and pre-service teachers’ training.
Introduction
In this work we describe the first training activity developed in the framework of the European
project TEMI (Teaching Enquiry with Mysteries Incorporated) [TEMI, FP7/2007-2013]. The
project, that involves 13 European partners in 10 different countries (United Kingdom, Ireland,
Norway, Netherlands, Germany, France, Austria, Portugal, Israel and Italy) has the aim of
implementing innovative training programmes (called inquiry labs) for teaching teachers a new
methodology based on inquiry and, more in particular, on the 5E’s learning cycle [Rocard
report, 2007]. The general structure of an inquiry lab, that has been shared by the partners
except for local needs, is based around the core scientific concepts and emotionally engaging
activities of solving mysteries, i.e. exploring the unknown.
An inquiry lab consists of a preliminary phase, in which teachers are given written material (in
local language) about IBSE and the 5Es cycle, plus two workshops, of 8 hours each, addressed
to 10-15 teachers, and temporally separated by about 2 months, in order to permit teachers to
implement in their classrooms the innovations discussed the first workshop. The structure
should facilitate the development of teachers’ skill and make their teaching/learning process
more alive.
As it is better described in the following, each of the two workshops treats two peculiar
innovation of the TEMI project.
•
•
Workshop1 deals with the importance of the students’ engagement through mysteries,
the enquire teaching/learning using the 5E’s learning cycle, some basic notions about
showmanship, how to plan an inquiry lesson; presentation and peer review.
Workshop2 deals with the importance of how to refine inquiry lessons by means of the
typical TEMI innovations, that is by: mysteries, 5Es and showmanship. Moreover
workshop2 adds a particular attention to the GRR model, for the gradual release of the
responsibility from teachers to students, in a way similar to that happened in the past
when teaching and learning were realized through apprenticeship.
Each of the two workshops can be held in one day time, or divided into two afternoons, or
sessions, according to teachers’ needs. This last option was the one we adopted for our pilot
training cohort in Milan. It was addressed to 14 supply teachers (2 physicists and 12 engineers)
that were following university courses to get a qualification to become regular teachers, with an
almost poor disciplinary preparation, as it emerged from a pre-test and some oral interviews.
In the last part of this paper we present some outcomes of an evaluation form given to teachers
at the end of the second workshop, in order to get some ideas about the effectiveness of the
training.
Workshop 1
In workshop1, teachers become familiar with inquiry teaching, especially by means of the use
of mysteries and by the appropriation of the 5E’s learning cycle. The contents of this first phase
are resumed in Fig.1. Teachers observe a TEMI-trainer who engages them with a mystery and
uses the 5E’s cycle to solve the proposed mystery. Therefore, in this phase, the trainer has a
very important role for what concerns the description of the activities indicated in the 5E’s
cycle. Being the active role of the teachers in training quite reduced, workshop1 can be
considered a practical example of level 1 inquiry, also called ‘confirmation’ inquiry.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the workshop1 contents.
The two main innovations that teachers should learn after workshop1 are, therefore, the
importance of creating curiosity and motivation in students by means of the presentation of
mysteries, and the investigation of mysteries by means of the 5E’s cycle.
The 5E’s learning cycle
In Fig.2 it is showed the 5E’s learning cycle that is widely discussed in the literature (see for
example [Bybee, 2006]). It puts in evidence the principal phases of an inquiry approach to solve
problems. Although it is a cycle, it must not necessarily followed in just one direction, from the
engage phase to the evaluate phase; in fact, for example it is possible to go back and forth
between the explore phase and the explain phase until an idea for the resolution of the mystery
comes out, while the evaluation phase can be performed by teachers and/or students when
needed.
ENGAGE
EVALUATE
EXPLORE
EXTEND
EXPLAIN
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the 5E’s cycle.
During workshop1, it is mostly the trainer who clarifies each step and shows teachers how the
5E’s cycle can be implemented. The meaning of the five stages of the cycle is briefly described
here below.
•
•
•
•
•
Engage is the step during which one gets involved, elicits ideas, and (if teacher)
initiates teaching.
Explore is the step during which one plans enquiry and collects observations.
Explain is the step in which one makes sense of data, terminology and theory.
Extend is the step in which one practices and extends the application of concepts, for
example one becomes able to recognize the concept when applied in a different
context.
Evaluate is the step of the assessment that can be made by problems, questions or
different performances both by students and teachers.
The role of the mystery in the project
Although the engage phase may take place in a lot of different ways, in the TEMI project it is
mainly realized using science mysteries. Following the TEMI approach, a good science mystery
for teaching is a science phenomenon that has the following characteristics:
•
•
•
•
It is not already understood
It can be solved in a few hours
Surprises
Raises questions
•
•
•
It’s simple enough to don’t scare students
Stimulates reasoning
Helps to develop inquiry skills
In the website of the project (http://teachingmysteries.eu/it/) some mysteries are collected, with
suggestions related to their practical realization in classroom; and new mysteries are monthly
added in order to give teachers more possibilities to fit with their curriculum.
Workshop1 Milan – 1st afternoon
Many different approaches are possible for workshop1 and, therefore, also different mysteries
can be used to engage teachers and describe them how to solve the mysteries following the 5E’s
cycle. The risk with this approach is that the emphasis may be given more to the methodology
than to the discipline (physics, for us). Therefore, the pilot enquiry lab performed in Milan was
carried out with the peculiar aim of taking particular care in giving the same importance both to
the physics and to the TEMI methodology. In order to deepen teachers’ knowledge and
teaching skills in implementing inquiry based lessons, it has been decided to face oscillations
and harmonic motion, as they are widely presented school topics. Therefore, all the
experiments, realized by the trainers during the first afternoon, engaged teachers with a tracking
shot of oscillations, while other examples came from the world outside, through the vision of
videos.
The final experiment that has been shown to teachers was the mysterious one: teachers saw a
suspended vertical spring with a mass hanged to it. The trainer stretched the spring, and the
mass oscillated up and down, as the simple oscillator mass-spring usually does. Then the trainer
added another mass to the previous mass, and the oscillations remained of the same kind. But,
when the trainer added a third mass, the oscillations changed abruptly: the up and down
oscillations gradually turned in pendulum like oscillations which gradually returned to the up
and down oscillations, and so on [Boscolo et al, 2013; Mystery of the month, 2014].
Although at first, teachers were not asked to find the solution of the strange behaviour of the
mass-spring oscillator (since it presents too many difficulties), they have been very surprised
and kept it in mind for many weeks.
Instead, we simply asked teachers, as a first step, to clarify what kind of motion was the usual
(up and down) mass-spring motion: was it harmonic or not? We have to stress that, in our pilot
inquiry lab, the mystery proposed to engage teachers was not the mystery they had to solve (in
opposition of what suggested by the general TEMI scheme). Our choice had been driven by the
aim of strongly involve teachers with the idea that even well-known physics (mono-dimensional
oscillations) deserves surprises. This is the reason why the previously described intriguing
experiment has been shown. Although it is too difficult and discouraging to be solved at the
beginning of the training, it is however strongly related with similar and simpler experiment (it
suffice to unhook a mass from the mysterious system and the strange behaviour disappears).
The 5E’s cycle, started with the engage phase, then continued with the teachers that, divided in
groups of three or four, went through the other phases guided by the trainers, behaving like
they should ask their own students, if following the TEMI procedures presented. The first
afternoon concluded when each group finished collecting data, gave the answer, and filled a
logbook with ideas and comments to be discussed in the second afternoon of workshop1.
Figure 3. The mass-spring system to be studied in the first afternoon.
Workshop1 Milan – 2nd afternoon
The second afternoon session was held a week later. The discussion of the results obtained in
the previous afternoon has been discussed group by group. Afterwards, teachers, now a little bit
more confident with the enquiry methodology based on the 5E’s cycle, were given a new
mystery to be solved. The mystery (again about harmonicity) is sketched in Fig.4: A seesaw
placed on a flat and another one placed on a round pivot can perform small oscillations around
their equilibrium position; are those oscillations harmonic or not?
Figure 4. Left, a seesaw on a flat pivot. Right, a seesaw on a round pivot.
In their logbooks, teachers had to collect data, write down plans and comments about their work
(as already done in the first afternoon); so to discuss them during subsequent oral interviews,
realized again with the groups.
Workshop 2
The general structure of the TEMI cohort sessions expects the second workshop to be held 6-8
weeks after workshop1; because the time elapsed should be used by teachers for reflections on
what they have learnt. They also have to carry out their first experimentation of the 5E’s cycle
with their class, and to read research papers (given them by the trainers and related to enquiry
teaching) such as [Collins, 1991and Windschitl, 2007]. In our pilot cohort the time between the
two successive workshop has been of 6 weeks.
As represented in Fig.5, workshop2 focuses on two fundamental points: how to the teaching
GRR and how to maintain motivation with showmanship. In order to enhance the connections
between these two aspects, the unit of Milan explores the use of scientific theatre, in which it
has a more than ten year experience [Spettacolodellafisica 2014]. For this reason, one week
before the beginning of workshop 2, teachers of the Milan pilot cohort had to watch a physics
theatre show. Therefore, during workshop2, teachers that had no prior knowledge of scientific
theatre, were also required to learn some basic skills considered essential to make a short
dramatization of simple specific physics topics.
Figure 5. Schematic representation of workshop2 contents.
In this way, they could experience on themselves the process of GRR that they are supposed to
teach their students, once in classroom again. In this sense, workshop2 can be considered a
practical example of level 2/3 inquiry, also called ‘structured’/ ‘guided’ inquiry.
Showmanship innovation and the theatre
The vision of a scientific show is a peculiar part of the Milan approach to TEMI training
cohorts. In fact, scientific (or better physics) theatre is seen by the Milan partner as extremely
intriguing and effective in engaging teachers and students, in eliciting emotional engagement, in
maintaining students’ motivation and, very often, it is also a source of mysteries. Moreover it is
important to clarify some important aspects of showmanship that is one of the two pillar
innovations of workshop2.
Some attention has to be paid to the fact that, although introduced through theatre,
showmanship must not be confused with actor skills: it does not always need particular
theatrical devices, and teachers need not to be exuberant or mummers. But theatre has devised
many techniques to improve showmanship and master the art of performance that can be used
also by teachers to present in a more effective way their lessons: teachers may think to
themselves as directors of their classroom activities. In fact showmanship requires a theatrical
grammar that has as roots (at least for what concerns physics teaching) the awareness that:
•
•
•
The physical message cannot be proposed only in a conceptual way;
Involvements and meanings come out also from emotional engagement;
Particular care must be taken in focussing key-points and give suggestions.
More in particular, scientific showmanship demands:
• To present meaningful things in terms of students’ experiences
• To establish conceptual link that help to reduce cognitive difficulties
• To give clear and concise instructions
• To pay attention not only on what and with to begin with, but also on how to start
• To take roles that are different from that of the standard teachers, and make student
take roles different from those of the standard students
• The ability to create disciplinary discussion
• The ability to enhancing exploration activities
Copy
Show
Guide & Scaffold
Coach •
Practise (easy)
Practise (challenging)
& listen to students’ questions without judging them
The ability to
Support
But, sometimes, also lights, darkness, music and silences can to be used in order to highlight
experiments, or parts of them, or to give more meaning to some key sentences. In that way it
becomes more likely that students maintain attention and motivation, and a teacher gives them
more possibilities to grab new things.
Whatever the personal attitudes, unavoidable for getting a reliable showmanship, is the ability
to give personal meanings to scientific topics and to put in evidence large and connected
landscapes through which students can move.
GRR: gradual release of the responsibility
The GRR model can be well synthetized by the following sentences: “First I do it, then we do
it, and finally you do it”, graphically resumed in Fig.6, that is a schematic picture of what may
be called “cognitive apprenticeship”, and recalls the time when the boys were apprenticed to
learn a trade.
Figure 6. Schematic representation of GRR.
In the TEMI GRR model there are three stages for teaching an enquiry skill:
•
•
•
At the beginning, the teacher demonstrates or models the skill – and in particular
makes it explicit and visible the thinking involved. The student basically just copies
what the teacher does.
Then, in a second phase, the student begins to take responsibility. This process can be
helped by providing support (a process known as scaffolding) by making the task less
complex, by breaking it into stages, or by giving the student only a part of it.
At the end, the student takes on most of the responsibility, and practises a more
challenging version of the task, with less support. The teacher’s role is now to coach,
providing feedback, and asking questions.
Workshop2 Milan – 1st afternoon
During the first afternoon of workshop2 teachers began their familiarization with the concepts
of showmanship and GRR.
Since teachers had already seen the show “Let’s throw light on matter” before workshop2, it has
been possible to recall them parts of the show to exemplify some key points of the theatrical
grammar. The first afternoon has been divided into two parts: a first part in which the trainer
explained the TEMI innovations (showmanship and GRR); and a second part in which teachers,
divided in groups of 3-4 people, practiced what they have just learnt.
Therefore, each group chose a particular physics topic with the aim of realizing a short
theatrical sketch to be presented to the other groups. Their draft sketches were discussed in the
final part of the afternoon. Teachers told us that the discussions were necessary to better clarify
the following step that they were asked to realize: doing with their students the same kind of
work they had just started to appreciate with the trainers. In other words they had to practice
GRR in their classrooms, in connection with theatrical grammar: students, divided in groups,
would have to choose a topic and realize a sketch and a video that should have been shown to
their teachers and classmates. Subsequently, during the second afternoon of workshop2,
teachers had to show to the TEMI trainers the videos made by their students and discuss the
achievements and difficulties encountered, both by them and by their students.
Workshop2 Milan – 2nd afternoon
During the second afternoon a very long discussion took place, as a consequence of the vision
of the students’ videos. Since the cohort collected teachers of 10th and 11th grades, the topics
covered were usually simple and quite common, based for example on refraction, motion in
presence of friction and simple oscillations. Although the videos had, in general, no particular
or meaningful innovation for the presentation of such common topics, they were anyway
realized with genuine engagement and diligence and became also part of the evaluation phase of
the pilot lab.
Results of the evaluation questionnaire
In the following tables, some of the results of the evaluation questionnaire, that was given to the
participants at the end of workshop2, are summarized.
Table 1. Expectation of the participants.
What were your expectations before coming to this training?
Get new tools/ideas for teaching
Face didactical problems
No answer
64%
7%
28%
Table 2. Gain from the training.
What do you feel you gained from the training?
A new approach to teaching
A motivation to renew my teaching
A better understanding of the inquire based science education
New tools for my teaching
Useful practical examples
72%
72%
36%
36%
14%
Table 3. Overall satisfaction of the participants.
Did the training match your professional needs?
Entirely
Marginally
No answer
71%
21%
7%
Table 4. Best appreciated element of the training.
What element of the training did you like best?
Explorative work in classroom and in lab, “real didactic”
Knowledge of a new methodology for teaching
No answer
50%
22%
28%
Table 5. Less appreciated element of the training.
What element of the training did you like the least?
Communication difficulties inside the group
Few time available
No answer
28%
12%
58%
Table 6. Instant feelings.
What do you feel now?
It was worth it
Great fun!
I can improve enthusiasm in my students
I want to experiment the method with my students
Engaging
Skeptical but curious
57%
57%
38%
29%
29%
21%
Conclusions
All the 14 teachers of our first cohort have been teaching physics for at least three years in
secondary school and were following an in-service teacher training course to get a teaching
qualification. They did not choose to follow the inquiry TEMI lab for a particular personal
interest, and therefore we believe that they may represent an “average” (not personally
motivated) Italian teacher sample for the 10th and the 11th students’ grade, so that the results
obtained could probably underestimate the effectiveness of a (voluntary) TEMI inquiry lab in
Italy.
Teachers’ disciplinary poor competencies on basic physics (put in evidence by our preliminary
written test, not presented here), are a critical point for the realization of a TEMI inquiry lab. In
fact, teachers lacking of a satisfactory disciplinary background do not have the necessary
awareness of the important conceptual knots that are required to completely appreciate TEMI
innovations and, therefore they can probably gain only one half of the tools needed to
implement IBSE in classrooms. In future trainings we are thus planning a much stronger
connection between teachers’ disciplinary preparation and the 5E’s methodology. Nonetheless
we want also to point out that teachers of the pilot cohort have certainly learnt a successful
methodology (i.e. the use of mysteries to engage students; the 5E’s learning cycle to get the
solution of a science mystery and to build new scientific concept; the possibility of recognize
the importance of the showmanship to maintain motivation in a classroom; and the GRR model
to gradually encourage students in their conquest of autonomy) that they are also willing to
adopt in their lessons. On the contrary, preliminary informal interviews made to much more
disciplinary prepared teachers, make us suspect that they would be more reluctant in
implementing innovative techniques in their classrooms. It is as if in Italy an uncertainty
principle (!) between teachers’ disciplinary and pedagogical preparation applies, so that, in
general, the more they are prepared the less they are open to innovations and vice versa.
References
Boscolo, I., Castelli, F., Stellato, M. and Vercellati, S. (2013) The parametric spring-mass system, its
connection with non-linear optics, and an approach for undergraduate students, arXiv:1402.5318.
Bybee, R., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson, J., Westbrook, A., Landes, N. (2006). The
BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S. and Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible.
American Educator. http://www.learnpbl.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Cognitive.pdf
Mystery of the month (2014). http://teachingmysteries.eu/en/mystery-of-the-month/201402/
Rocard Report: European Commission (2007). Science Education NOW: A renewed Pedagogy for the
Future of Europe Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission.
Spettacolodellafisica (2014). Available at http://spettacolo.fisica.unimi.it
TEMI. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement
n° 321403 – 2012-1 http://teachingmysteries.eu
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J. and Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the Scientific Method: Model-Based
Inquiry as a New Paradigm of Preference for School Science Investigation. Science Education. 92(5), 941967.
Marco Giliberti
UMIL_PERG (University of Milan Physics Education Research Group)
Department of Physics University of Milano
Via Celoria, 16
20133 MI Italy
e-mail: [email protected]