Perspectives of Teachers Regarding the Integration of Mathematics and Science at the Secondary School Level

The integration of mathematics and science in secondary schools in the 21st century continues to be an important topic of practice and research. The purpose of my research study, which builds on studies by Frykholm and Glasson (2005) and Berlin and White (2010), is to explore the potential constraints and benefits of integrating mathematics and science in Ontario secondary schools based on the perspectives of in-service and pre-service teachers with various math and/or science backgrounds. A qualitative and quantitative research design with an exploratory approach was used. The qualitative data was collected from a sample of 12 in-service teachers with various math and/or science backgrounds recruited from two school boards in Eastern Ontario. The quantitative and some qualitative data was collected from a sample of 81 pre-service teachers from the Queen’s University Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) program. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the in-service teachers while a survey and a focus group was conducted with the pre-service teachers. Once the data was collected, the qualitative data were abductively analyzed. For the quantitative data, descriptive and inferential statistics (one-way ANOVAs and Pearson Chi Square analyses) were calculated to examine perspectives of teachers regardless of teaching background and to compare groups of teachers based on teaching background. The findings of this study suggest that in-service and pre-service teachers have a positive attitude towards the integration of math and science and view it as valuable to student learning and success. The pre-service teachers viewed the integration as easy and did not express concerns to this integration. On the other hand, the in-service teachers highlighted concerns and challenges such as resources, scheduling, and time constraints. My results illustrate when teachers perceive it is valuable to integrate math and science and which aspects of the classroom benefit best from the integration. Furthermore, the results highlight barriers and possible solutions to better the integration of math and science. In addition to the benefits and constraints of integration, my results illustrate why some teachers may opt out of integrating math and science and the different strategies teachers have incorporated to integrate math and science in their classroom.

Supporting Metacognitive Development in Early Science Education: Exploring Elementary Teachers' Beliefs and Practices in Metacognition

Metacognition is the understanding and control of cognitive processes. Students with high levels of metacognition achieve greater academic success. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to examine elementary teachers’ beliefs about metacognition and integration of metacognitive practices in science. Forty-four teachers were recruited through professional networks to complete a questionnaire containing open-ended questions (n = 44) and Likert-type items (n = 41). Five respondents were selected to complete semi-structured interviews informed by the questionnaire. The selected interview participants had a minimum of three years teaching experience and demonstrated a conceptual understanding of metacognition. Statistical tests (Pearson correlation, t-tests, and multiple regression) on quantitative data and thematic analysis of qualitative data indicated that teachers largely understood metacognition but had some gaps in their understanding. Participants’ reported actions (teaching practices) and beliefs differed according to their years of experience but not gender. Hierarchical multiple regression demonstrated that the first block of gender and experience was not a significant predictor of teachers' metacognitive actions, although experience was a significant predictor by itself. Experience was not a significant predictor once teachers' beliefs were added. The majority of participants indicated that metacognition was indeed appropriate for elementary students. Participants consistently reiterated that students’ metacognition developed with practice, but required explicit instruction. A lack of consensus remained around the domain specificity of metacognition. More specifically, the majority of questionnaire respondents indicated that metacognitive strategies could not be used across subject domains, whereas all interviewees indicated that they used strategies across subjects. Metacognition was integrated frequently into Ontario elementary classrooms; however, metacognition was integrated less frequently in science lessons. Lastly, participants used a variety of techniques to integrate metacognition into their classrooms. Implications for practice include the need for more professional development aimed at integrating metacognition into science lessons at both the Primary and Junior levels. Further, teachers could benefit from additional clarification on the three main components of metacognition and the need to integrate all three to successfully develop students’ metacognition.

From Where Do We Teach? Potential Positions in Public Education

This thesis is a conceptual examination of the positions from which we teach in public education. As it is philosophical in nature, it takes no qualitative or quantitative data. It offers a review of selected relevant literature and an analysis of personal and professional experience, with the intent to pose critical questions about teaching and learning. The framework of this thesis represents the following contentions: First, from its inception, public schooling served capital by preparing skilled labour for emerging industrial markets. This history is the hegemonic shadow that hangs over public education today. Second, movements toward the standardization of funding, curriculum, and evaluation support the further commodification of public schooling. The “accountability” that standardization offers, the “back to basics” that it aims for, is counter to the potential that public education might critically inform citizens and seek social justice. Third, movements toward the privatization of public schooling under the guise of “choice” and “mobility”, brought on by manufactured crisis, serve only to widen socio-economic inequities as capitalist neoliberal interests seek profit in both the product of public schools and in schooling itself. If we recognize and understand the power of public education to inform vast numbers of citizens who will, in turn, either maintain or reform society, we must ask: What do we want public education to be? What are the effects of continuing down historically conventional and increasingly standardized paths? What do progressive pedagogies offer? How might teachers destandardize their pedagogy and pursue equitable opportunities for marginalized students? How might students name themselves and their world, that they might play a part in its reimagining? For whom do we teach, and under what conditions? From where do we teach, and why? For educators to ask these questions, and to employ what they discover, will necessitate taking substantial risks. It will necessitate taking a stand and cannot be done alone. Teachers must seek out the collaboration of their students. They must offer students the time and the space to find their own voices, to create their own selves, and to envision previously uncharted paths on which we might walk together.

Sydenham Street Revived: A Public Space Experiment

In 2015, the Sydenham Street Revived pop-up park project (SSR) transformed Sydenham Street between Princess and Queen Streets into a temporary pedestrian-only public space. The goal of the project was to test out the idea of permanently pedestrianizing this street section. But what did this urban experiment ultimately prove? Using video footage, photographs, and observations recorded before and during the project, this report analyzes the use of the space in order to evaluate the claim that SSR created a successful public space and to make recommendations for a permanent public space on Sydenham Street. Two research methods were used: quantitative data collection, consisting of headcounts of both pedestrians and stationary users of the space; and a qualitative observational survey, based on the criteria for successful public spaces developed by the Project for Public Spaces. Data collection occurred two days one week prior to the project, and two days during the project, on days that were similar in terms of temperature and weather. The research revealed that the SSR did create a successful public space, although additional research is needed in order to determine how the space would function as a public place throughout different seasons, to study the street closure’s impact on surrounding residents and businesses, and to understand how private commercial activity would influence use. Recommendations for a permanent public space on Sydenham Street include considerations for flexible street design and a continuous, barrier-free surface; ensuring that there is an abundance of places to sit; making opportunities for public and community-created art; and to improve walkability by connecting the grid using a mid-block walkway.