Research methodology
The research methodology for the SILO project is design-based research
(DBR). “DBR is a methodology designed by and for educators that
seeks to increase the impact, transfer, and translation of education
research into improved practice” (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012, p. 16).
Barab and Squire (2004) were early adopters of this methodology who noted
that “design-based research strives to generate and advance a particular
set of theoretical constructs that transcends the environmental
particulars of the contexts in which they were generated, selected, or
refined” (p. 5). The SILO project is built upon the following five
constructs:
- The international emphasis on STEM is not likely to go away and will
probably increase due to the rapid technological era in which we live.
- “STEM education begins in primary school” (Prinsley & Johnston,
2015, p. 1).
- Time is scarce in Primary Schools. This has led to certain
phrases such as the 'overcrowded curriculum'.
- The Australian Curriculum is essentially sound and useful, covering
the necessary curriculum content for STEM education but within the
component disciplines of science, technology (digital technologies),
engineering (design technologies) and mathematics.
- The challenge for teachers is to implement the Australian Curriculum
in an efficient, equitable and authentic manner focusing on depth over
breadth.
Sandoval (2014) has noted that there is no clearly identifiable set of
methods that can be labeled as DBR and that the commonality is mainly in
terms of certain commitments that include “the joint pursuit of practical
improvement and theoretical refinement; cycles of design, enactment,
analysis, and revision; and attempts to link processes of enactment to
outcomes of interest” (pp. 19-20). Given this, the question of how
the SILO project will be assessed is critical. Sandoval’s
contribution here is what he calls ‘conjecture mapping’, which is when
articulating and testing opinions or conclusions formed on the basis of
incomplete information. In this sense conjecture mapping could be
likened to “hypotheses about how learning happens in some context and how
to support it” (Sandoval, 2014, p.20). Accordingly, the working
hypothesis for the SILO project is that students and teachers will expand
their knowledge and skills in STEM by having a daily focus built into each
day. The challenge then is how to do this in a seamless and sustainable
way. Figure 1 is the current conjecture map for the SILO
project.
Figure 1. Conjecture map for a daily STEM focus
in primary schools.
Data sources
The relationship between the data sources is
shown in figure 2:
Figure 2. Venn diagram of the data sources.
Co-construction
Another important methodological issue is
co-construction and how teachers and researchers understand their own
role as co-designers within the classroom. This issue is at the
heart of DBR as participants "are treated as co-participants in both the
design and even the analysis" (Barab & Squire, 2004, p. 3).
This will become most apparent in the SILO project during the current
implementation phase where teachers and the primary researcher seek to
design engaging and authentic opportunities to engage in STEM
education. Much time and effort has gone into cultivating a
learning environment based on mutual trust and respect to encourage the
free flow of ideas in a spirit of collaboration. As yet, there
have been no differences of opinion regarding implementation but the
following three protocols are proposed to manage such instances:
- Ultimately, it is the classroom teacher who has the final say about
what happens as it their classroom as they have a duty of care for
everything which occurs.
- If the researcher suggests an activity which is unfamiliar to the
classroom teachers (such as Arduino or coding), the researcher will
run the session so that the classroom teacher can observe without
having to invest any additional preparation time
- If two or more classroom teachers within the same year level have a
difference of opinion in relation to classroom activities, each
teacher will remain free to pursue their chosen option. Such
instances are likely to be generative as, "It is through understanding
the recursive patterns of researchers’ framing questions, developing
goals, implementing interventions, and analyzing resultant activity
that knowledge is produced" (Barab & Squire, 2004, p. 10).
Teachers make countless decisions every day
but the decision-making process which guides such decisions is rarely
articulated because it is tacit knowledge. Figure 3 seeks to make
this tacit knowledge visible in the context of STEM education.
Figure 3. A decision-making tool
for STEM education
Figure 3 is largely based on common sense
and professional judgement but a simple tool like this brings some
larger issues into focus such as relevance and suitability. It
also shows teachers where they might need to expand their skills,
knowledge or resources.
This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
