Using an ‘effective’ model of professional development in science education to improve primary teachers’ classroom practice: the CSSP experience

ABSTRACT

The international research literature concludes that effective professional development for teachers needs to: be truly collaborative involving an active role for practitioners; help break down teacher insulation and isolation; provide opportunities for teachers to work together in developing their classroom practices. However, professional development, as understood in the Irish context, tends to be characterised by predominantly transmission of knowledge models. The Clare Small Schools Project (CSSP) is an innovative professional development programme in primary science education in Ireland. Its constituent partners are Clare Education Centre, Dublin City University and small rural primary schools in County Clare. It is planned and designed in accordance with agreed characteristics of transformative professional development: ongoing, collaborative, embedded in teachers’ work, with an emphasis on changing classroom practice. This paper draws on the key developments emerging from the programme. Findings show that the CSSP is making positive changes in teachers’ individual and collaborative practices and is helping teachers overcome professional isolation. Key to this is the prominent role the Education Centre plays in encouraging participatory approaches to practice. These findings add to what is known about providing transformative professional development. They have far-reaching implications for teacher educators in Ireland and farther afield.

KEYWORDS:

• Professional development
• Science education
• Professional learning community

Introduction

Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) embraces all facets of our lives, including economic, societal, and environmental improvement. Over the past two decades developing STEM-literate citizens and a skilled STEM workforce has been prioritised by many governments across the world (Gough 2015). Increasing participation in STEM education has become a global imperative for a variety of reasons including economic and societal advancement (Delahunty, Prendergast, and Ní Ríordáin 2021). STEM education is seen as a means for enhancing a country’s global competitiveness and guaranteeing its economic future (McLoughlin et al. 2020). Governments look to STEM education to deal with an assortment of local, national, and global issues (Gough 2015). UNESCO (2015) promotes the expansion of STEM education as an important strategy for meeting its sustainable development. Although much of the thinking underlying the promotion of STEM in education in recent years springs from concerns for economic growth and competitiveness, our concern with it in the CSSP initiative is primarily educational. The project has a twofold commitment to enhancing the educational potential of the students and the pedagogical capacities of the teachers. STEM opens up new possibilities for both; possibilities that have too often been neglected at the primary school level in Ireland.

Concerns regarding the quantity and quality of STEM education in Ireland led to the publication of several STEM documents and reports by the Irish government. In 2013 the government established the STEM Education Review Group. This Group reviewed STEM education in Ireland, especially at primary and secondary level and provided a vision for STEM education in Ireland, ‘Our vision is to provide students in Ireland with a STEM education experience of the highest quality’ (Department of Education and Skills (DES) 2016, 6). In 2017 the Department of Education and Skills published the STEM Education Policy Statement 2017–2026 (DES 2017a) and The STEM Education Implementation Plan 2017–2019 (DES 2017b). These documents set out the goals of the Irish government regarding the delivery and implementation of high-quality STEM education across all levels of education. Regarding STEM education at the primary level, a number of objectives are proposed including the provision of high-quality STEM opportunities for teachers to support their professional learning and development and the delivery of high-quality professional development programmes in STEM.

The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) is presently reviewing and redeveloping the 1999 primary curriculum. In the recently published Primary Curriculum Framework (NCCA 2023) it intends that ‘Mathematics, Science and Technology Education’ be one of the five curricular areas, i.e. integrated STEM education. To deliver high-quality ‘Maths, Science and Technology Education’ highly skilled teachers will be needed. However, this will be very challenging for primary teachers who are not specialists in teaching STEM (Goodnough, Pelech, and Stordy 2014). Many primary teachers lack confidence in teaching integrated STEM education due to their lack of subject content and pedagogical knowledge across the STEM disciplines (Murphy et al. 2023). Hourigan et al. (2022, 693) believe there is a ‘mismatch between the intended and implemented curricula [1999 curriculum] in both STEM disciplines [Science and Mathematics]’. In terms of science education, research suggests that primary teachers lack adequate science content and pedagogical knowledge to teach science confidently and competently (Varley, Murphy, and Veale 2008; Smith 2015; Murphy, Broderick, and Mallon 2020) and children are afforded infrequent opportunities to engage in inquiry-based science (Varley, Murphy, and Veale 2008; Murphy, Murphy, and Kilfeather 2011). Hourigan et al. (2022, 694) claim there are gaps between policy, curricula, and classroom practice and ‘given these realities, it is understandable that primary teachers may envisage significant challenges associated with teaching integrated STEM education’. They emphasise the need to support teachers in developing their own knowledge of appropriate pedagogical and assessment practices for STEM education.

Murphy et al. (2023, 9) claim that these shortcomings have implications for the development and implementation of a new STEM curriculum and recommend ‘longitudinal professional learning opportunities to support teachers in developing their science content and pedagogical knowledge must be made available’. The Irish National Teachers Organisation (INTO) (2023) suggests that professional development for STEM should be provided on a continual, planned, and well-resourced basis, focussing on a whole-school approach which supports a school’s local context, environment, and interests.

This article is concerned with the provision of continuous professional development programme in science education at the primary level. Specifically, it reviews the more salient developments in the experience to date of a targeted professional development programme in primary science for teachers in small rural schools in County Clare. The main aim of the programme is to bring about positive changes in teachers’ (a) science content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge and (b) classroom practice, and attitudes towards teaching science. This article addresses a number of key developments of the programme since its inception, including changing teacher practice, meaningful collaboration, cultivating reflective practice, promoting teacher networks and breaking down teacher isolation.

Professional development

Research shows that professional development can improve teacher confidence, science content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, leading to changes in instructional practice and student achievement (Desimone 2009; Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner 2017). The international literature emphasises the positive influence of ‘effective’ professional development on teachers’ confidence, knowledge, classroom practice and pupils’ learning outcomes (Guskey 2002; Desimone 2009; Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner 2017). Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) define ‘effective’ professional development as that which results in improvements in teachers’ knowledge and instructional practice, as well as improved pupil learning outcomes. There is considerable criticism in the literature of ‘conventional’ forms of professional development such as ‘one-off’ workshops and a one-size fits all approach (Desimone 2009; Loucks-Horsley et al. 2010; Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner 2017). Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) claim that such approaches do not lead to a significant change in classroom practice. Guskey (2002) argues that conventional forms of professional development are ineffective as teachers often feel that these are disconnected from their needs and their real-life teaching contexts. Research (Kennedy 2005; 2014) indicates that with such approaches teachers tend to be passive learners and not involved in its design and planning and as such professional development is less effective. Kennedy (2005) argues that this kind of professional development has the transmission of knowledge as its main concern and has the least capacity to support professional autonomy or bring about teacher change.

The last two decades have seen a growing recognition that for professional development programmes to be ‘effective’ there needs to be a move away from the ‘one size fits all’ isolated workshops to ongoing programmes situated in teachers’ real work, that address particular needs, and fit into the context in which they will be implemented (Guskey 2002; Desimone 2009). An extensive body of research has demonstrated a variety of diverse features needed for ‘effective’ professional development (Guskey 2003; Darling-Hammond et al. 2009; Desimone 2009; Loucks-Horsley et al. 2010). Loucks-Horsley et al. (2010) argue that for professional development to be ‘effective’ it needs to: be truly collaborative involving an active role for teachers, including their experiences and voices; and help break down teacher insulation and isolation by providing opportunities for teachers to work together, exchange ideas and resources and reflect on their classroom practices. There is, according to Desimone (2009), a consensus among educationalists on key features of professional development needed to bring about changes in teachers’ classroom practice and pupil learning. These include a focus on content, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation. These features infer that professional development is more than a succession of one-off workshops: it is a way of putting knowledge into practice within a community of actively engaged practitioners (Smith 2014); and has ‘significant capacity for transformative practice and professional autonomy’ (De Paor 2016, 1).

Traditionally, programmes of professional development, as understood in the Irish context, tend to be provider-driven one-off courses or short modular courses provided by the Department of Education and Skills (Smith 2014). These are mainly initiated after a change in curriculum and are characterised by a predominantly transmission of the knowledge with little prominence given to the professional development needs of individual teachers (Conway et al. 2009; Malone and Smith 2010; O’Sullivan, McConnell, and McMillan 2011). The dominance of such models of professional development are problematic as they result in knowledge provision rather than a significant positive impact on classroom practice (Conway et al. 2009). Unfortunately, many teachers’ insights of what constitutes professional development are often restricted to attendance at workshops and/or short modular courses and are viewed as a separate ‘add on’ to the job (Hogan et al. 2007).

The introduction of the Revised Primary School Curriculum (PSC) (DES 1999) was supplemented by a programme of professional development that consisted primarily of in-service workshops on a whole-school basis (INTO 2016). This comprised two curriculum days (in-service) specifically for science and one additional day given over to school planning. Workshops in an identical format were delivered to all schools. The sessions focused on the implementation of PSC (DES 1999), rather than addressing the needs of individual teachers (Murphy, Broderick, and Mallon 2020). This model of professional development has been primarily employed by DES support services since the roll-out of the PSC in 2003, initially from the Primary Curriculum Support Project (PCSP) and Primary Professional Development Support (PPDS) and, presently, through the Professional Development Service for Teachers (PDST). This support service is managed by the DES who establish the professional development focus for schools and are predominantly concerned with policy mandates.

Many of the primary schools in Ireland are small multi-grade and dispersed across rural areas. Mulryan-Kyne (2005) points out that more than 42% of primary school teachers in Ireland work in small schools and 49% of primary school pupils are taught in these schools. Historically, small rural schools are underserved on account of their isolation from other teachers. The size of the school may mean that there are only one or two professional colleagues to discuss ideas and exchange resources formally and informally. To help overcome this providers of professional development need to take account of the circumstances of small rural schools when planning appropriate professional development programmes (Smith 2014). Lodge and Tuohy (2016) suggest that professional development needs to be delivered in a way that recognises the remote context of many Irish small schools and help in the development of professional learning communities for teachers working in small schools.

An important aim of the CSSP is to assist small rural schools to become professional learning communities through professional development. The literature provides several definitions of professional learning communities. However, the definition most relevant to the CSSP is that of Stoll et al. (2005, 222): ‘Inclusive group of people motivated by a shared learning vision, who support and work with each other … and together learn new and better approaches that will enhance all pupil learning’. Over the past 20 years or so there has been a growing awareness of the necessity for teachers in small rural schools to collaborate with teachers in similar schools, to exchange material, recognise general concerns and work together to develop solutions to them (Giordano 2008). Dogan, Pringle, and Mesa (2016) claim that working collectively in a community of contemporaries can encourage teachers to reflect on their teaching practice and learn from each other.

Conceptual framework

The CSSP is directed by the understanding that for professional development to be effective it needs to target the needs of teachers, enhance their knowledge base and reform their instructional practices (Opfer and Pedder 2011). The CSSP programme is designed around the following core concepts: (a) Shulman’s notion of pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman 1986); (b) professional learning communities in which an informal action research approach is an in-built feature; (c) Desimone’s four-step core framework (2009).

PCK is the integration of teacher content knowledge and pedagogical skills. It represents the knowledge base required by teachers to make subject matter accessible to pupils by using different teaching approaches and activities. Shulman (1986) maintains that for professional development to be effective, it should integrate content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Research (Abell et al. 2009; Gess-Newsome 2013) suggests that teachers need this knowledge base to teach science effectively in their classrooms and inspire their pupils’ interest in learning science.

Kennedy (2014) illustrates that effective models of professional development allow for increasing capacity for transformative practice and professional autonomy and show promise for transforming teacher learning. PLCs are seen as transformative models of professional development (Kennedy 2014). There is general agreement in the literature on the main features of effective PLCs these include a shared vision; collaboration; a focus on student learning; reflection and inquiry; and de-privatisation of practice (Dogan, Pringle, and Mesa 2016). This last feature is by no means the least in importance. It calls attention primarily to teachers’ actions, particularly actions like co-operatively critiquing each other’s and one’s own work; also, to introducing fresh ideas and strategies in the light of such critique. PLCs can provide a means to offset the isolation of rural teachers and develop networks for ongoing collaboration and support.

The key features of Desimone’s (2009) core conceptual framework are widely acknowledged for investigating the effects of professional development on teachers’ classroom practice and pupils’ learning. Desimone’s framework consists of four key steps (a) participation in effective professional development, (b) increasing teachers’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes, (c) changes to teacher practice, and (d) benefit to pupil learning.

In addition to incorporating the four steps recommended by Desimone, the CSSP also includes the five features of her core framework: content focus (science content and how pupils learn content); active learning (opportunities for teachers to be involved in activities during PD and input into content of workshops); coherence (alignment with content of Primary Science Curriculum); duration (at least 30 workshop hours and two school visits over 2 year period); and collective participation (teachers work together in a learning community with other teachers, involving pupil-centred instruction and collaborative pedagogical practice). The following research questions guided this article:

• To what extent does the CSSP impact on teachers’ science classroom practice?

• What are teachers’ perceptions and experiences of attending the CSSP?

Methods

The intervention model

The isolation of rural Irish teachers from their professional colleagues has been one of the more enduring features in Irish schools. This is especially true for teachers in small rural schools (Smith 2014). Rural isolation restricts opportunities for professional contacts with colleagues and can result in limited participation in professional development programmes (Lodge and Tuohy 2016).

In 2009 a two-year pilot professional development programme the Western Seaboard Science Project (WSSP) was specifically developed to address this challenge. Findings demonstrated that participation in the WSSP had a positive impact on (a) participants’ confidence in teaching science, knowledge of science and classroom practice (Smith 2015); (b) breaking-down the insulation and isolation that teachers experience in their day-to-day professional lives and developing ‘learning communities’ between the participating teachers (Smith 2014).

In 2014 the WSSP was transferred from a research and development pilot stage to a mainstream stage, namely the Clare Small Schools Project (CSSP). The main aim of the CSSP is to make the benefits of ‘effective’ primary science professional development more widely available to primary teachers working in small rural schools in county Clare. The CSSP is a multi-pronged research and development project. It involves Dublin City University (DCU) working closely with the Clare Education Centre (CEC) and small rural schools and is funded by the Irish American Partnership. At the heart of the CSSP is the ongoing engagement of a local science coordinator, a person with a primary education background, competent in science and science education and experience of teaching in a rural school. The coordinator works closely with the Director of the Centre and DCU. He actively liaises with the participating schools and organises the workshops and school visits to ensure that the initiative runs in accordance with the aims of the programme.

The CSSP incorporates significant features of effective that reflects the tenor of the international research findings cited earlier, but that arose more particularly in an Irish context and were also refined in that context (Hogan et al. 2007; Smith 2014). These features include:

• Active participation – workshops are interactive in nature, they are designed and facilitated by the coordinator, in ongoing discussion with the participants – gives a sense of ownership

• Meaningful collaboration – a central element of the programme is the building up of trust between the participants as a group, and with the coordinator. Teachers are encouraged to share their knowledge and ideas on teaching and learning processes centred on their own experiences. The special importance of this point about trust will be taken up later.

• Continuity – the programme is designed as planned events within an ongoing sequence (over two years), as distinct from being ‘once-off’ events carried out at irregular intervals. Each workshop has specific contributions to make to the ongoing development of capacities on the part of the participants and respond to the needs of the participants as they arise.

• Feedback – the programme includes: (a) feedback from the participants to the coordinator at the end of each workshop; and (b) feedback by participants to colleagues during the workshop and between workshops, regarding teaching initiatives conducted by them in their own schools

Nature of workshops

The CSSP programme is made up of 10 three-hour workshops (face-to-face) over a two-year period. The workshops are designed by the CEC coordinator and DCU researcher and are delivered by the coordinator in ongoing consultation with the participants. From the very beginning, teachers are encouraged to indicate their preferences for workshop topics and the format of the workshops. The workshops are collaborative in nature with a strong emphasis on developing greater pedagogical expertise as well as deepening subject knowledge. The CSSP encourages teachers to experience the same content, methods, and activities that their pupils are expected to learn in schools; integrate what they are learning into what they already knew and challenge their previous understanding; pursue issues that are relevant to the classroom experience of the participants. As the teachers develop their science content and pedagogical knowledge, they are introduced to inquiry-based learning STEAM activities where they are encouraged to ask thoughtful questions, take risks, embrace collaboration, apply what they learn, and problem-solve creatively.

Workshop content varies from workshop to workshop in response to participants’ stated needs and includes some or all of the following features:

• Teachers reflecting on their understanding of basic science concepts found in the primary science curriculum, in the context of children’s ideas.

• Introduction of innovative inquiry-based teaching methodologies.

• Teacher engagement in hands-on science and STEAM activities.

• Teacher feedback to researcher and participants on science tasks carried out with their pupils between workshops.

• Teacher discussions related to their experience of teaching science.

Between workshops the co-ordinator organises school visits (two/three per school), the main purpose of which is to act as a support and stimulus for the teachers when they are carrying out new innovative teaching strategies (explored in workshops) in their classrooms.

Participants and project timeline

At present, the CSSP is in its 9th year. By 2024, a total of 102 teachers will have completed the programme. These teachers are representative of small rural and urban schools in County Clare (Table 1). This current paper is concerned with teachers from the first 3 cohorts between 2014 and 2020. Eighty-two teachers signed up to the programme during this period. However, seven dropped out for personal and professional reasons. This paper reports on the findings of the data gathered from the 75 teachers who participated in the programme for the entire 2-year period. These teachers represent a range of backgrounds in terms of how long they have been teaching, school type and science professional development courses attended. All data were ethically collected, all the participating teachers consented to take part in the professional development programme. They gave permission for the use of their responses for research purposes. The participants were informed that they could withdraw from the programme at any time. Anonymity was guaranteed to all participants.

Table 1. Characteristics of participating teachers in the research study (n = 75).

	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	10	13
Female	65	87
Teaching experience
0–10 years	21	28
10–20 years	39	52
Over 20 years	15	20
School type
Rural	45	60
Urban	30	40
Science professional development courses attended
Curriculum implementation days	37	49
Summer courses in teaching college	13	17
Other	17	23
None	14	19

Figure 1 represents the timeline of the progress of the CSSP to date. In 2014 the first cohort of teachers (Group 1) from 17 small rural schools joined CSSP. In 2016, 20 teachers (Group 2) from 15 small rural schools started the programme. Five schools from Group 2 clustered together (Group 2A) and carried out a STEAM project in 2018. Having noted the success that the teachers in the small schools experienced on the CSSP a number of the larger urban schools wanted to come on board, and in 2018, 30 teachers from 12 large urban schools (Group 3) joined the programme. In March 2020, COVID hit Ireland, schools closed, and all learning went online. During this time under the guidance of the coordinator, 12 teachers from Groups 1, 2 and 3 formed a STEAM Community of Practice (Group 4). These teachers met virtually on a regular basis. They designed ‘STEAM challenges’ workshops and presented them to their peers. In 2021 the five schools (Group 2A) that had clustered on a STEAM project in 2018 embarked on a new one. In 2022 teachers from Group 4 organised an online STEAM challenge for primary schools in the Clare area, over 1000 children participated in this online event. For the next academic year (2023/24) it is envisaged that a new programme will be rolled out for teachers in small rural schools. Also, the coordinator is presently working with the staff (50 people) of a special school in county Clare to further explore the possibility of using STEAM projects with their pupils. They are investigating how this teaching and learning methodology can be developed to best meet the needs of the children in that school. The outcome of this work could have endless possibilities to help children with special needs nationwide.

Figure 1. Timeline of the CSSP.

Data collection methods

Finding out about the teacher perspectives on the impact of the CSSP on their classroom practice is reliant on self-reporting. Teacher perceptions are one of the helpful sources for evaluating the perceived impacts of a professional development programme. Qualitative data were collected through surveys, and informal classroom observations and monitoring template.

Teacher reflection survey

Participants were asked to complete an open-ended question survey at end of Year One and Year Two. The open questions gave the participants more autonomy and required them to create their own answers. Teachers were asked to consider the impact of the programme on their confidence in teaching science and change in their classroom practice of teaching science, as change in practice is a key indicator of successful professional intervention (Desimone 2009). The teachers were also asked to reflect on features of the programme that impacted their classroom practice.

Reflection on workshop survey

After every workshop teachers were asked to complete an open-ended question reflection evaluation of the strengths of workshop, shortcomings/weakness of the workshop and suggestions for future workshops.

Informal classroom-based observations

Following a review of the methodological literature (Patton 2002; Robson 2002), it was decided that an informal observation using open-field notes would be the most suitable approach to the gathering of evidence from the participants. Patton (2002) suggests that informal observation allows the researcher to see what there is to see without the blinders of the hypothesis and observe the complexity of the context. It also allows the observer considerable freedom in what information is gathered and how it is recorded (Robson 2002). They were invaluable in supporting and explaining the data collected from the surveys and informing the research questions.

Monitoring project development

To encourage the participants to have an active input into the design of the programme, at start of Year One a needs analysis survey was carried out with them with regard to the professional help they required to enhance the teaching and learning of science in their classroom. Participants were given a number of topics related to science education and asked to prioritise the topics they would like to cover during the course of workshops. This was also repeated at the start of Year Two.

Data analysis

Using the constant comparative method for developing categories (Glaser and Strauss 1967), the two researchers categorised and analysed the data from the surveys and reflection templates. The responses from the two data sources were initially explored under two categories that related to the research questions (Table 2). The researchers independently read all the responses to identify a number of sub-categories, they then met to compare their lists of sub-categories and came to a consensus on a coding scheme. The researchers then coded 5 responses together and 10 responses independently, an inter-rater reliability of 85% was achieved. Discrepancies were discussed and the coding scheme was upgraded and finalised. The researchers independently coded the remaining responses and achieved an 87% inter-rater reliability. Field notes taken during informal classroom observations were summarised immediately after each visit and provided a detailed narrative record of the observed lesson. While these notes were of the researcher’s own interpretation, they turned out to be a useful secondary source of data and very useful in supporting and explaining the primary data collected. Observations focused on teaching methodologies used, scientific skills utilised by pupils, and interactions between teacher and pupils.

Table 2. Emerging categories from the analysis of the surveys and informal classroom observations.

Category	Sub-category
Teachers’ views of the impact of the programme on their classroom practice	Confidence Pedagogical knowledge Hands-on activities Pupils’ attitudes to science
Teachers’ views of the programme	Collaboration Reflective practice Active participation

Findings

The findings are presented according to the categories and sub-categories that developed from the analysis of the data.

Changing teacher practice

The CSSP models a research-based hands-on inquiry approach to science as promoted by the Irish Primary Science Curriculum (DES 1999). Such an approach affords teachers the opportunity to experience science activities in a similar way to how their pupils experience them. The STEAM activities encouraged the teachers to collaborate and solve problems in a creative way. Teachers identified four main types of change in their classroom practice: confidence, pedagogical knowledge, child-led investigations, pupils’ attitudes to science.

Confidence

Responses to surveys indicated that 68 of teachers across the three groups (G1, G2 and G3) stated that they felt more confident teaching science as a result of their involvement in the programme. They identified two main reasons that helped to bring about this change: understanding of science concepts and engaging in new various approaches to teaching science.

Many of the participants believed that the CSSP improved their understanding of important science concepts found in the primary science curriculum and this in turn increased their confidence in teaching science. Comments included:

I have learned a lot of basic relevant science at these workshops that has helped my teaching. This has made me more confident when teaching science in my school. (teacher G1)

When I started here [CSSP] my science knowledge was very poor, over the past 2 years it has really improved and I believe this is because of the discussions, hands-on activities especially STEAM and my enjoyment at the workshops. (teacher G3)

Being here [CSSP] has widened my science content base, this has resulted in me being more relaxed about how I am teaching it [science] and try out the new ideas we learned here [workshop]. (teacher G2)

61 of survey responses indicated that having the chance to engage in activities for themselves in the CSSP workshops gave the participants confidence to try them in their classrooms. One teacher summed it up succinctly:

The nature of the workshops was very good for my confidence in introducing new teaching methodologies to my classroom. I would discuss the pros and cons of it with other teachers at the next workshop. (teacher G1)

Data from the informal observations indicated that as teachers developed a deeper understanding of science content and pedagogy, they became more confident teaching science and were more amenable to using more innovative teaching methodologies in their classrooms, especially during Year Two of the programme.

Pedagogical knowledge

Participation in the project encouraged teachers to try out new teaching methodologies in their classrooms and actively reflect and reformulate their pedagogical thinking in areas such as how children learn and effective teaching approaches. Survey responses indicated that 65 teachers from across all three groups had learned a variety of new methodologies for teaching science. Informal observations clearly implied that the participants tried out the new teaching methodologies in their classrooms.

Many of them commented on engaging in open discussions at workshops regarding the successes and challenges of trying out new teaching methodologies, and in particular how these helped them to become more confident in implementing new teaching approaches. Teachers across the three groups believed that learning this way provided them with a better understanding of the questions their pupils would come across when engaging in such activities. They also emphasised the importance of involving the children in more in hands-on science and encouraging them to find out for themselves, rather than being told the answers by the teacher. The following points capture this very well:

Since joining this [CSSP] I now realise that I must involve the pupils more … do more hands-on activities with the children, especially STEAM ones … talk more with them and develop discussions during these activities. (teacher G1)

One of the most important things I picked up here [workshop] is the need of probing children’s ideas at the start and end of a science lesson … using hands-on activities relevant to pupils’ lives, they ask more questions now and are more interested in science. (teacher G2)

Further evidence of changes in teacher’s classroom practice was obtained from the coordinators’ visits to the schools. Visits indicated that many teachers engaged in the new teaching methodologies for teaching science that they had experienced in the workshops. These included: engaging pupils in inquiry-based activities, group work and more classroom discussions. These observations indicated that the teachers’ participation in the programme had impacted positively on their classroom practice. The following example represents this very well. During the middle of Year 1 the coordinator observed a participant teaching science using a new teaching approach she was introduced to in a previous workshop. The participant said to the coordinator ‘frankly I find this approach very difficult … . I like to control what the children do and how they plan their work … I simply cannot stand back and watch a group of children make mistakes and not intervene’. Early in Year 2 she asked if she could address the group of teachers at the start of one of the workshops. She said the following,

as you all know I initially found this approach that Michael [coordinator] was suggesting extremely difficult. The idea of standing back and allowing the children to explore in groups, without my advice and intervention, went against everything I believed in. I have to let you all know that having tried out this approach with the children in my classroom and seen the results over the past year, I am now a total convert. This CPD programme has completely changed how I teach … The children in my classroom are so engaged in their work, they are beginning to take ownership on their own learning … . I cannot believe the change

Data collected from both needs analysis surveys (start Year 1 and Year 2) were very informative in helping to shape the emphasis of the programme. Responses were sorted into two areas: knowledge of science and pedagogy. Teacher responses for the start of Year 1 showed that 68 of teachers wanted the programme to help them enhance their science content knowledge, especially physical science concepts. The responses to the Year 2 survey were very different. There was a change of emphasis from science content towards pedagogy. Participants (57) wanted to know about active teaching methodologies, and how children learn science. Clearly, the responses reviewed above bear witness to significant advances in the teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). But it also becomes clear that such advances are much more than cognitive gains. The strong affective dimension that is also present releases energies that are enabling and can be quite transformative.

Child led investigations

Teacher survey responses suggested a shift from a deductive approach towards an inductive approach to teaching science. Forty-two teachers indicated that the greatest change for them in teaching science was the greater emphasis on more open-ended investigations with their pupils. Teacher responses in the surveys claimed that because of their participation in the CSSP they were teaching science in a more child-centred way. They wrote and spoke excitedly about their enthusiasm to do more open-ended hands-on activities and carry out innovative group work in their classrooms. The following comments capture this very well:

I am now involving the children more, they are doing more hands-on science in groups, I am moving away from being in charge of the lesson to facilitating it [science]. (teacher G1)

When I go back to school I try open-ended investigations we do here [workshop] with my pupils … . I know most of the answers to the questions they ask me, because their questions are more or less the same as the ones [questions] I ask when doing the investigation at the workshop. (teacher G2)

I am moving away from using textbooks in class and now use the ideas and investigations that you [coordinator] have shown us … by the children working in groups they learn more and better. (teacher G3)

It is also apparent from the Informal observations that the teachers’ experiences as learners at the workshops had impacted positively on their classroom practice. They revealed that teachers observed in Year One of the programme generally engaged in didactic approaches to teaching science. Many of them were reluctant to allow their pupils to engage in open-ended investigations on their own or test their own ideas. However, by the end of Year Two, many teachers changed to more inductive approaches. Examples of changes included: involving their pupils in more open-ended and STEAM investigations, engaging their pupils in problem-solving and higher order thinking.

Pupils’ attitudes to science

Survey responses reveal that for many teachers (61) their pupils’ attitudes to school science had improved since they participated in the CSSP. Teachers across the three groups stated that their pupils requested more science in school. They identified two main areas that helped to bring about this change, pupils actively engaging in more investigative hands-on activities, especially the STEAM activities, and teachers themselves being more confident teaching science. The following comments are indicative of what teachers said about their pupils’ attitudes towards school science:

my pupils love science more now, I put this down to me being more confident teaching it … when you are more confident it reflects positively on their attitudes. (teacher G1)

the pupils are questioning everything, they have a new interest in science, they want to know what investigation is next. (teacher Group 2)

me being more confident about science means I will try new innovative teaching with my class and encourage them to have open discussions about the science they are doing. (teacher Group 3)

The responses of linking pupils’ attitudes to school science and teachers’ confidence to teaching science is very important as it enables the teachers themselves to see their lack of confidence as a disabling feature of teaching science.

Teachers’ views of the programme

In the surveys the teachers identified several features of The CSSP that they thought lead to changes in their teaching practice. The three most frequent features of the programme highlighted by the teachers were, collaboration, reflective practice. and active learning.

Collaboration

Researchers (Desimone 2009) argue that for professional development to bring about significant change in teachers’ practice there is a need for trust and collaborative relationships to be developed between participants, and between participants and the co-ordinator. From the start of the project, we were cognizant of what Hargraves and O Connor (2018, 5) call ‘contrived collaboration’. They argue that such collaboration is weak and does not allow deep probing on teaching and learning and ‘fails to maintain motivation or anything more than superficial compliance’. Central to the CSSP is the building of meaningful collaboration between schools. The highly collaborative nature of the programme encourages the participants to support each other as a community of learners (Hord 2009). The participants are given the opportunity to engage in critical pedagogical dialogue, share ideas and work in groups. There was widespread agreement among the teachers that the CSSP offered frequent opportunities for them to collaborate with each other:

What’s really good about these workshops is sharing and helping each other, its good to have honest discussions about how the teaching and learning of the activities we do here back in our classroom. (teacher G1)

In the workshops I learned a lot from Michael [coordinator] and the other teachers. It was good to talk to other teachers about how they teach science … what works for them and the challenges they have. (teacher G2)

These workshops have helped me to feel less isolated … its great to openly discuss with others how I teach science and how they teach it. We learn from each other. (teacher G3)

Reflective practice

The cultivation of critical reflection among practitioners has gained acceptance over the last three decades or so, stemming largely from the work of Schön (1983). Schön’s ‘reflection-on-action’, is a deliberate reflection after the experience, when practitioners examine what they did, how they did it and alternative ways of doing it. From the outset, the CSSP afforded teachers important opportunities to critically reflect on their roles as teachers and as learners, with a view to leading to change in their classroom practice. At the workshops, the participants spoke candidly and freely about successes and challenges in teaching science and the quality and nature of the learning that takes place in their classroom. The following comments are representative of the development of self-reflection of teachers across the three groups.

These workshops [CSSP] have been really positive for me. They have given me the chance to exchange ideas and resources and discuss science in my class freely with teachers from other schools. (teacher G1)

What we do here [workshop] helps me to think how and what my children learn [science] in my class … I think more about the questions they ask and the challenges they face when carrying out activities. (teacher G2)

We learn a lot of good science at workshops in the Education [CSSP] I then try it with the pupils in my class. At the next workshop we discuss openly how it went, the problems and how to overcome them. (teacher G3)

The responses also show that for those participants teaching practice became a key focus of the professional development. Teachers were moving from improving their science knowledge to exploring how they could explore STEAM challenges to eventually presenting science/STEAM challenges they conducted with their class to the participants at workshops. This development really showed how their knowledge, skills and confidence had grown. However, it is important to note that it was not until the later part of the programme (Year Two) i.e. time was required to build up trust.

Active participation

Professional development is more significant to teachers once they take ownership of its content and process (Loucks-Horsley et al. 2010). They are likely to experience a greater sense of participation in the professional experience when they help in the design of their own learning (Smith 2014). Teacher responses indicated that one of the strengths of the programme was that it gave them the opportunity to engage in content that was very relevant to their needs, and it gave them a sense of ownership. Comments included:

A really important aspect of the workshops is that we could get a say in the material we covered ie material relevant to our needs. (teacher G1)

At the first workshop you [coordinator] asked us about our views of teaching and learning of science … and asked us what content we would like to do at the workshops, this was very helpful to my situation. (teacher G2)

What was good about this project was it was relevant to my needs; I could choose the topics for future workshops. (teacher G3)

Discussion

These findings support the research (Darling-Hammond et al. 2009; Desimone 2009) that claims that effective professional development can bring about a change teachers’ classroom practice. Changes in classroom practice included teachers engaging in more inquiry-based methodologies and carrying out more hands-on activities, especially STEAM activities with their pupils. Findings also showed that teachers became more confident teaching science as a result of enhancing their understanding of science concepts, their pedagogical content knowledge and engaging in innovative methodologies at the workshops. Most importantly, teachers stressed the positive influence of the programme on their pedagogical capabilities and practices, and on their pupils’ attitudes to learning science. Teacher responses generally pointed to three features of the CSSP, which they recognised to be beneficial, collaboration, reflective practice, and active participation, all three are identified in the research literature as important components of effective professional development (Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner 2017; Desimone 2009).

It is our contention that the positive findings outlined above are due to the careful design and implementation of the CSSP, which drew together the core features of effective professional development (Desimone 2009). The long duration of the programme (2 years) afforded the teachers opportunities to: carry out new innovations with their pupils, change their classroom practice, and establish meaningful collaboration with other participants and the coordinator. Building up trust over time was the key to developing a culture of meaningful collaboration. This simply cannot be rushed and it is something that needs more emphasis in the research literature. Developing trust involved a number of strategies, including (a) the supportive role of the co-ordinator and (b) accommodating the needs of the teacher. The co-ordinator established a collegial relationship with the teachers and familiarised himself with any concerns or issues they might have had. At the start of every CSSP workshop, participants are given a choice of future workshop content and are encouraged to take an active role in the design of the workshops.

Many of them spoke openly and frankly in the workshops of their successes and challenges in teaching science in their school. This led to the development of informal networks within and across the different groups. Within a group, the participants exchanged resources and ideas and shared with each other their expertise on issues of teaching and learning in their classrooms. Teachers began to see such exercises as an important feature of their professional identity as opposed to something that was merely an add-on (Malone and Smith 2010). Since 2018 two cross-group informal networks have been established (see Figure 1), one working independently (G2A) and one with the assistance of the coordinator (G4). The creation of such networks is very encouraging especially, in the STEAM Community of Practice (G4), teachers who previously did not know each other were motivated to engage in developing new STEAM initiatives and develop creative ways to implement these initiatives in practice. More significantly, they shared their work with many other primary teachers in County Clare and teachers from five European countries involved in an Erasmus + Project. This is an indication of how far these teachers have come in terms of their confidence and competence in teaching science.

A point we would wish to stress here is the crucial importance of participants’ trust, which we have referred to in passing on a number of occasions already. The experience of the CSSP shows that the question of cultivating the trust of participant teachers in professional development programmes is something that could be featured more strongly in the research literature. As the evidence reported above illustrates, trust acts as a crucial leavening agent; in fact an indispensable one. It is what enables what we have called the ingredients of the project’s design to work successfully as ingredients, as distinct from mere components. It calls some necessary attention to understanding the intricate workings of the transformational in professional development.

The CSSP encouraged participants to engage in range of science concepts and inquiry-based activities that their pupils would subsequently experience in the classroom i.e. content and pedagogy relevant to their classroom practice. The participants were given opportunities to engage in critical pedagogical dialogue, share ideas and work in groups. As they built up trust and rapport among themselves and the coordinator, participants developed their capacities to critically reflect on their roles as teachers and learners (Brookfield 1995), with a view of bringing about change in their classroom practice. At the workshops teachers were encouraged to think about how children learn science and explain and defend how they teach science. Participants spoke candidly and freely about successes and challenges in teaching science and the quality and nature of the learning that takes place in their classroom. Guskey (2002) claims that if a change in teachers’ classroom practice is to be sustained regular feedback is needed. The CSSP provided participants with regular follow-up, feedback and support over a two-year period.

The authors are conscious of the fact that there were some limitations to the CSSP. Firstly, the sample of teachers was relatively small, and as such, generalisations cannot be made. However, the sample is representative of teachers teaching in small rural schools in Ireland. Secondly, there was a possibility for response bias owing to the self-reported nature of the surveys, especially when responding to changes in teaching practice. For example, teachers may have reported changes in their classroom practice that they thought were in line with what the authors wanted to hear. This could lead to teachers’ description of their approach to teaching being different to what happened in their classroom (O'Meara and Faulkner 2021). However, informal observations helped to address this limitation.

Implications

The findings highlight three key issues that hold implications for professional development and its role in promoting effective instruction. Firstly, changing teachers’ classroom practice is a complex process and ‘traditional’ forms of professional development (generally experienced by Irish teachers) are ineffective at achieving change in practice (Guskey 2003). Unlike the traditional models of professional development in the Irish context which have the transmission of knowledge as their main aim and have the least capacity to support professional autonomy or bring about teacher change (Kennedy 2005; Conway et al. 2009) the CSSP model can be seen as ‘transformative’, it has the capacity to support considerable professional autonomy, placing the teacher in charge of their professional learning, and bringing about teacher change and development. It concurs with the Teaching Council of Ireland Policy on the Continuum of Teacher Education, (Teaching Council of Ireland 2011, 20) which states:

Effective CPD, which is participative in nature, should encourage teachers to evaluate their pedagogical beliefs and practices, to critically reflect on their professional practice and working environments and to engage in professional collaboration.

Secondly, one of the most stable features of small rural schools in Ireland has been the isolation of teachers from their professional colleagues (Smith 2014; Lodge and Tuohy 2016). The key developments discussed above show that the CSSP is making considerable advances in overcoming professional isolation and contributing to the development of a learning community. Key to this is the targeted and contextualised design of the CSSP which (a) is content-specific, designed by an expert from a rural community and adapted to the specific needs of the teachers (b) provides teachers with opportunities to use group processes such as critical reflection, meaningful collaboration, and professional dialogue to help them overcome some of the challenges of working in rural areas (Smith 2014).

Thirdly, a very important aspect of the programme is the innovative and progressive partnership developed between local schools, CEC and DCU. Traditionally Education Centres have invested considerable time and effort in delivering in-service training to support system needs as determined by the Department of Education and Skills. However, a second equally important function of Education Centres is the design and delivery of training in response to locally researched and identified needs, i.e. the needs of the teacher. The CSSP programme found the Education Centre to be an important ‘third space’ that encourages a participatory approach to professional practice in which teacher educators, teachers and local communities collaborate and co-construct knowledge about teaching (Daza, Gudmundsdottir, and Lund 2021). Both the Director and co-ordinator have the context knowledge and ability to work closely with the university researcher and teachers in the local schools. They assess teachers individual and collective needs. The co-ordinator organises and monitors the workshops, visits teachers in their schools, encourages networking (face-to-face and online) between local schools and has developed a close, trusting, and supportive relationship with the participants.

Initiatives availing of ingredients like those involved in the design and conduct of the Clare Small School Project might contribute valuable insights to both research and practice in continuing professional development for teachers.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Irish American Partnership and Clare Education Centre.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Irish American Partnership.

Notes on contributors

Greg Smith

Greg Smith is an Assistant Professor in Science Education at Dublin City University and works in the area of Initial teacher education (ITE) and Continuing Professional Development (CPD). At present his main work focuses on the research, development and facilitation of ITE and CPD courses in science education.

Michael Browne

Michael Browne is a former primary teacher and principal. He is now a part-time lecturer in the STEM Department in Mary Immaculate College Limerick. He is the STEAM co-ordinator for Clare Education Centre and he promotes STEAM education in primary schools, developing STEM programmes and working closely with students and teachers.