Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

DOI 10.1007/s11165-006-9022-9

School Innovation in Science: A Model for Supporting

School and Teacher Development

Russell Tytler

Received: 8 April 2005 / Accepted: 31 May 2006 /

Published online: 17 August 2006
# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Abstract ‘School Innovation in Science’ represents a model, developed through working

with more than 200 Victorian schools, to improve science teaching and learning. SIS works
at the level of the science team and the teacher, providing resources to challenge and
support the change process. Its emphasis is on strategic planning supported by a framework
for describing effective teaching, materials for auditing practice and planning initiatives,
and a networked support structure. Experience and results from the project, concerning the
nature and extent of change, will be used to provide insight into the multidimensional
nature of the change process and to suggest a number of principles concerning support for
change. Arising out of this, the major elements of a School Innovation Model are identified,
that supports a transformative agenda for schools more generally.

Key words teacher professional learning . school and teacher change . science teaching and
learning . science pedagogy . science teacher professional development

Background

For some time now there have been substantial criticisms of the quality of learning in
science, mathematics and subjects more generally, coming out of research studies and major
international testing programs. In science engagement with this criticism has become more
urgent at policy level because of the importance placed on science as a subject feeding into
government technological renewal strategic directions. Relative performance on interna-
tional testing regimes such as TIMMS and PISA have helped focus attention on the
limitations of science curricula in many if not most countries. In science, this concern for
quality learning outcomes has been supported by three decades of research into student
science conceptions and the lack of success of traditional teaching approaches and curricula
in engaging students and supporting meaningful learning.

R. Tytler (*)
Faculty of Education, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway,
Burwood, Melbourne Vic 3125, Australia
e-mail: tytler@deakin.edu.au
190 Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

There is a long standing and growing concern in many Western countries with the lack
of engagement of students with science and indeed schooling in general, in the middle years
five to nine in particular, and decreasing participation rates in senior school and university
science and mathematics programs. This is of particular concern given the increasing
importance and profile of science related innovations and social issues. The particular
nature of the concerns has differed for different stages of schooling. The problem with
primary science has tended to be cast in terms of lack of presence of science, particularly
physical science, in primary school curricula, and lack of confidence and knowledge of
teachers (Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001). For secondary schools the issue has been
seen in terms of over reliance on transmissive pedagogies, and approaches to content that
fail to engage student interest or establish relevance (Lyons, 2006).
There are different levels at which these concerns have been tackled, in a range of
projects and interventions. The more general concerns relating to the relevance and
adaptability of the schooling system to student needs, have been approached at the level of
school structural arrangements, and the professional relationship of teachers within these
structures (e.g., Hill & Crevola, 1999). Secondly, at both a systemic and school level,
attention has focused on the nature of the curriculum and, in many jurisdictions, on
accountability measures built into it. In science, there has been a tension between these
apparent in curriculum documents and policy. On the one hand there has been a move
towards curricula with embedded standards that prescribe learning outcomes that often
emphasise the structural aspects of science knowledge, and that tend to actively shape the
nature of teachers_ classroom practice towards formal content (e.g., The Victorian
Curriculum and Standards Framework, UK National Curriculum). On the other hand, calls
for a focus on scientific literacy (Goodrum et al., 2001) have promoted a broader
conception of school science that encompasses its multiple interactions with society, and
caters for all students rather than being seen as a front end program for future science
specialists. While these trends are not in direct contradiction, in practice they tend to be
interpreted as the province of opposing camps in the science curriculum debate.
The third level at which concerns about engagement and learning have been tackled is at
the level of classroom practice; the beliefs and practices of the teacher. The teacher is
arguably the most important element influencing student attitudinal and conceptual
outcomes (Goodrum et al., 2001). Studies have aimed to identify the important
determinants of effective classroom teaching and learning, in terms of teacher knowledge
(Shulman, 1986), teacher classroom practices (Hall & Hord, 2001; Penick & Yager, 1983;
Tobin & Fraser, 1988; Treagust, 1991), classroom environment factors (Fraser & Treagust,
1986), or more general formulations that include teacher orientation and beliefs (Goodrum
et al., 2001; Murphy, Davidson, Qualter, Simon, & Watt, 2001; Osborne, Simon, & Collins,
2003; Tytler, Waldrip, & Griffiths, 2004). There is a substantial literature on teacher
development and change (Goldsmith & Schifter, 1997; Guskey & Huberman, 1995) that is
associated with this focus on teacher practice, addressing both the nature of teacher
development, and the effectiveness of different methods that aim at improvement or
transformation.

Teacher Development Models

In science, professional development of teachers most often occurs through the medium of
workshops and conferences that focus on particular elements of practice, classroom
activities and ideas, and skills and content knowledge. While this short term ‘skills and
Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216 191

knowledge’ approach can be valuable and efficient in disseminating information and ideas
it has been shown to be quite ineffective in challenging and supporting more fundamental
aspects of teaching practice and beliefs practices (Owen et al., 1987; Carrick, 1989, cited in
Webb, 1993; Hoban, 1992). The ineffectiveness of the approach is related to the lack of
connection with school priorities or the direct needs and concerns of participants, and the
lack of long term and systematic planning (Webb, 1993). Interview based studies (Loughran
& Ingvarson, 1993; Paige, 1994) indicate that both primary and secondary teachers of
science identify longer term professional development as being uniquely significant in
changing their professional practice. There is thus almost universal agreement amongst
science education researchers that long term professional development, sensitive to the
needs of teachers and schools, is necessary to support significant teacher development.
There is a need, if we are to transform science teaching and learning at a deeper level in
response to the major concerns described above, to conceive of teacher development in a
more complex way, focused on fundamental aspects of teacher beliefs and practice, and
embedded within transformative notions of professionalism and schooling.
Recently, a number of system initiated projects in Australia have approached the
problem in just this way, embedding teacher professional development within a school
context and paying attention to the different layers through which teachers relate to
students, colleagues, school leadership and the community. In Victoria, the Hill and Crevola
design elements (Hill & Crevola, 1999) have been used in the Early Years Literacy Project,
and the Middle Years Research and Development Project, as a way of conceptualising the
different elements of schooling that interact in the change process. The New Basics /
Productive Pedagogies initiative in Queensland http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/new
basics/html/pedagogies/pedagog.html) is also an attempt to bring together multiple
elements (the teacher and the classroom, leadership, and assessment) in the change process
(Luke et al., 2003). The New Essential Learnings project in Tasmania http://www.
education.tas.gov.au/ocll) similarly has a broad focus. In terms of intended student
outcomes, each of these projects focuses on engagement with schooling and learning, the
promotion of meaningful learning, and higher order thinking.
Many writers (e.g., Hargreaves, 1994; Hall & Hord, 2001) have emphasised that change
requires of teachers that they ground new ideas in their own personal experience. Joyce and
Showers (1995), drawing on research from a large number of studies, argue strongly for the
need to site professional development within the school context. They discuss professional
development within a framework of cultural change, and argue the need for social support
as teachers practice strategies that are new to their repertoire or implement the difficult areas
of a curriculum change. Contemporary large-scale reform projects in a number of countries
have tended to incorporate these principles (Beeth et al., 2003).
To improve teaching and learning in schools, on a large scale basis, it is necessary to
adopt a model that is sensitive to the structures within which teachers and schools work,
that is grounded in a coherent view of teacher learning and teacher professionalism, and that
is based on a coherent and explicit vision of teaching and learning and wider purposes of
schooling.
The structures that need to be acknowledged by any model, if it is to be effective,
include policy frameworks and charters, organisational frameworks, the school and
community culture within which teachers and students sit, and the cultures of subjects
and other professional groupings within the school. Without attention to these multiple
levels at which students, teachers and the school community interact, innovation and
change runs the risk of being surface deep.
192 Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

School Innovation in Science: The SI Model

The Science in Schools Research Project has been a major initiative funded by the Victorian
Department of Education and Training, and managed by a team based at Deakin University.
The Project over three years developed an approach to improving teaching and learning in
science that is applicable to improvement in subject based teaching and learning more
generally. The project worked with more than 200 schools to develop, refine and validate
the approach, which is now being used more widely as ‘School Innovation in Science
(SIS).’ The impact of SIS in the participating schools has been extensively researched. It
has led to significant changes in many if not most of these schools.
The project in its first year developed a vision of effective teaching and learning in science
(the SIS Components) which lie at the centre of the innovation, and an approach to change
(the SIS Strategy) based on strategic planning by the science team in the school. Over the
next three years, the approach was expanded, refined and evaluated using a variety of
research methodologies and data sources, and the theoretical underpinnings clarified. The
approach is now expanding into more schools, and based on the experience of SIS schools, a
number of whom have used SIS to focus on teaching and learning more generally, or have
transferred the strategy across to other subject areas, is being looked upon as a means by
which schools can improve their teaching and learning more generally. It is envisaged
therefore that the School Innovation (SI) model has wider applicability to change across all
key learning areas. The model is currently being expanded to support schools improve their
mathematics and technology teaching and learning, and also, in a separate initiative, teaching
and learning across the P-12 years generally. This paper describes the essential elements of SI
and its effectiveness in initiating and supporting change, drawing, in the discussion, on
research from the SIS research project in which it was developed and validated.
The SI model focuses centrally on the teacher as the primary agent influencing student
learning and attitudes. Of course, the teacher, particularly in a process of change, sits in a
complex relation with different elements of the school including the science team culture
and wider school and community processes. The model has three basic elements:
1. A core vision of teaching and learning, in a form that is generative, and sufficiently
explicit to encourage and support teachers to critically reflect on their practice;
2. A strategic planning process that acknowledges the way teachers learn, and relate
professionally within teaching and learning teams; and
3. Support structures which operate at different levels designed to challenge and support
teachers and science teams in a multilayered change process. This support includes
detailed advice on science team supporting actions.
Figure 1 represents these different elements as they impact on teacher and school
practice, and through these, student outcomes.
Each of these elements has been developed and refined based on research within the
project. The documentation and structures surrounding each element is extensive, much of
it contained in the SIS Handbook and associated documents.
As discussed above, the model is consistent with research on teacher learning that
emphasises the need for teacher ownership of change, and the need to set change within the
context of the school and team culture including values and beliefs. The SI model has a
number of similarities with the Project for the Enhancement of Effective Learning (PEEL)
(Baird & Mitchell, 1986; Baird & Northfield, 1992; Mitchell, 2000) which has had
prominence in Victoria and internationally. PEEL involves school based professional
Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216 193

Support structures
Network and consultant support

Resource support
Teaching and
Professional development
learning core vision
Review and monitoring instruments

The SIS Components

1. Engagement
Strategic planning process Innovation
2. Understanding

3. Student lives Auditing Science in the school Improving team processes

4. Differentiation Developing an action plan Improving pedagogy

5. Assessment Implementing innovation Curriculum innovation

6. Nature of science

7. Community

8. ICT

Supporting actions
Organisational support
Improving
Professional learning support Student
Outcomes
Supporting individuals and groups
Page 36
Monitoring, reporting and disseminating

Figure 1 The school innovation model for improving teaching and learning in science

learning using a strategic process, and with a strong basis in student learning strategies and
metacognition (White & Gunstone, 1989). However, PEEL operates with volunteer groups
of teachers within schools, and does not place the same demands and expectations on
science teams and school commitment, as does SIS. At the other extreme, Australian
system change projects such as Primary Investigations or the more recent Primary
Connections (Australian Academy of Science, 2005), while they include professional
collaborative processes, are largely based on the production of curriculum units that
exemplify the pedagogical innovations being promoted. The argument is that teachers, if
they are to embrace change, need resource support to illustrate novel activities and
strategies. The question thus arises as to the extent to which a model such as SI can promote
significant change in teacher and school practice, in the absence of structured curriculum
materials.

Research Questions and Methods

This paper will discuss the nature, issues with, and perceived effectiveness of various
elements of the model, and outline the major types of outcome in school and teacher
practice during the project. The research questions are:
– How successful was the model as a trigger for change and innovation (in teaching and
learning practice, curriculum innovation, and science team processes)?
– What support elements within the model are important for supporting innovation in
school and teacher practice?
– What differences occurred in the change process and outcomes, in primary compared to
secondary schools?
194 Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

During the project the SIS processes were extensively researched on an ongoing basis in
order to adjust and refine the support and advice given to schools and teachers, and to refine
the teaching and learning framework and the SIS strategy. To consider these research
questions, this paper will draw on parts of a large data set generated in the mature stage of
the project, when processes had been somewhat refined. The research instruments include
questionnaires given to SIS coordinators, teachers and principals, field notes taken by
consultants during visits and network meetings, interviews with coordinators and some
principals, school reports, and data from an interview process which mapped changes in
teacher classroom practice. Student outcomes were extensively researched using achieve-
ment and attitude tests and questionnaires, but will not be dealt with in this paper.
The instrument mainly drawn on in this paper was a questionnaire given to SIS
Coordinators in new schools in the middle of the year, once they had been through an action
planning cycle, asking them to rank the various aspects of the Strategy using a scoring
system using the scale 1 (not very useful), 2 (somewhat useful), 3 (very useful) to 4 (of
critical importance). Comments on each aspect were also sought, and the responses
recorded. The questionnaire had been developed and trialed in 2000 and refined following
coordinator feedback, and discussion within the team. The top rating ‘of critical importance’
was intended to allow coordinators to identify those aspects of the model that went beyond
usefulness and were central to the operation of the project, and the associated comments
tended to confirm it had been interpreted in this way. Figures 2 and 3 are based on the 2002
version of this instrument. Responses of phase 3 schools who were new to the project in
this third year are mainly used, but in some cases responses from phases 1 and 2 schools are
used where the experience of one or two years in the project is relevant.

Questionnaire 2002: SIS Components and

Not very useful action planning
Somewhat useful
Very useful Profile of levels of usefulness
Of critical importance 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SiS Components Prim (3.4)

SiS Components Sec (3.5)
Component map Prim (3.1)
Component map Sec (3.2)
Student perceptions survey Prim (2.6)
Student perceptions survey (2.6)
Feature

Curriculum audit Prim(3.3)

Curriculum audit Sec (2.7)
Team practices audit Prim (2.9)
Team practices audit Sec (2.8)
Initial staff meetings Prim (3.4)
Initial staff meetings Sec (3.4)
Action planning Prim (3.6)
Action planning Sec (3.5)

Figure 2 Perceived usefulness of SIS components and audit instruments for first year schools. (Nprim = 58,
Nsec = 36. The mean score/4 is given in brackets)
Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216 195

Not very useful Questionnaire 2002: Support structures

Somewhat useful
Very useful
Of critical importance Profile of levels of usefulness
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Leading change workshop Prim (3.5)

Leading change workshop Sec (3.4)

Feature

Consultant support Prim (3.7)

Consultant support Sec (3.6)

Regional support meetings and contacts Prim (3.3)

Regional support meetings and contacts Sec (3.1)

SIS Handbook Prim (3.2)

SIS Handbook Sec (3.2)

Figure 3 Perceived importance of support structures for first year schools. (Nprim = 58, Nsec = 36. The mean
score/4 is given in brackets)

Findings Concerning Core Elements of the School Innovation Model

The core elements of the SI model are, as described above, the teaching and learning
framework which sets the direction for school initiatives, the strategic process through
which the science team works, and the support structures which surround the work of the
science team. Each element of the model is discussed below, drawing on the experience of
the project team and research findings. The discussion will mainly draw on the responses of
coordinators from the Strategy questionnaire, but these are supplemented with evidence
from other sources as appropriate, to triangulate the findings and to add contextual details
and depth. For each element of the model, the breakdown of responses is given, and the
main themes that emerged in the comments is encapsulated in a brief description, supported
by a selection of quotations that illustrate the range.

A Framework for Describing Effective Teaching and Learning - the SIS Components

In a school innovation project that gives schools the responsibility of charting directions
appropriate to their situation, it is critical that at the centre of the project lies a strong vision
of teaching and learning. The nature of the framework by which this happens is also
critical. For SIS it needed to:
– be sufficiently clear and unambiguous to provide a direction for teachers and schools to
question their current practice and focus their initiatives,
– focus on teaching and learning and support reflection on learning issues,
– cover a variety of aspects of science in schools, extending beyond a narrow
conceptual learning focus for instance, and encompassing school and community
links,
196 Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

– be framed in a way that gave due weight to students_ learning needs and behaviours as
well as teacher practice, and
– support monitoring (including self monitoring) of teacher classroom practice.
The SIS Components of effective teaching and learning were influenced by the notion of
Innovation Configuration Maps (Hall & Hord, 2001). They were developed and validated
using interviews with 19 teachers of science identified by a range of measures as being
particularly effective classroom practitioners. More complete details of the development
process are described by Tytler (2003) and Tytler et al. (2004), and the validation process
by Tytler (2001). The SIS Components are:
1. Students are encouraged to actively engage with ideas and evidence;
2. Students are challenged to develop meaningful understandings;
3. Science is linked with students_ lives and interests;
4. Students_ individual learning needs and preferences are catered for;
5. Assessment is embedded within the science learning strategy;
6. The nature of science is represented in its different aspects;
7. The classroom is linked with the broader community; and
8. Learning technologies are exploited for their learning potentialities.
The Components thus deal with a variety of aspects of teaching and learning including
assessment, the nature of science being portrayed, and community links. They encompass
but move beyond classroom pedagogy. They encompass a focus on student conceptual
understanding and higher order thinking, as exemplified by PEEL (Baird & Northfield,
1992) but also extend to considerations of the personal context of science, the Nature of
Science, science investigative processes, and the communal nature of learning.
In the project, the Components are supported by documentation which includes descrip-
tions of each Component and subcomponent (each has between 1 and 3 subcomponents),
examples of classroom strategies that do, and do not exemplify each, and links to the
research literature that illustrate related ideas (such as the link between the nature of science,
and scientific literacy notions).

Monitoring teacher classroom practice

Associated with the SIS Components, a Component mapping process was developed which
involves an interview with each teacher by the SIS Coordinator, in which the teacher
identifies the extent to which their practice corresponds to each component, on a scale of
four. The role of the coordinator is to challenge and clarify the nature of each teacher_s
practice, and discuss where they would like to put their focus, during the project. The
interview thus serves a dual purpose: to set up a discussion about teaching and learning and
establish a common language, and to provide a means whereby teachers and the coordinator
could monitor change.
Both the Components and the Component mapping have been perceived as central to the
innovation process. Coordinators valued the process for the direction it gave to the project:
The teaching and learning review exercise ... identified teacher strengths and areas that
they would like to improve on ... allowed teachers to identify and be open about their
limitations and expertise ... encouraged a more thoughtful approach to teaching and
learning ... encouraged the development of a shared vision of science (Field notes
from a review meeting of SIS Coordinators at the end of the first year)
Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216 197

The few negative comments related to the time taken in interviews, and the lack of
honesty of some teachers. In an independent audit of all schools, conducted in the third
year, coordinators reported that they considered 87% of scores to be valid, with equal
numbers of the remaining 13% over and underscoring their practice.
Responses to the Strategy questionnaire given to phase 3 coordinators during their first
year of the project in 2002 confirmed this view. Figure 2 shows almost 90% of coordinators
rating the Components as ‘very useful’ or ‘critically important,’ and the Component
mapping similarly highly regarded. Comments on the Components were overwhelmingly
positive, tending to emphasise their centrality in providing a focus for discussion and
planning of aims, curriculum initiatives, and professional development. A number of
teachers commented on their clarity and recognisability in terms of good practice in any
subject. There was some mention of the fact that it took time and discussion to understand
their real import, and this was consistent with observations and field notes taken during
consultant visits and workshops. Some teachers (and indeed coordinators) initially took a
superficial view of the meaning of the Components, but as the project unfolded
coordinators reported an increasing recognition of the pedagogical challenge implicit in
them. The SIS Components thus performed an important role in challenging teachers to
work outside their standard practice.

They were the standards against which we judged our work – they give us ideas about
good practice
Unpacking the components and reviewing their meaning in practice is essential.
Focused discussions and initiatives including development of action plan. Remind us
to teach the full breadth of science skills etc.
Took a while to fully understand them, but they are important in all facets of teaching.
The Component mapping responses were more mixed. The majority of comments
related to the insights the process provided both for the coordinator and the teacher, and the
platform provided for charting direction. There were a number of comments however about
the time consuming nature of the process, and some concern about its validity, mirroring
comments from the first year. There was some comment on the difficulty of shifting the
perceptions of teachers entrenched in particular practices. However, the overwhelming
experience within the project was that change was possible given time and patience and the
establishment of a group ethos.

Possibly one of the key tools in the development of change as far as supporting
documentation from the SIS project has been the Component Map. It has provided a
reference point in which authentic science activities and teaching styles could be
gauged ...
Interviews with teachers gave me a huge insight into their teaching
Useful because it gave staff the opportunity to reflect on their practice as well as
thinking about the future change
A good way of identifying present situation and determining needs – but it takes too
long!
Too subjective. If a staff member is ‘blind’ then this won_t unblind them.
198 Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

The Component mapping thus served an important purpose, as planned, in establishing

the nature of the innovation and providing an impetus for the strategic planning process and
a standard by which new practices could be judged. It has also allowed the tracking of
changes in teacher practice, and alignment of teacher practice with student achievement and
attitudes (Tytler, Sharpley, & Tsiatsias, 2001; SIS Project Team, 2003).

The SIS Strategic Planning Process

A central principle of the School Innovation approach is that school change must be
grounded in local needs and conditions, and that ownership of the change process is
critically important if we are to have significant, embedded improvement in teaching and
learning. Hence, the SIS Strategy is based on an action planning process whereby schools
audit and review their practices, and out of this develop an action plan which is flexible
and viewed as always in process. The other pillar on which the Strategy rests is that the
change process must involve serious attention to the way teachers relate professionally
and support each other to develop a shared vision of the purposes and processes of
teaching and learning in science. For secondary teachers in SIS this was particularly
remarked upon. When teachers were asked in a questionnaire to identify major changes
occurring in the science area as a result of the SIS project, almost half the comments of
secondary teachers related to improved team processes (sharing, commitment, commu-
nication, sense of direction, and mutual support). Primary teachers also rated this aspect
of the change important. A large part of the change agenda in SI is to challenge the
behaviour and presumptions of teachers as to their professional roles vis a vis their
colleagues.
The strategic planning process begins with a series of auditing instruments, followed by
team meetings to review these results, propose initiatives, and then to develop an action
plan in a staged series of meetings. The handbook contains detailed advice on the
development of an action plan, including questions to frame the discussions around, and
examples of developed action plans. Phase 3 and subsequent schools also had access to the
experience of phases 1 and 2 schools.
The auditing process includes the component mapping described above, an audit of
science team processes, a curriculum audit, and a student survey probing student
perceptions of the subject and how they best learn. Figure 2 shows coordinator judgments
concerning each of these instruments. Schools valued the different elements to varying
degrees, but each auditing process was found very valuable by some schools. For instance,
the student survey was the least valued instrument but some schools used it very effectively
to raise questions about practice. There were some doubts about the validity of student
opinion or student ability to respond to questions about teaching and learning, but also
some strong opinion about the need to include student voice in the audit process.

Interesting results and helpful in deciding the focus of our action plan.
Vital to see how students felt about science
Took time, but worth the effort to have a graph for each classes learning preferences.
Good tool for comparisons
There was concern about the students_ perceptions and reality (as we saw it).
Again, very useful – but we need perhaps to ‘unpack’ the data by say interviewing
focus groups of students
Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216 199

Figure 2 shows a similar pattern of response for primary and secondary schools on each
item except for the curriculum audit item. Here, primary schools found the curriculum and
resources audit useful since in many cases they used the project to raise the profile of
science in the school (Tytler & Waldrip, 2002) and introduce more science into the
curriculum (Tytler & Griffiths, 2003). This also involved resource purchase and
management. Secondary school coordinators found the audit useful but were more inclined
to caste it as part of a regular process.

What really stands out in Figure 2 is the value given to the staff meetings and the action
planning process generally. For the initial staff meetings, most comments related to the
importance of these for encouraging the commitment of staff to the project, and establishing
a team ethos and direction, as the basis for cooperative action.
Very productive. We learnt much about each other_s science practice.
Difficult, but critical for team ownership
What it was as a team we were going to achieve. This had to be thrashed out before
we went any further.
Important to get all staff on board so that people realise it_s here and happening.
I moved too fast, left people behind and did not realise it. I have been playing catch up
ever since.

In commenting on the action planning process (which was overwhelmingly seen as very
or critically important) coordinators described a variety of working arrangements; whole
science staff planning, small groups working independently and coming together, action
plans written by the coordinator and then discussed and ratified by the science team, whole
day workshops supported by the principal, series of meetings, in school and in outside
locations. In a number of cases the critical support of a consultant was mentioned. There
was a sense in the comments, of coordinators having to learn new ways of acting and
leading, which is consistent with experience from network meetings and consultant
discussions. The support of coordinators in learning to lead change became a central part of
the project training, and this is described in the next section. Phase 3 coordinator comments
on the action planning included:
Listing all we wanted to do sounded daunting but when we drafted did not seem
impossible

Time very necessary for team to establish team spirit and common direction
Initially I was quite stressed as it seemed an overwhelming process, but I eventually
realised with Wendy (consultant)_s fantastic support and guidance, that I delegated
more staff input into the drafting process. The principal and school bursar were
fantastic.
Took me some time to work out what to do exactly and to understand that it is a very
individual school thing as was confirmed at the regional meeting.

This was a lot of work and it was difficult to know where to start and how to present
it. I believe that some of our initiatives will change next year as we refine our ideas of
what our school needs.
200 Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

A lot of work, but with the formation of a core group of teachers this was made a lot
easier.

The themes emerging in these comments included the daunting nature of the task and the
need to break it down, enlist support to make it manageable. There was a strong sense of
the need for team ownership and the need for the team to bind. Figure 2 gives results for the
phase 3 schools, who had been through the process for the first time. The comments of
phases 1 and 2 coordinators were more detailed, reflecting the fact they were now
experienced action planners, and had gone through a process of reviewing and updating the
action plan. There is a sense in their comments overall that the action plan was considered
the central tool in the project, and that its review and refinement was a key responsibility
of the science team for the new year. Generally, they described the refining and simplifying
of the action plan so as not to take on too much and achieve a manageable task. Some
described the review alongside the need to induct new staff into the project. Many
comments referred to the use of evidence in planning for change, supporting the notion of
action planning as a research based change process.

This was done by the science team together as a whole group, then in smaller groups.
This year we saw that we had actually achieved quite a few of our aims which was a
boost to morale. We also looked at simplifying and redirecting our plan.
We_d like to consider the action plan as a continually evolving document.
Considerations such as grade structure, excursion opportunities, government grants,
school commitments, all impact on what can be achieved in a year. As a guide it_s
fantastic.
By having (consultant) as a resource and aide – we have been able to bounce off her
ideas – which have helped refine and develop our action plan. The Science Faculty seem
to be taking a bigger interest thus they are also coming up with ideas and focus areas.
With the changing of SIS coordinators at the start of 2002 it was important to recap
the actions which had been set for the previous year and make allowances for the
change in staffing profile. It has been a process of continued refinement as we learn.
We did this via a BGrouputer” and De Bono_s Six hats model to evaluate the project in
2001 and set priorities in 2002.
We knew from events last year what areas of the action plan were useful and
successful. New staff have brought in new ideas to add to current practices.
For the past two years I have used the first action plan I did to build on. Any initiatives
that were incomplete or ongoing were included in the action plan for a further year
and I also included any new initiatives that were seen as necessary
Constant monitoring of our progress towards achieving goals has shown progress
made. We are looking to add new goals and broaden the action plan during this
semester to ensure on-going improvement in the delivery of a science program
The overwhelming feeling is one of continuous refinement of direction with the action
planning acting as a focus for staff discussion of priorities and sharing of ideas. There is a
sense also of coordinators growing in their role in leading change, and adapting the action
planning process to the circumstances of the school and their own operating style.
Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216 201

Leadership

As the project progressed, the role of the SIS Coordinator in supporting teachers and
generating change became increasingly conceived of in terms of leadership. The
leadership of the principal also came to be seen as being of critical importance. In focus
group meetings of consultants in the second and third years of the project, discussing
factors affecting the relative success of schools in achieving significant change, the
leadership issue become clear. Arising out of a series of interviews with selected SIS
Coordinators over the first two years, questionnaire returns, journal entries, and a focus
group discussion within the SIS team specifically attending to the role of the Coordinator,
advice was generated concerning effective ways of working with teachers in the change
process, and of generating and maintaining impetus in the project more generally. This
advice became more detailed and more targeted over time, delivered through the support
manual, through Coordinator workshops and through consultant advice. These coalesced
over the third year into a ‘Leading Change’ program for Coordinators that now acts as a
centre piece for the SIS initiative. This workshop was highly valued by coordinators
(Figure 3).
Being an effective Coordinator in a process of change involved a number of dimensions,
which framed the advice, and became embedded in the SIS Strategy; a) working with teachers
at the team, unit planning, and individual levels, b) managing the time scale of the change
effectively so that there was a balance between support and challenge, c) dealing at a personal
level with teachers with different views concerning the change process, and d) operating
effectively within the political environment of the school (Tytler & Conley, 2003).

Support Structures in the SI Model

The twin principles of challenge and support shape the provision of infrastructure support
for schools in the SI Model. Left to their own devices, schools will not necessarily question
basic beliefs and commitments nor embark on initiatives that challenge their normal science
teaching and learning. Outside intervention, encouragement and sharing of ideas can
provide such challenge. On the other hand, schools need support if they are to choose to
move into unknown waters, and need support for the many issues that arise in the change
process. Such challenge and support must be provided at multiple levels.
In the same questionnaire of SIS Coordinators described above, their evaluation of the
different elements of support was sought, resulting in the data presented in Figure 3.

Consultant and network support

In the SIS research phase, each region was managed by a project officer working with a
‘core team’ who visited schools, maintained email and phone contact, and organised
regional workshops. By the third year each region had 20–30 schools working with the
project. It was clear from discussions within the consultant group and with coordinators
in regional workshops, and from the coordinator questionnaire that this support was
critical in developing and maintaining momentum. It is not possible for schools to
‘bootstrap’ their way into change given the wide range of systemic factors ranged against
this, and the need for outside personal intervention was clear. Consultants and
occasionally other project personnel took on multiple roles including; suggesting ideas
and contacts, working with groups of staff in planning meetings, being a sympathetic
202 Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

ear and a confirming presence when the SIS Coordinator had doubts, questioning
progress and challenging the depth of reflection evidenced in the action plan, and
lobbying the principal for support.
The importance of the role of the consultant can be seen in Figure 3 with more than 70%
of coordinators rating consultant support as critically important. Comments gave a sense of
valuing of on the ground support through visits and phone or email contact. Accessibility,
friendliness, understanding and provision of ideas were most often mentioned.
We feel very supported in this research project (a real ‘can do_ team)
E-mail communication has been most effective. Responses to questions and issues
have been prompt and helpful. Our Regional SIS Consultant has been able to provide
excellent feedback and support. Teachers have commented on the high standard of
professionalism.
Fantastic! So many ideas! Always ready with assistance.
Very necessary and has been good for keeping ‘on track’ and reinforcement of heading
in the right direction.
Very useful to have access to people with knowledge when experiencing problems or
concerns.
There was some comment from phases 1 and 2 coordinators concerning diminishing
frequency of visits, and this relates partly to more schools coming into the project, and
partly to project officers being captured to perform other tasks as regional priorities shifted.
There was also a sense in some comments of the need for consultant support being greatest
in the first year, and this is certainly consistent with data from field notes and workshops.
There were also separate issues felt by rural school clusters in terms of frequency and ease
of consultant access.
In a small project associated with SIS, five consultants worked more closely with groups
of teachers in individual schools to help them plan and assess learning sequences. It was clear
during this process that individual help and mentoring were extremely effective in supporting
change in teachers_ knowledge, beliefs and practices (consistent with Thomas & McRobbie,
2002). Without this level of support it seemed likely that the depth of reflection and change
was varying considerably from teacher to teacher even though most were committed to the
project. The implication for the SI Model is that it is important to provide support at the
‘ground level’ of teachers planning in groups, and operating in classrooms, and that
coordinators and consultants are critical elements in this process.
The other aspect of the consultants_ role was to organise regional workshops for schools
to share ideas about the change process and about initiatives, or to discuss a PARTICULAR
strategy such as the use of ICT. Analysis of school end of year reports, as well as comments
from the coordinator questionnaire (see Figure 3 for judgments of value) indicated that
these workshops were particularly valued for the opportunity to share ideas with other
schools, and receive confirmation about direction and actions. There was less convincing
evidence that these network workshops were a real ‘engine room’ of change, and their
effectiveness in providing real support seemed to vary depending on the way they were
organised. In regions where they were more frequent and more focused on issues, reports
were more positive concerning their effects. Distance was an issue in terms of attendance,
as was the different needs of primary and secondary schools. Initially in the first year of the
project, schools were grouped into clusters with one secondary school working with two to
Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216 203

three primary schools. In some cases this was a generative arrangement, but in other cases
the conversations were so different, given the very different teaching and learning issues
and structural arrangements faced by primary and secondary teachers, that enforcing a
group process impeded the depth of change.

Training and materials

As part of the need to provide challenge and support at multiple levels in the school
(coordinators, science teams, teachers in classrooms) SIS has developed materials and
programs to clarify for schools the nature of the core vision and the process of change,
providing advice, support and exemplars. The materials are mainly associated with two
professional development/training programs developed within SIS; one for SIS Coordinators
focusing on leadership and working with teachers in the change process, the other for school
science teams focusing on explicating the SIS Components of effective teaching and learning.
The Leading Change program consists of a two-plus-one day workshop for SIS
Coordinators aimed at an understanding of the nature of the model and the view of school
and teacher change underpinning it, and the actions they need to take to manage it in their
school. Issues of leadership, and working with teachers, are central to the program. Advice
on this has been generated through researching the experience of successful SIS
Coordinators, and accessing advice by leadership consultants. The program consists of
two days at the beginning, and one day at the stage when schools have undergone the audit
process and are generating and refining their action plan. School principals attend part of
the latter workshop. Again, the duality of challenge and support is embedded in the
program. The program, and the handbook supporting it, have been strongly endorsed by
coordinators (Figure 3). It was developed following clear indications that many
coordinators had not previously dealt with leadership issues, and were experiencing
difficulties with the demands of leading a change project. Attention to and support for
effective leadership arose out of the early experience in the SIS project. The SI Model asks
of many science teams that they change the way they relate professionally, and this puts
strong demands on collegiality and leadership.
The SIS Professional Development program consists of four 2-h modules taken within
schools, that focus on explicating the SIS Components using activities and discussion. Key
features of the modules are their strong focus on teaching and learning, their inclusion of
cases that support teachers to reflect on and modify their own curriculum and classroom
practice, and the expectation that teachers will work together to trial ideas and report
progress at subsequent workshops. The program exemplifies aspects of the action planning
process and has been well received.
Resources for students have not been generated within SIS. There are many sources of
classroom activities and strategies that teachers can draw on, that are consistent with SIS, and
the project website (no longer maintained) carried stories of school initiatives that exemplify
effective practice. Part of the consultants_ role was to advise schools about appropriate
resources. As schools moved toward implementation of their action plan, they sometimes had
difficulty locating appropriate curriculum materials that would support their initiatives.

Supporting Actions by the School and Science Team

The SI model assumes that change must be embedded in, and is ultimately the
responsibility of, the whole school community. Part of the advice given to SIS Coordinators
204 Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

relates to the management and promotion of the project in the wider school community.
Advice is given concerning the set of supporting actions that have been found important for
the science team to pay attention to. These are; arranging organizational support and
commitment, managing professional development, working with individuals and groups,
monitoring and evaluating the outcomes of the project, and reporting and disseminating
information about project successes. Items in school newsletters, local newspapers, family
science evenings or science clubs, and reports at staff meetings were effective strategies for
generating a feeling of success within the science team and the school community more
widely (SIS Project Team, 2003, based on school reports, questionnaires and field notes).
The need for support and recognition across the school is a crucial element that must be
in place. Of the factors found to affect the degree of success of the project in schools (see
Tytler & Waldrip, 2002), commitment to the project by the principal and leadership team
was critical. Commitment by the school to provide time for planning, and for supporting the
project in both practical and principled ways, was a condition for entry into SIS, and in
many schools the leadership team was quite strategic in its support. Where this support did
not occur, the project tended to languish. In the coordinator questionnaire, primary
coordinators were more likely to have perceived the helpfulness of involvement, advice and
support from the principal. Fifty-four percent rated this as critically important to the project
compared to 21% for secondary coordinators, probably reflecting the difference in school
size and the difficulty for secondary school principals to maintain direct contact with
teaching and learning initiatives. Secondary coordinator comments were generally positive
and appreciative of principal and management team support, but some referred to them as
not directly involved and “happy if we’re doing the work.”
A large part of the support within the SI Model must come from the SIS Coordinator and
science team themselves. Individuals within the science team provide critical support, and
the recognition of expertise and knowledge of teachers is part of the strategy by which the
Coordinator and Science Team forge new understandings and gain confidence. The impor-
tance of the coordinator_s leadership in this process has been discussed above, and the
importance of the Science Team forging a coherent vision and ways of working is implicit
in coordinator responses to the action planning questions.
Another critical factor in the change process was the provision of time for teachers to
meet and to plan and for coordinators to provide appropriate support.. Time is important for
practical reasons, but also because it is seen by teachers as an expression of valuing of their
time and professional commitment. Each year within SIS the time release provided by
project resources diminished, with schools making this up to some extent with their own
resources, at what was judged to be a sustainable level.

Outcomes: Has SIS Resulted in Substantial Change?

The evidence and discussion in this paper to this point has concerned issues and judgments
concerning the different features of the model. At another level, however, the features of the
SI model need to be judged against the way schools developed and changed their practice
over the project. The model was developed to focus on three distinct aspects of school
innovation (Figure 1); curriculum innovation, team processes, and classroom teaching and
learning. In this section these will be discussed in turn, and related to aspects of the model.
Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216 205

Curriculum Innovation

One of the central planks of the SI Model is an acknowledgment that school innovation in
science needs to be responsive to local context. Thus, we would hope that, rather than all
schools adopting similar curricula or classroom activities, we would see evidence of a
variety of initiatives that represented the particular needs and conditions of schools, some of
which were transformative in character.
Arising out of school reports, workshop presentations and field notes taken during visits
to schools and interviews with coordinators, many case stories of initiatives and change
issues have been generated that illustrate the richness and variety of experiences
encouraged by this approach, as well as some of the difficulties associated with
implementing change. Insight into the process of planning and implementing initiatives
have come from survey instruments such as school reports and coordinator questionnaires.
The initiatives can be broken into four broad types, developed initially by a content analysis
of initiatives reported in coordinator questionnaires.

Teaching and learning initiatives

Examples of teaching and learning innovations include:

– catering for individual learning styles by using a greater range of teaching

strategies
– developing more interesting and student-centred units of work and greater numbers of
‘hands-on’ activities to improve student engagement and motivation.
– developing more investigative approaches to practical work and experimentation.
– promoting the use of higher order thinking through open-ended and problem solving
tasks
– embedding activities in units and sequences that “ relate science to the real world,
profile the work of scientists,” and “increasing awareness of the role of modern science
in the community.”

Curriculum planning and organisation initiatives

For primary schools the development of many science-based units was considered to be a
task needing immediate attention, especially for those addressing the science curriculum
strands that had been previously neglected, such as the physical and chemical sciences.
Many secondary schools focused on improving the documentation of teaching sequences
and activities, including use of the school intranet. Team planning became a key focus for
teachers to develop a common view of curriculum, teaching and learning strategies, and
review processes.

Community initiatives

Community based initiatives became increasingly common over the three years of SIS
(Gough & Sharpley, 2002; SIS Project Team, 2003; Tytler & Nakos, 2003), encouraged by
SIS Component 7. Community links focused on creating science learning and experiences
beyond the classroom including the school, local area, regional, state and global
communities. Community partnerships involved teachers and students working in
206 Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

association with local industry, in parks, on excursions or programs of visits, or the

expertise of scientists, who in many cases were parents or relatives of the students.
Many schools across the state became involved in environmental projects in their local
areas. For example, at one secondary school in a regional city, students assisted the regional
park ranger to design experiments to control the spread of Boneseed. Students involved in
the program considered the ranger/scientist to be ‘real cool’, while at the same time
developing a knowledge and appreciation of the environment based on first-hand
experience. In another case, a country primary school worked in a new local wetlands
park, where the aim is to restore the environmental conditions to those similar to prior to
European settlement. Students worked as scientists, monitoring living things including
plants, macro invertebrates, frogs and birds as they became established in the new wetlands.
Another country secondary school was proactive in developing a partnership with their
local wine industry. Year 10 students became involved in wine production process in the
industry, including plant propagation, and chemical applications such as fermentation,
microbiology, soil analysis and weather studies. A number of SIS schools received national
awards for initiatives of this type.

Information and communications technologies (ICT)

ICT development was a common inclusion in action plans. Examples of initiatives included
embedding ICT during unit planning processes, and supporting students in various ways to
develop their confidence and ICT skills. Activities were planned for students to collect and
analyse data using data loggers and Excel, often involving tasks conducted outside the
classroom. To enhance science learning, both primary and secondary students commonly
used peripherals such as digital cameras, computer microscopes and video cameras.
Professional development activities were organised focusing on a variety of ICT skills.
Thus, the freedom SIS offered to schools to focus on issues of local concern and to
develop local solutions, was taken up and led to an impressive range of initiatives beyond
those that would have occurred within a more scripted curriculum framework. There are
many anecdotal stories of teachers being rejuvenated by the opportunity to develop new and
innovative projects and strategies and to share these with colleagues across the region.

Changes in Science Team Processes

As argued at the beginning of this paper, SIS has been premised on the notion that teacher
change can only effectively occur within a changing culture of practice. The SIS Strategy
has at its heart an intention to change the way science teachers relate within a professional
learning team, and develop shared view of the purposes of science in the school and what
constitutes effective teaching and learning. One of the major outcomes of SIS, and one
recognised by principals, coordinators and teachers, has been the improvement in science
team processes, including the promotion of collaboration and the construction of a team
vision as a central part of the change process. For secondary schools in particular this was
often mentioned by coordinators as significant in renewing teacher enthusiasm for their
professional lives.
In the November 2002 questionnaires, SIS Coordinators and teachers were asked to
indicate at which level the science team in the school was operating for each of a number of
operational aspects. They were asked to select from: 1: A low level, 2: A fairly low level, 3:
A moderate level, 4: A high level, 5: A very high level. They were also asked to make
separate judgments about this for the current situation, and the pre Project situation.
Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216 207

SIS coordinator views of science team practices

(N=89)
Prior to project
Post project (after 2-3 yrs) % high or very high level (4 or 5 out of 5)
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Regularly discusses science teaching and

learning issues

Has a shared vision of the purpose and

direction of science in the school
At our school the science team:

Has a shared view of effective classroom

teaching and learning in science

Is focused on improving student learning

outcomes in science

Is committed to ensuring that students find

science interesting and relevant

Has an agreed process for assessment of

student learning in science

Plans together effectively

Support each other in teaching and learning

strategies

Figure 4 Coordinator judgments concerning change in Science team processes

Figure 4 shows the percentage of phases 1 and 2 Coordinators (in schools who had been
two to three years in the project) judging the science team in their school to be operating at a
high or very high level, prior to the Project, and currently. Primary and secondary
coordinator judgments were broadly consistent regarding the current situation, although the
secondary coordinators judged their teams to be coming off a higher pre-project base. The
results from the same item on a teacher survey was consistent with the coordinator
judgments for the current ratings, but they consistently rated the starting point more highly
than the Coordinators. The table shows the quite dramatic changes that SIS Coordinators
believe science in their schools have undergone as a result of their planning and working
together in SIS. The data is broadly consistent with the many stories about change arising
from the project, including the coordinator questionnaire responses discussed in the first part
of this paper, and is consistent with findings from the same instrument given at the end of
2003, for the different cohorts of schools. Especially notable are the very large increases in
the ratings of the team-related items concerning: regular discussion, shared vision, shared
view of effective teaching and learning, planning together, and supporting each other. Also
critically important are the very high ratings for aspects forming part of the objectives of the
Project: the focus on improving learning outcomes, and commitment to ensuring students
find science interesting and relevant. The assessment processes result is also significant but
noticeably lower, and this will be discussed in a later section. These results are indicative of a
strong cultural shift in the way science teams worked together, and the way teachers related
to each other professionally. It showed that the emphasis placed within the SIS Strategy on
the science team as the engine of change was appropriate.
208 Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

The view that teachers of science were operating together more effectively was also
strongly held by principals. Comments such as the following, arising from interviews and
questionnaire responses were not uncommon:
The SIS Project made science teachers question their approaches to teaching and
learning, reflect on practice, and most importantly, work together in teams. (Secondary
principal).

Changes to Teaching and Learning Due to SIS

The teacher is the most significant influence on student learning and achievement
(Goodrum et al., 2001). The teacher operating in the classroom was a prime focus within
SIS, and the success of the project was largely judged in terms of evidence that change had
occurred in teaching and learning processes. There was numerous anecdotal evidence, at
workshops and through journals and reports and consultant observations, that substantial
change was occurring at least in some schools. However, the nature and extent of change
was established using the component mapping process, described above. Validity checks
involved interviews with coordinators (Tytler, 2001) and, on a broader scale, questionnaire
responses for teachers, coordinators and principals.
In the component mapping interviews with coordinators, teachers nominated a position
score out of 4 on each of the eight Components, representing the degree of exemplification
of the component in their teaching and learning practice (see Tytler, 2005). During the
interview the position score was negotiated after detailed discussion of the teacher_s
classroom practice aligned with rubrics representing each of the four positions. Figure 5
represents the overall mean score of teachers on this instrument, across components, over
three years. These figures are generated with different cohorts of teachers, and the figure for
three years is less certain given the smaller number of teachers who were in the project for
that time. A repeat of the analysis with teachers starting one year later, however (yet to be

2.8

2.6

2.4
Mean primary score
Mean secondary score
2.2

2
Beginning After 1 After 2 After 3
of project year years years
Point in Time
Figure 5 Changes in mean Component Map scores over three years
Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216 209

reported on) produced very similar growth curves. Detailed analysis of change in teacher
practice and its effect on student outcomes will be reported separately.
Responses in both coordinator and teacher questionnaires in the second and third years
of the project showed a range of claims of types of change that align with the SIS
Components and also indicate greater confidence, variety and enthusiasm amongst teachers.
Evidence concerning changes in teachers_ classroom practice was also gained indirectly
from school reports, interviews with coordinators and teacher presentations at workshops.

Discussion

The School Innovation model represents a complex and nuanced view of the nature of
change in schools, of teacher learning and development, and of the purposes of teaching
and learning in science. In this discussion firstly the principles underpinning the model are
discussed and linked to the model_s features, then the findings will be discussed,
concerning the effectiveness of the model in promoting improvement.

Principles Embodied Within SIS

There are a number of principles central to the operation and success of SIS.

Acknowledgment of levels within schools

Firstly, its structures recognise the different levels at which teachers, the main agents in
teaching and learning, operate within the school. The commitment and interrelation of the
school community, school leadership, the science team and the teacher in the classroom
have all been researched and theorised within the approach. The SIS Strategy and support
structures operate at all these levels to support and monitor the change process. The
approach goes beyond identifying and promoting these elements within the school that
determine change (e.g., Hill & Crevola, 1999), but has developed an approach and
associated resources and processes which embodies practical action in the pursuit of
change, that acknowledges these elements.

Local ownership and control

Local control and ownership of the change process is central to the SI Model. This is a
critical condition for effective change cited in most teacher change literature (e.g., Guskey
& Huberman, 1995). The Strategy provides a detailed process and structured support for
teachers working together as a team to develop a shared vision of purpose and of teaching
and learning. Local control has allowed many schools to develop innovative programs
based on the needs and resources within their particular communities.

Leadership

The SI Model provides a structure within which Coordinators exercise leadership in

managing the change process. This issue of leadership became increasingly clear over the
210 Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

life of the project, and advice and support on the role, and principles of working with
teachers at different levels were developed and promoted in a handbook, in workshops, and
in a ‘leading change’ program. Coordinators overwhelmingly found the role professionally
rewarding, if complex and challenging. An analysis based on coordinator interviews,
journal records and focus group discussions, identified three types of understanding needed
for displaying effective leadership within SIS; a deep understanding of the teaching and
learning framework, of the needs and strengths of individual teachers within the team, and
of the political process needing to be engaged with in the school to harness support (Tytler
& Conley, 2003).

Teacher learning

The view of teacher learning represented within the project is layered, incorporating a
balance between input of ideas from outside, from within the group, and individual
reflection. Ownership of the development process resides in the science team, and the
individual teachers. The science team is conceived of as the engine of change; as the site
within which professional dialogue and interaction takes place. Within the approach,
opportunities are created for teachers to reflect on their practice, to interact with more or less
knowledgeable colleagues, and to be challenged and supported to reflect on their beliefs and
commitments concerning teaching and learning. Professional learning within the SI Model is
layered, including science team discussion associated with action planning, planning
meetings with smaller groups, support or mentoring from the SIS Coordinator and consultant,
workshops within the school, and individual attendance at workshops or conferences.

Challenge to teaching and learning practice

The view of teaching and learning that forms the core vision of the project is cast in a way
that explicitly challenges traditional practices, in a language generated by teacher
informants. The SIS Components are broadly generic, but engage with teaching and
learning issues specific to science. They are sufficiently explicit in their descriptions of
practice to challenge orthodoxy, and to form the basis for monitoring teacher development.
They are pitched at a level that foregrounds student learning, and challenges teacher beliefs
and commitments. As a set, they comprise a strong pedagogical statement (similar in many
ways to that promoted by Productive Pedagogies, and also to PEEL principles; Baird &
Northfield, 1992).

School subjects

SI is an approach that focuses on teaching and learning, but unlike more generic approaches
situates this within the language and traditions of school subjects. Hence, in SIS, student
engagement, meaningful understandings, critical and creative thinking, are all conceived of
and illustrated within a science framework. By taking the subject knowledge base seriously,
SIS was able to work within the science subject culture to promote particular ways of
reconceptualizing practice.
Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216 211

Judging the SI Model

In this section each of the research questions will be addressed.

How successful is the model in supporting change and innovation (in teaching
and learning practice, curriculum innovation, and science team processes)?

From the school reports, field notes and evidence from questionnaires, it is clear that there
have been substantial changes in practice in SIS schools over the three years under
discussion. The nature of the project means that we cannot point to the introduction of
particular practices, as would be the case with the implementation of a new curriculum,
since by its nature each school in the project charted a different course to match local needs
and conditions. However, the evidence from a range of sources would indicate substantial
change in team processes (from the comments in coordinator questionnaires, and also
school reports and consultant focus group data (Tytler, 2005)) for most schools. A range of
curriculum units have been generated, of a greater variety of types than would be expected
in a more managed process using particular learning models, reflecting the breadth of
conception of science teaching and learning represented by the SIS Components. One of the
unknowns in any document driven reform process is the way activities are implemented in
any particular classroom. By focusing strongly on teaching and learning principles
supported by processes that link individuals with the science team, we can say with some
confidence that teacher classroom practice has indeed changed in the intended direction.

What differences occurred in the change process and outcomes, in primary compared
to secondary schools?

For most of the responses to the model the primary and secondary coordinators showed
very similar patterns of ratings, and comments. However, there were some significant
differences in the way the project worked in primary schools compared to secondary
schools, with regard to the elements of the model, and the nature of the innovation.
Responses to the model itself were very similar except for judgements about the support of
the principal and leadership team, discussed above. Primary coordinators were consider-
ably more likely to value the curriculum audit process, aligning with findings concerning
the type of initiative pursued. The initiatives described by primary school coordinators in
their action plans, questionnaires, school reports and workshop presentations, more often
focused on curriculum planning compared to secondary schools, where the focus was
more commonly on teaching and learning strategy innovation, and the establishment of
science team processes. Primary schools also had a greater focus on raising the profile of
science (Tytler & Waldrip, 2002). This can be understood in terms of primary schools
coming off a low base with respect to presence of science in the curriculum, and in teacher
confidence, but having greater experience and confidence with a range of teaching and
learning strategies developed in other curriculum areas. Primary teachers in Victoria are
also used to planning in year level teams, so that the development of science team
processes focusing on teaching and learning was less of an issue than for their secondary
counterparts for whom science meetings seemed to have traditionally dealt with
organisational matters.
212 Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

Given these substantial differences in needs between primary and secondary schools, the
flexibility of the SI model was demonstrated by its success in encouraging major innovation
in both primary and secondary schools. Collaboration between primary and secondary
schools was an interesting feature of SIS, but was not a constant feature given the different
agendas of the two systems.

What elements within the model are important for supporting innovation in school
and teacher practice?

In looking across the four aspects of the model; the SIS Components, the support structures,
the school supporting actions and the strategic planning, the responses to the questionnaire
would indicate each has been valuable in supporting the change process. The elements that
come through the strongest, in terms of coordinator response and comments, are
– a clear teaching and learning framework (the SIS Components) that teachers feel they
can commit to,
– a coherent planning process that both supports and is supported by the science team
with the leadership of the coordinator,
– on-the-ground support of the coordinator by a consultant, and
– project structures that accorded status to the model, and organisational support.
The particular audit instruments, the particular nature of the professional development
support, and the particular patterns of teacher actions, were less central, and schools varied in
their use of these and commitment to them. What came through strongly, in the coordinator
comments and their stories told at network meetings and in interviews, was the sense of a new
way of working with teachers in a team, that focused strongly on the development of a shared
understanding of teaching and learning principles. The leadership and teacher change issues
implied by this demanded the presence of a strong model with associated advice and
instruments, and close contact with a mentor who could provide support and advice. The
project gained considerable momentum in the second year, with the appointment of project
officers with energy and recent school science experience, and the increasing presence
within the project of coordinators who had successfully travelled the strategic planning
pathway and could be used as consultants or to play other support roles.
The model embodies and supports principles of teacher learning that are well recognised,
such as ownership, adaptability to local conditions, leadership, support based on learning
teams, and a clear innovation framework. However, we would argue that its particular
elements and their interrelations represent a step forward in understanding how these
principles can be practically realised in a way that offers the possibility of effective system
wide change.

Limitations of the Model

SIS has been successful at generating within schools a commitment to and platform for
change, and considerable change in science team processes, curriculum organization, and
classroom strategies. However, since teachers need considerable support to undergo
significant change in their beliefs and commitments, such change is dependent on the
‘reach’ of SI processes into the classroom. In SIS this occurs through a number of
Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216 213

processes; the mentoring support provided by the SIS Coordinator and through them by
others in the science team, and the SIS professional development.

Curriculum resources

The extent to which this has happened has varied from school to school, and is to some
extent dependent on teachers_ commitment to the process. The generation of appropriate
strategies and materials to support innovative initiatives is not a straightforward task. There
are many resources available, promoting student centred teaching and learning strategies
and innovative student materials, that can support the teaching and learning framework
promoted by SIS, but accessing and distributing these in a timely manner was an issue for
many teachers and schools. It is clear, particularly from working with individual teachers in
the Stage 2 research phase, that a significant challenge for SIS is how to help coordinators
deliver appropriate support to teachers that matches their needs at the time. An extension to
SI that generated appropriate resources would be a step forward in the model. Such
resources, however, would need to be flexibly conceived.

Assessment and unit planning

The issue of assessment of learning, as one of the SIS Components, was not taken up
significantly within most SIS schools. The lack of appropriate assessment models is one
issue that needs to be addressed at a system level. The lack of appreciation of assessment
approaches as a critical partner and driver in any change was another issue. We felt that,
without attention to assessment, the changes in teaching and learning approaches generated
in some SIS schools run the danger of being conceived of superficially, and not becoming
embedded centrally in teacher practice. In a separate exercise working with a small number
of SIS schools to promote changes that are embedded and lasting, we came to the view that
schools need to focus attention on planning at the unit level, through small teams working
to embed assessment centrally into the process.

Sustainability

Given the considerable support and resource concentration that went into the SIS Research
Project, the question arises as to the sustainability of the model under minimal resourcing
regimes. During the three years of the research phase, the time allowance for coordinators
was progressively reduced so that by the third and subsequent years the coordinator and
teacher release funds required in the model were within the reach of schools deciding to
commit to science as a focus area for change. At the time of writing, the consultants are still
in place and still meet as a group to plan for science professional development across the
state. The SI Model is now being used to support an extension of SIS into mathematics and
technology, and a cluster -based version is also in place as the basis for a major pedagogical
innovation initiative across all subject areas. The model has therefore continued to operate,
but in altered form and circumstances. The question of sustainability, therefore, is not
straightforward. What seems to be true is that SIS has spawned in Victoria a belief that
strategic planning focused on pedagogical innovation is the appropriate model for
sustainable change.
214 Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

SIS itself is sustained by the regional consultants using the professional development
materials developed to support the Components and the strategic planning process, and these
are also in use to support the mathematics and technology innovation, but there is no longer a
team at the end of a phone to support these projects, nor a supporting website. Research is
needed to determine how successful the model operates under these changed circumstances.
An evaluation which took place one year after the project phase ended found that
considerable change was still happening, but at a slower pace, and that in many established
SIS schools the action plans were being actively used. There was also evidence that the focus
on classroom teaching and learning, supported by team planning, was influencing initiatives
in other subject areas. Further investigation is needed on this widening circle of SIS influence,
as well as on the fate of innovations spawned under the early phases of SIS, and the durability
of teaching and learning practices developed through the project.

Conclusion

The SI Model for transformation of school science has proved highly successful at the
levels of acknowledged effectiveness of the strategy elements, and of improvement in the
practice and support of science by schools, science teams and teachers. Although details of
innovations in school science, and of student outcomes, have not been reported here, the
project has been significantly effective here also. The nature of success of the SI Strategy
serves to support the contention that teacher change should be promoted and supported
across three dimensions; clarification of effective teaching and learning practices,
challenging beliefs about the nature of teaching and learning and the role of the teacher,
and encouraging a discourse within the science team that is focused on supporting
innovation in teaching and learning. The validation of the SIS Strategy has affirmed the
generative and interconnected nature of these dimensions.
There is a debate currently occurring in Australia concerning the most productive way
forward to improve science education. The discussion encompasses a number of elements;
curriculum (what should be the purposes and content of science education?), resources (what
resource support is needed for teachers to exemplify best practice?), pedagogy (how does
teaching and learning most effectively occur?), professional development (what structures
should be put in place to support teachers to transform their practice?) and school
organization (how can schools become transformative sites?). SIS has shown both how
powerful, and how central, these latter issues are and how they can be powerfully linked. To
focus on curriculum and resources and narrow conceptions of professional development has
been a traditional, but a discredited response. To support the deeper level conversations,
practice shifts and sense of ownership and control implied by school and team based
approaches to teacher development in science, curriculum and resources must be developed
that allow for the flexibility and innovation that has been characteristic of the more
transformative SIS schools. The way forward in Science Education is not through a ‘one size
fits all’ approach.

Acknowledgements The research described in this paper was undertaken as part of the Science in Schools
Research Project, funded by the Victorian Department of Education and Training, and this government
support is gratefully acknowledged. The development and refining of the processes described in this paper
has been shared by members of the Deakin University-based SIS Research Project team which included:
Annette Gough, Brian Sharpley, Sophie Tsiatsias, Robin Matthews, Geoff Beeson, and Gillian Milne (project
manager), Bruce Waldrip, Jeff Northfield and Pat Armstrong.
Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216 215

References

Australian Academy of Science (AAS) (2005). Primary Connections. www.science.org.au/primaryconnections.

Baird, J. R., & Mitchell, I. J. (Eds.). (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian
case study-The PEEL project. Melbourne, Victoria: Monash University.
Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne: Monash University.
Beeth, M., Duit, R., Prenzel, M., Ostermeier, C., Tytler, R., & Wickman, P.-O. (2003). Quality
development projects in science education. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, G.
Fassoulopoulos, E. Hatzikraniotis, & M. Kallery (Eds.), Science education research in the
knowledge based society (pp. 447–458). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Carrick, J. (1989). Report of the committee of review of New South Wales schools. New South Wales
Government (quoted in Webb, 1993).
Fraser, B., & Treagust, D. (1986). Validity and use of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial
environment in higher education. Higher Education, 15(1-2), 37–57.
Goldsmith, L., & Schifter, D. (1997). Understanding teachers in transition: Characteristics of a model for
developing teachers. In E. Fennema & B. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 19–54).
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science
in Australian schools. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Gough, A., & Sharpley, B. (2002, July). Science with a difference and a twist - stories of primary students_
environmental science interest and action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, USA.
Guskey, T., & Huberman, M. (Eds.). (1995). Professional development in education: New paradigms and
practices. New York: Teachers College.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers_ work and culture in the postmodern
age. London: Cassell.
Hill, P. W., & Crevola, C. A. M. (1999). The role of standards in educational reform for the 21st Century. In
D. D. Marsh (Ed.), Preparing our schools for the 21st Century. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, Year Book 1999.
Hoban, G. (1992). Teaching and report writing in primary science: Case studies of an intervention program.
Research in Science Education, 22, 194–203.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school
renewal (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Loughran, J., & Ingvarson, L. (1993). Science teachers_ views of professional development. Research in
Science Education, 23, 174–182.
Luke, A., Elkins, J., Weir, K., Land, R., Carrington, V., Dole, S., et al., (2003). Beyond the middle: A report
about literacy and numeracy development of target group students in the middle years of schooling.
Brisbane, Queensland: Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved April
2003 from http://www.gu.edu.au/school/cls/clearinghouse/.
Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students_ experiences of school science in their
own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613.
Mitchell, I. (2000). PEEL in Practice: 650 Ideas for quality teaching. Melbourne, Victoria: Monash
University CD.
Murphy, P., Davidson, M., Qualter, A., Simon, S., & Watt, D. (2001). Effective practice in Primary Science.
Report of an exploratory study funded by the Nuffield Curriculum Projects Centre. London: Nuffield
Foundation.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its
implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1080.
Owen, J., Johnson, H., Clarke, D., Lovitt, C., & Morony, W. (1987). The mathematics curriculum and
teaching program: Guidelines for consultants and curriculum teachers. Canberra, ACT: Curriculum
Development Unit.
Paige, K. (1994). Factors perceived to have enabled 25 women to develop expertise to teach primary science.
Research in Science Education, 24, 246–252.
Penick, J., & Yager, J. (1983). The search for excellence in science education. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 621–623.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15, 4–14.
SIS Project Team (2003). The science in schools research project: Report of Phase 3. Melbourne, Victoria:
Deakin University Consultancy and Development Unit.
216 Res Sci Educ (2007) 37:189–216

Thomas, G., & McRobbie, C. (2002). Collaborating to enhance student reasoning: Frances_ account of
her reflections while teaching chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 24
(4), 405–423.
Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1988). Investigations of exemplary practice in high school science and
mathematics. Australian Journal of Education, 32(1), 75–94.
Treagust, D. F. (1991). A case study of two exemplary biology teachers. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 28(4), 329–342.
Tytler, R. (2001). Describing and supporting effective science teaching and learning in Australian schools -
validation issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching. http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/
v2_issue2.
Tytler, R. (2003). A window for a purpose: Developing a framework for describing effective science teaching
and learning. Research in Science Education, 30(3), 273–298.
Tytler, R. (2005). School innovation in science: Change, culture, complexity. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart,
O. de Jong & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 89–105).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Tytler, R., & Conley, H. (2003, July). School innovation in science: Focusing on leadership in the school
change process. Proceedings of the 48th World Assembly of the International Council on Education for
Teaching and the annual conference of the Australian Teacher Education Association, Melbourne,
Victoria.
Tytler, R., & Griffiths, M. (2003). Spending time on Primary Science in integrated units. Investigating, 19(1),
12–16.
Tytler, R., & Nakos, S. (2003). School Innovation in Science: Transformative initiatives in Victorian
secondary schools. Australian Science Teachers_ Journal, 49(4), 18–27.
Tytler, R., Sharpley, B., & Tsiatsias, S. (2001). Effective Science Teaching and a Strategy for its
Implementation. Proceedings of the annual Conference of the Australian Science Teachers Association
(CONASTA). http://www.conasta.stansw.asn.au. ERIC. ED457023.
Tytler, R., & Waldrip, B. (2002). Improving primary science: Schools_ experience of change. Investigating,
18(4), 23–26.
Tytler, R., Waldrip, B., & Griffiths, M. (2004). Windows into practice: Constructing effective science
teaching and learning in a school change initiative. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2),
171–194.
Webb, C. (1993). Teacher perceptions of professional development needs and the implementation of the K-6
Science and Technology syllabus. Research in Science Education, 23, 327–336.
White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1989). Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal of
Science Education, 11, 577–586.