Qualified to teach? How personal and academic characteristics of pre-service science teachers compare with their understandings of basic chemical ideas

Dr Vanessa Kind

School of Education

Durham University

Durham, UK

∂

Qualified to teach?

Here in the UK, academic qualifications are used to select applicants for teaching:-

•A “good” degree in a science

•2 sciences studied to 18 (A levels)

•16+ (GCSEs) in Maths, Science, English

∂

But let’s look at their backgrounds

Science teachers are:-

•25% biology graduates

•47% “other science” graduates

•Few hold degrees in physical sciences

(Moor et al, 2006)0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Bio Chem Phys Other None

∂

Therefore…

• Physical science specialist teachers are rare • Science teachers often have to teach all sciences to

11-16s • To teach physical sciences well, we rely on those

without chemistry/ physics degrees knowing / learning the necessary subject knowledge

• Teachers teach science – Within specialism and – Outside specialism

∂

Personal factors

Teachers may prefer to be

Specialists

Generalists

Teachers’ self confidence for outside specialism teaching may be

High

Low

“In progress”

∂

Research questions

What misconceptions about basic chemical ideas are held by trainee science teachers?

In what ways do trainees’ academic and personal characteristics correlate with their misconceptions?

∂

Theoretical background

Content knowledge (CK) •is a vital component of teachers’ subject matter knowledge•is the facts and concepts of the subject matter

(Cochran and Jones, 1998)

•Good CK is a precursor for effective science teaching (Abell and Lederman 2007)

Self-confidence •teachers who lack self-confidence tend to teach less content knowledge

(Jones and Carter, 2007)

∂

Hypotheses

Trainee teachers with chemistry degrees have fewer misconceptions than those with physics / biology degrees

Non-chemist trainee teachers with high self-confidence and preference for teaching as generalists may have poor chemistry knowledge

∂

Methodology

• Misconceptions data were collected by questionnaire comprising open questions in five areas:-– particle theory, chemical bonding, conservation of

mass in reactions, combustion reactions and mole calculations

• Personal characteristics were collected by Likert scale questionnaire using paired statements – Preference for within / outside specialism teaching – Confidence for teaching within / outside specialism

∂

Trainee teacher sample (2)

179 responded to the misconceptions questionnaire – at the start

152 responded to the personal characteristics questionnaire – after 3 months (27 withdrawals)

∂

The trainee teacher sample (1)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Bio Chem Phys

”Postgraduate Certificate of Education” (PGCE) participants 2005 – 2008

•90% held degrees regarded as ”good” in UK •20% held higher degrees in science •54% were female •60% were aged 21 – 25

∂

Chemistry misconceptions (1)

Particle theory and change of state

16% suggested a copper atom would be coloured

20% thought bubbles in boiling water would be hydrogen and oxygen

∂

Combustion 20% thought exhaust gases would have less mass than petrol 31% said energy from burning methane is from bond breaking 11% said energy in burning methane comes from air, flame, oxygen or carbon

Conservation 17% suggested mass decreases when a precipitate forms 7% suggested mass increases when a precipitate forms

∂

Mole calculations

18% gave answers showing they could not use reacting mass reasoning

6% thought the mass of carbon dioxide produced by a power station would be less than the starting mass of coal

∂

Chemical bonding

35% explained the formula of methane as ”carbon forming four bonds”

36% reasoned covalent bonding is ”weaker” than ionic bonding

60% did not list any ions as present in hydrochloric acid

16% used hydrogen chloride molecules to explain displacement

∂

Misconceptions – mean scores Chemists

N= 39

Physicists

N=29

Biologists

N=98

Conservation of mass

73 62 73

Particle theory and state change

64 54 61

Combustion reactions

71 47 54

Mole calculations

74 68 55

Chemical bonding

57 41 46

∂

Misconceptions – summary Chemists have fewer misconceptions overall

Conservation of mass was best understood

Chemical bonding showed most misconceptions

Biologists describe or

restate questions

Physicists Overcomplicate using

e=mc2 for all energy responses

∂

Trainees’ preferences for specialist / generalist teaching

4 response categories:-

PTS PTA

Positive specialist strongly agree disagree

Neutral specialist agree agree /neutral

Neutral generalist disagree agree

Positive generalist strongly disagree agree / strongly agree

Statements: I prefer to teach topics in my specialist area (PTS) I am pleased to teach topics in all areas of science (PTA)

∂

Trainees’ preferences for specialist/generalist teaching

Chemists Physicists Biologists Totals

Positive specialist

9 1 17 27 (19%)

Neutral specialist

17 13 40 70 (50)

Neutral generalist

4 1 12 17 (12)

Positive generalist

7 10 10 27 (19)

Totals 37 25 79 141

∂

Trainees’ confidence for teaching within and outside specialism

Four response categories:

LCO DNS

Super-confident Strongly disagree Strongly agree

Confident Disagree Agree

Working confident Agree / Neutral Agree/Neutral

Anxious Strongly agree Strongly disagree

Statements: I am less confident when I teach outside my specialist area (LCO) I do not need to teach my specialism to feel confident as a teacher (DNS)

∂

Personal characteristics: trainees’ confidence

Chemists Physicists Biologists Totals

Super-confident

10 1 14 25(18%)

Confident 4 2 19 25 (18)

Working confident

12 10 26 48 (35)

Anxious 10 11 19 40 (29)

Totals 36 24 78 138

∂

Personal characteristics – summary

38% polarised –

19% positive specialists ,

19% positive generalists

Physicists - most polarised between these ”extremes”

Chemists – highest proportion of positive specialists

50% are neutral specialists

No background characteristics correlated statistically

∂

36% are super-confident or confident

Chemists show highest proportion of super-confidence

Physicists show highest proportion of anxious trainees

Statistics indicate –

Inter-specialist differences are significant

Possession of a higher degree confers confidence

∂

Cross-comparison of personal characteristics

Positive specialist

Neutral specialist

Neutral generalist

Positive generalist

Totals

Super-confident

0 10 (7%) 3 11 (8%) 24 (17%)

Confident 5 13 (9) 3 5 26 (19)

Working confident

9 25 (18) 8 7 49 (35)

Anxious 15 (11) 19 (14) 2 4 40 (29)

Totals 29 (21) 67 (48) 16 (12) 27 (19) 139

∂

Cross-comparison- SummaryPositive specialists – tend to be anxious

Are worried about teaching outside specialism

Positive generalists – tend to be super-confident

Think they can teach anything

Neutral specialists – tend to be working confident or anxious

Are prepared to work at teaching all sciences

Distinctions between these groups were statistically significant

∂

Comparing misconceptions and personal characteristics

Data reveal that for the cohort as a whole:-

• No significant correlations are observed between personal characteristics and misconceptions scores

• Misconceptions are spread relatively evenly across all preference / confidence sub-groups

∂

• ”Anxious” trainees do not score worse than other sub-groups

• ”Super-confident” trainees do not score better than other sub-groups

• Positive specialists do not score differently from positive generalists

But - whole cohort data are skewed by inclusion of chemists who scored more highly.

∂

Mean scores for chemical bonding – preference sub-groups

Positive specialist

Neutral

Specialist

Neutral

Generalist

Positive

Generalist

Row mean

Whole sub-group

49

(n= 27)

45

(68)

39

(17)

43

(27)

45

(139)

Chemists 48 (7) 61 (17) 47 (4) 51 (9) 54 (37)

Physicists 48 (10) 48 (13) 33 (1) 44 (1) 46 (25)

Biologists 51 (10) 38 (38) 37 (12) 39 (17) 40 (77)

∂

Mean scores for chemical bonding – confidence sub-groups

Super-confident

Confident Working confident

Anxious

Row mean

Whole sub-group

43 (n=25) 41 (25) 45 (48) 45 (38) 44 (136)

Chemists 50 (10) 47 (4) 62 (12) 46 (10) 52 (36)

Physicists 44 (1) 39 (2) 46 (10) 49 (11) 47 (24)

Biologists 38 (14) 40 (19) 37 (26) 42 (17) 39 (76)

∂

Comments:

Compared to the whole sub-groups:- • Positive generalist biologists score lower than

chemists / physicists • All positive specialists tend to score higher than other

preferences • Biologists exhibit lowest scores regardless of

confidence level • Super-confident biologists score lower than chemists

∂

Conclusions ”Qualified to teach” means:-

More than having a ”good” degree in any science

Correcting personal misconceptions

Knowing not to repeat school-learned erroneous thinking

∂

And…. Super-confidence – can mean ”over-confidence”

about 10% are super-confident biologists

Anxiety – can mean ”defensive pessimism”– knowing how to handle personal challenges

characteristic of physicists

Personal characteristics may be useful indicators to guide science teacher preparation

∂

References Abell, S. K. and Lederman, N. G. (eds) (2007) Research on science teacher

knowledge. Handbook of research on science education Lawrence Erlbaum Associates , Hillsdale, NJ, USA

Cochran, K. F. and Jones, L.L. (1998) The Subject Matter Knowledge of Preservice Science Teachers in International Handbook of Science Education part two edited by Fraser, B. J. and Tobin, K.G. Dordrecht: Kluwer

Jones, M.G. and Carter, G. (2007) Science Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs in Handbook of Research on Science Education, Edited by Abell, S.K. and Lederman, N.G. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates , Hillsdale, NJ, USA

Moor, H.,  Jones, M.,  Johnson, F.,  Martin, K.,  Cowell, E. and Bojke, C. (2006) Mathematics and science in secondary schools The deployment of teachers and support staff to deliver the curriculum, Department for Education and Skills Research Report No 708 National Foundation for Education Research , Slough, UK Retrieved April 2008 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR708.pdf

∂

Dr Vanessa Kind

School of Education

Durham University

Leazes Road

Durham DH1 1TA

+44 191 334 8369

Vanessa.kind@durham.ac.uk