The Interactions of Conceptions of Teaching Science and Environmental Factors to Produce Praxis in Three Novice Teachers of Science

The Interactions of Conceptions of Teaching Scienceand Environmental Factors to Produce Praxis in ThreeNovice Teachers of Science

HyunJu Park & Peter W. Hewson & John Lemberger &

Robin D. Marion

Published online: 29 September 2009# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract One strategy for implementing learner-centered teaching is through thepreparation of teachers and their induction into the profession. This article presents casestudies of three secondary science teachers that follow them from their science teachereducation program that advocated teaching for conceptual change as one approach tolearner-centered teaching into their first years of teaching. The article’s purpose is todescribe the teachers’ initial conceptions of teaching science carried over from their teacherpreparation program, and how they integrated those conceptions with the environmentalinfluences of their classrooms and schools to produce praxis. Data were collected from theparticipants in several different ways during the participants’ pre-service year and duringtheir first year or two of teaching: Observation of the participants’ teaching; relatedinterviews with participants; and their action research journals. As they approached the endof their first or second year of teaching, all three teachers demonstrated increased levels ofconfidence in their teaching competence, both in their classroom performance and theirplaces in their departments and schools. None of them had, however, fully implementedconceptual change teaching approach that was the specific goal of their teacher preparationprogram.

Keywords Conceptual change . Novice teacher . Professional development . Praxis . Science

Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741DOI 10.1007/s11165-009-9141-1

H. Park (*)Science Education, Chemistry Education, College of Education, Chosun University, Seosuk dong 375,Dong gu, Gwangju, Republic of Korea 501-759e-mail: [email protected]

P. W. HewsonUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

J. LembergerUniversity of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Oshkosh, WI, USA

R. D. MarionCalifornia State University-San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, USA

Introduction

The view that effective learning requires learners to be active agents in their own learningand effective teaching requires teachers to facilitate this type of learning is now widelyaccepted by educational researchers and policy makers (e.g., Rutherford and Ahlgren 1990;National Research Council 1996; Bransford et al. 1999). The image is one of learners whobring to a classroom prior knowledge, cognitive strategies (e.g., metacognition), interests,and purposes that they use to construct their own understandings of concepts andexperiences with which they come into contact (e.g., Driver and Bell 1986). Teachers bring,in addition, knowledge of appropriate curriculum content and teaching strategies thatconnect content with students in ways that provide opportunities for them to constructknowledge that is meaningful to them and justifiable with the goals of schooling.

Putting this impressive consensus into practice in typical schools and classrooms is,however, a very difficult task. This is because of the interconnectedness of teachers andstudents with classrooms, schools, and communities. Thus for teachers to change theirpractice from transmitters of knowledge to facilitators of knowledge construction is not assimple a matter as choosing a new textbook. In the long term this is a decision that is likely toinfluence curriculum plans, instructional approaches, and assessment procedures that haveevolved and embedded themselves in the practices, understandings and expectations ofgenerations of parents, students, teachers and administrators (e.g., Darling-Hammond 2001).

In this article we consider one of the components of any strategy for implementing a newperspective (in this case, learner-centeredness): this is the preparation of teachers and theirinduction into the profession (e.g., Darling-Hammond and Bransford 2005). We do so bypresenting case studies of three secondary science teachers that follow them from theirscience teacher education program into their first and, in one case, second year of teaching.More specifically we ask the question: How do novice teachers use their experiences in asecondary science teacher education program with a learner-centered teaching focus duringtheir first year or two of teaching?

In the next section, we present the theoretical framework for the study by first looking atsome general considerations of what is involved in teaching and what learner-centeredteaching is. Next we outline conceptual change as one approach within the new consensusthat allows us to consider student learning, learner-centered teaching, and teacher educationteaching in a coherent, interpretative fashion. In the following section, we review recentliterature on the experiences of teachers in their teacher education and induction years. Thenwe outline the methods, data sources and overall context of the study and follow that withcase studies of three teachers. In the final section, we summarize the cases of the three noviceteachers, analyze the cases from a conceptual change perspective that helps in understandingwhy it may be difficult for novice teachers to learn and implement learner-centered teaching,and consider the implications for pre-service and in-service teacher education.

Theoretical Framework

Learning to Teach

In line with the new consensus, there is a general acceptance that teachers have ideas aboutteaching that encompass who, what, and how they teach—we will refer to this as theirconceptions of teaching a discipline (e.g., science) (Hewson and Hewson 1988, 1989). It isalso the case that teachers have practices that they use in their classrooms in teaching their

718 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741

discipline to students—since we do not see these as purely behaviors that are unrelated tothought, we will refer to this as their praxis, the “practical application of theory”. Thus, wesee that conceptions and praxis are reciprocally related, with each in turn influencing theother. Because, however, teaching intimately happens within school and society, there areenvironmental constraints on the interactions between conceptions and praxis. This meansthat teachers’ conceptions are not necessarily consistent with their praxes. From thisperspective, teachers would ideally learn to teach by addressing all three of these aspects—conceptions, praxis, and environment—and the complex ways in which they interact witheach other.

Learner-centered Teaching

While there are different variations and emphases of learner-centered teaching, there is generalagreement that it involves teachers working closely with students to support the process oftheir making meaning of curricular content. In doing so, teachers select content of sufficientdepth and complexity that it has the potential not only to display its power in providingexplanations of a range of natural phenomena but also to provide an illustration of how scienceworks, devise challenging tasks that are able to engage students in this conceptual contentwithout overwhelming them, provide students with metacognitive tools that will facilitate theirtaking control of their own learning, and use formative assessment strategies to become awareof students’ prior knowledge and how they are using it in making meaning.

Teaching and Learning as Conceptual Change

One approach to learner-centered teaching is to view teaching science as a process ofteaching for conceptual change (TCC) (Hewson 1991; Hewson et al. 1998). This view isgrounded in the conceptual change model of learning (CCM), initially proposed by Posneret al. (1982). The CCM explains how conceptual structuring and restructuring occur in anindividual’s development of knowledge about natural phenomena (Beeth 1993; Hewson1985; Hewson and Lemberger 2000; Thorley 1990). The CCM assumes that learning is arational process in which learners use their existing knowledge (their conceptual ecologies)to evaluate the status of new information and experiences, relative to the status of theirexisting knowledge. While initially the focus of this evaluation by learners will be the statusof the new information and experiences, it is possible that this could lead to a re-evaluationof the status of their existing knowledge. If this process leads to changes of status in newand/or existing knowledge, this is evidence that conceptual change is occurring.

Some significant criteria in the process of determining the status of a conception are itsintelligibility (Do I know what it means?), plausibility (Is it consistent with otherknowledge I have? Is that how the world works?), and fruitfulness (Is it powerful? Does itsolve problems, suggest new directions?). Key characteristics of this view of learning arethat learners can simultaneously be aware of different conceptions of similar phenomenaand understand that there might be different reasons for deciding whether one might bemore powerful than another. Conceptual change also emphasizes metacognition, one featureof which is being reflective about assumptions related to the status of conceptions (Hewsonand Hennessey 1991; Strike and Posner 1992; Hewson 1993).

Teaching for conceptual change (TCC) is an approach to teaching that “explicitly aims tohelp students experience conceptual change learning, and meets guidelines consistent withthe conceptual change model” (Hewson et al. 1998, p. 200). The guidelines are that bothstudents’ and teachers’ ideas should be “an explicit part of classroom discourse” (p. 203),

Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741 719

“discourse of the classroom [should be] explicitly metacognitive” (p. 204), “the status ofideas [needs] to be discussed and negotiated” (p. 207), and “the justification for ideas andfor status decisions [should be] an explicit component of the curriculum” (p. 210). Theseguidelines are consistent with other formulations of learner-centered teaching, whileproviding a more focused emphasis on the role that the status of ideas plays in learning.The need for teachers to take on the role of facilitators of knowledge construction rather thantransmitters of knowledge is implicit in these guidelines, as is the need for classroomenvironments that are respectful of differences in students’ ideas about the same phenomena.

Conceptual change enters into considerations of science teacher education wheneverlearning is involved, either directly or through teaching, because learning is its intendedoutcome (Marion et al. 1999). The various ways in which this can happen are summarizedin Table 1.

In the case studies presented in this article, the primary focal points are L2 and T1because of their focus on what novice teachers take from a teacher education program intotheir first years of teaching. While we recognize that the other points are also important, wedo not consider them in this article because, on the one hand, the focal points on methodsinstruction (T2 and T3) are discussed elsewhere (Marion et al. 1999), and on the otherhand, data were not gathered in this study on either student learning (L3) or prospectiveteachers learning science (L1) since the prospective teachers’ science courses were allprovided by subject departments outside of the School of Education.

The value in using conceptual change as our theoretical framework is that it provides uswith a coherent perspective on teachers as learners who are grappling with the variousconceptions of teaching science that are rooted in their experiences as students throughouttheir schooling, in the explicit focus of their teacher education program, and in the practicesof the schools in which they teach.

Literature Review

The new consensus calls for learner-centered teaching. Few undergraduate teachingcandidates, however, enter teacher preparation programs holding such a conception ofteaching science. Koballa et al. (2000) in a study of nine German preservice teacherspreparing to teach chemistry found three ‘qualitatively different’ conceptions of teachingscience with the most common one being “chemistry is best taught by transferring chemicalknowledge from teacher to pupils.” Koballa et al. (2005) reported on three case studies ofnon-traditional science teachers and their conceptions of teaching science. They found that

Table 1 Focus on learning & teaching as conceptual change

Focus on learning as conceptual change

L1 Prospective teachers learning science (including content, and the nature and epistemology of science)

L2 Prospective teachers learning to teach science

L3 Students in prospective/novice teachers’ classrooms learning science

Focus on teaching as conceptual change

T1 Prospective/novice teachers teaching science

T2 Science methods instructors teaching science teaching with conceptual change as explicit content ofmethods course

T3 Science methods instructors teaching science teaching with conceptual change as their method ofteaching

720 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741

two of the cases held multiple conceptions of teaching science. One of the teachers held anideal conception of teaching science through conceptual change, and an alternate, non-conceptual change conception that was implemented in the classroom. The teacher wasconscious of the two conceptions and the need to compromise her ideal conception ofteaching science because of demands springing from her classroom environment. Thedegree of complexity is further illustrated by Bryan (2003) with a case study of a preserviceelementary teacher who held “nested” but contradictory beliefs about science teaching andscience learning. One set of beliefs was based on didactic accounts of teaching andlearning, while the other was based on a hands-on learner-centered approach to teachingand learning. Hancock and Gallard (2004) also reported that preservice teachers commonlyentered a science teaching methods course with a mixed conception of teaching science (asboth providing their students with experiences and transmitting information).

In a study that included over 100 Spanish preservice teachers, Porlán and del Pozo(2004) found three competing conceptions of teaching science: traditional, technical andalternative models. Porlán et al. describe the traditional model as finished content (i.e.,science knowledge) directly transmitted to students, the technical model as an algorithmic-like implementation of “rigorous technical norms and procedures,” and the alternative modelas teacher-student interactions resulting in conceptual change of students’ conceptions.

Gallagher (1993) presented a scheme that can be used to categorize these variousconceptions of teaching science by outlining a range of six classroom praxes. These hetermed teaching as telling, as organization of content, as hands-on activities, as applicationof the learning cycle, as promotion of conceptual change, and as guiding construction ofknowledge. In addition, Gallagher raised the question of how teachers acquire new praxeswhen he presented the change from traditional teacher-centered teaching to learner-centeredteaching as a long, difficult evolution through these six stages of praxis, each supported byincreasingly complex conceptions of teaching science. According to Gallagher, the biggestjump is from the learning cycle view to the conceptual change view. This jump requiresfundamental changes in teachers’ conceptions of learning, knowledge and teaching.

Existing conceptions of teaching science are rooted in how teachers believe they shouldteach, how they were themselves taught (Stofflett and Stoddard 1992), other lifeexperiences they see as relevant (Hewson and Hewson 1989), and their generalepistemological commitments (King and Kitchener 1994). There is an interaction betweenthese components of teachers’ conceptual ecologies, with their experiences as students intraditional didactic classrooms being supported by immature epistemological beliefs aboutthe source and nature of science knowledge (Koballa et al. 2000; Porlán and del Pozo2004). These immature beliefs are similar to general epistemological views of knowledgedescribed by King and Kitchener (1994) as stages 1 or 2 understandings of knowledge(i.e., knowledge is unproblematic and knowledge comes from observation or authority).

One approach to facilitate the raising of the status of conceptions of teaching forconceptual change in preservice teachers has been the use of the CCM in teaching methodscourses. Stofflett (1998) reports some success when attempting to use the CCM to help pre-service teachers accommodate a conception of teaching as conceptual change in anelementary science methods course (see Table 1: T1). Success in this endeavor may also belinked to preservice teachers’ experiences of learning content knowledge. When givenintensive conceptual change learning experiences in science content (see Table 1: L1),preservice teachers were better able to use conceptual change teaching strategies in theirscience lessons (Stofflett and Stoddard 1994; Dhindsa and Anderson 2004). Alternatively,when preservice science teachers are not provided the opportunity to learn science contentthrough conceptual change, they enter their student teaching experiences with conceptions

Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741 721

of science content knowledge that can impede their development of high status conceptionsof conceptual change teaching (Hewson et al. 1999a; Lemberger et al. 1999).

Although these studies are helpful to science educators, the expression of the conceptionof teaching science as conceptual change in the environment of the classroom may result inpraxis that is different in varying degrees from what might be expected (Zeichner andTabachnick 1981; Tobin and McRobbie 1996). More recently Hancock and Gallard (2004)reported that the student teaching experience moved some preservice teachers toward amore learner-centered conception of teaching science, while others were moved toward amore teacher-centered conception. Even experienced instructors encounter constraints whenattempting to teach for conceptual change, not the least of which is perceived disapprovalof superiors (Stofflett 1998). Additionally, in the age of high stakes testing teachers arenecessarily pragmatic. Beeth and Adadan (2006) report that student teachers were willing touse what they learned in their university coursework only so long as they could see apositive effect on their own students’ learning. Whether or not the experiences encounteredin the first years of teaching lower the status of traditional didactic conceptions of teachingscience, raise the status of an emerging conception of teaching for conceptual change innovice science teachers, or reinforce the status of a well developed conception ofconceptual change teaching is an important question.

In order to answer this question, we traced the progress of three novice teachers—Cora,Nancy and Ralph—through their first year of teaching (two years in the case of Cora) todocument their teaching practices and compare them to the conceptual change teachinggoals of their methods course.

Methods

Design and Procedures

To investigate the practice of the novice science teachers, a case study approach was employed(Creswell 1998). Purposeful sampling determined the teachers who would act as informantsfor this study. This study follows three secondary pre-service teachers enrolled in thesecondary science teacher certification program at a large mid-west state university throughtheir science methods course into their first years of teaching. During the pre-service year,the teachers who were the focus of this study were enrolled in a science methods course thatdedicated itself to issues of constructivism and teaching for conceptual change and in anaction research seminar that stressed reflective practice during student teaching (Hewson etal. 1999b; Marion et al. 1999; Tabachnick and Zeichner 1999). The purposes of the sciencemethods course and action research seminar were, respectively, to help the teachers developconceptions of teaching science consistent with conceptual change teaching and to provide astrategy (action research) for assisting them in putting these conceptions into practice.

The Science Methods Course and Action Research Seminar

According to the instructor, the science methods course was about the nature of scienceteaching, the way that students learn science, and the strategies and techniques forfacilitating student learning through conceptual change. A major theme running through thecourse was the need for prospective teachers to think about what they and their studentswould be doing as they taught, to be aware of their own thinking, and then to put thisthinking into practice in order to facilitate science learning.

722 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741

The methods course emphasized that both students’ and teachers’ ideas need to be anexplicit part of classroom discourse. In order to bring student ideas into the discourse,teacher initiated activities were needed to diagnose and elicit students’ conceptions, and thestatus of those conceptions needed to be negotiated and discussed. Second, the discourse ofthe classroom needed to be explicitly metacognitive. By learning to be metacognitive,students become able to “step back” from one or more ideas held by themselves or others tothink about them and express an opinion about them. Finally, the justification for ideas andfor status decisions needed to be an explicit component of the curriculum. In making statusdecisions, participants brought to bear one or more criteria from their respective conceptualecologies.

Action research is a form of collaborative self-reflective inquiry undertaken by teachersin order to improve their own practices, their understandings of those practices, and thesituations in which those practices are carried out (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988). Actionresearch requires that teachers develop the disposition and capability to examine andimprove their teaching of science by conducting research on it.

Data Sources

Data reported in this study were collected from the participants in several different waysduring the participants’ preservice year and first years of teaching. For the former period,data were collected on four occasions when we observed the participants’ teaching, twoduring practicum concurrent with the methods course, and two during student teachingconcurrent with the action research seminar. Second, data representing this period were alsocollected during opening and closing ‘Conceptions of Teaching Science’ and ‘Conceptionsof Biological Themes’ interviews in which participants took part (Lemberger et al. 1999).Finally, data came from entries the participants made in their action research journals duringthe student teaching experience (Tabachnick and Zeichner 1999).

Data drawn from their first years of teaching were based on three observations andrelated interviews about the observed teaching episodes. Both interviews and observationstaken at this stage in the teachers’ careers were designed to draw out the participants’conceptions with regard to teaching, learning, and the nature of science.

Data Analysis

The CCM (Posner et al. 1982) was used to guide our interpretations of the praxis of thethree teachers, an important consideration of which is the relative status of competingconceptions of teaching science in terms of their intelligibility, plausibility, andfruitfulness. Each of these conditions of conceptual change will be used to frame ourdiscussion of the development of the teachers studied. More specifically, the paperexplores whether the teachers’ environments during their first years of teaching resultedin any dissatisfaction with their conceptions of teaching science, or with their relatedconceptions about knowledge, the nature of science and its cultural role, and learning andthe learner. These are important because one’s conceptions about knowledge, science, andlearning and the learner are important contributors to one’s conception of teachingscience. In other words, the follow-up of these teachers into the early years of theirteaching is driven by questions concerning how teachers’ conceptions of teaching scienceare expressed as praxis within the complex environments of their classrooms and schools.

The paper is divided into two sections. The first provides portraits in the form of casestudies of the teachers, focusing on the changing status of his or her conceptions about

Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741 723

science, knowledge, learning, and teaching science during the preservice and first years ofteaching. It culminates with discussion of the ways in which teaching in their ownclassrooms may have changed or influenced their teaching and the conceptions of scienceteaching, learning and knowledge associated with it. The second section focuses across thecases to conclude what we learned about the teachers and their involvement with thefocused methods experience and in the action research seminar, and extends what we havelearned about the three participants to a broader set of conclusions regarding theprofessional development of secondary science teachers.

Results

Case 1: Cora

Summary of Preservice Experience

For Cora, science knowledge was a combination of “content and scientific process.” Shedefined process as a thinking through of observations to come to a personal conclusion,and content as science facts. Learning for Cora consisted of thinking about, processingand relating to information gained through observation. She explained in an interview,using hesitant, partial sentences and with some difficulty, “memorizing and labelingbones is not (learning) science...you’re thinking, you’re looking at it and trying to figureit out.” Teaching for Cora was linked to her view of science: it involved instilling instudents basic science facts, and then giving students the skills needed to pull ideastogether. Doing so required her to ask questions that facilitated students coming to theirown conclusions. “Come back with the questions of students and just have themthink”, Cora said, “get them asking questions, observing for themselves...have their ownconclusions.”

Cora’s student teaching placement was in a small high school with approximately 180students, grades 9–12. The student population was largely white and middle class. Cora’sclasses were small, and the particular class observed contained eleven students. Thecooperating teacher was a 20 year veteran who admitted he learned a tremendous amountfrom Cora. She on the other hand lamented the fact that she learned from him only thatshe never wanted to use his teaching style with students. She described his role as alecturer, using worksheets and following the textbook. This description by Cora was oneof the earliest indications of her dissatisfaction with a traditional science teaching style.While Cora did not always agree with the lessons used by her cooperating teacher, shewas not constrained by his plans. In fact he supported and encouraged her use ofinnovation. While this freedom was appreciated by Cora, she felt the extra burden ofdeveloping all her materials on her own, noting, “I never got one tip from him I couldincorporate into my teaching.” Cora was aware of her students as individuals from thebeginning of her student teaching experience, describing each in her action researchjournal in some detail.

In Cora’s view, her student teaching experience was crucial in refreshing her knowledgeof science content. In fact she viewed her science knowledge, or lack of it, as a barrier toeffective teaching. She noted in one journal entry that her evenings were spent brushing upon science details before teaching a topic, some nights leaving her with only 2 to 3 h ofsleep per night.

724 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741

First Year of Teaching: Context

Cora spent her first year teaching in a middle school in a rapidly growing school district.Cora was one of two full time science teachers. At her school site there was a lack ofcollegial support for, or role models of teaching that shared important features withconceptual change pedagogy. She taught four eighth grade life science classes and twoseventh grade physical science classes. While there was a textbook series available for usein her courses, Cora was free to choose what topics to teach, in what order and how to teachthem. Planning time for Cora was most often spent alone, using state guidelines for sciencecourses and activities from the textbook series, and materials picked up at conferences.Most lessons consisted of modifications of these commercially available materials.

The principal was delighted with Cora and found her “genuine and dedicated to hands onscience.” He was impressed with her knowledge and willingness to turn the classroom over tothe students and let them explore and discover. While Cora was content with the schoolenvironment and felt good about progress she was making as a teacher, she nonetheless hadsome reservations about continuing to teach in the immediate future. Lack of time for personalpursuits and the location of her school in a community that offered few social opportunities fora young, single woman were mentioned as some shortcomings of her circumstances.

Observations of Cora’s Teaching

Cora was observed teaching two different lessons on separate occasions several monthsapart. During each visit the classroom was very inviting and comfortable. Walls werecovered by student assignments, student projects were stacked on counters and tables, andencouraging statements hung on banners or bulletin boards. One example hung over theblackboard: “Attitudes are contagious...is yours worth catching?”

During the first observation students were actively engaged in a “challenge activity.”Working in groups, students tackled an assignment to focus a beam of light from a filmstripprojector onto a fixed point on a wall across the room. The problem? There were severalmajor obstacles between the projector and the target that could not be moved, every memberof the group had to be a part of the solution, and each group member had only a small handheld mirror as equipment. A 5 min time limit per group added an element of urgency to theendeavor. Students worked very enthusiastically, and it was an effort for Cora to stop theexploration as the end of the period grew closer and time for follow-up discussion began.

As part of the second lesson on frames of reference, Cora showed a film clip from themovie “Aladdin.” The objective was to help students form their own conceptions of framesof reference. After watching a short segment consisting of Aladdin and Jasmine on a flyingcarpet ride, students were asked to list items that moved during the clip in one column, andhow they knew the items were moving in a second column on their paper. Through guideddiscussion after the observations, students shared with the class their own ideas aboutframes of reference. During the remainder of the period, Cora led a discussion of responsesto a homework review sheet for the astronomy unit. Students were actively involved insharing their responses and asking questions about problems they were unable to solve.

Learning and Learner Role

Learners were the focus of Cora’s classroom. As illustrated in the observations describedabove, students had numerous opportunities to discuss among themselves and with Cora,

Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741 725

the ideas they generated in response to classroom activities and observations. The classprovided a sounding board for those ideas that helped students shape their thoughts. Thistype of learning environment was a goal of Cora’s. She listened to students and attemptedto adjust the upcoming lessons in response to student questions and concerns.

Cora’s views of learning are also implicit in many aspects of her teaching, where sheincreasingly viewed her role as one of facilitator of successful learning. She encouragedcreative and challenging exploration by students. She designed lessons to meet a widevariety of student interests and learning styles, allowing them to struggle to find answers forthemselves rather than telling them what to think. “Most kids are very creative, designingcomics or board games with science content. For one project kids wrote songs,” Coraexplained. Each student had an opportunity to use his or her strengths to demonstrateachievement. In other words for Cora students need to be actively involved in their work inorder to learn.

Teacher Role

There was evidence of further development of Cora’s conception of the role of the teacherin her first year. As discussed above, her teaching was greatly influenced by her focus onstudents. This, however, was not without problems for Cora. While Cora had a desire to usestudent questions and conceptions to guide her teaching, she admitted struggling toimplement the pedagogy well. “I’m still kind of learning how to, what to do with questions.I just kind of go ‘Well that’s a good question’ and then I don’t talk about it very much,”Cora shared. She was also aware of how difficult student conceptions can be to change. “Ithought everybody was kind of the same place with this, but she (a student) must still bekind of hanging onto some ideas that she has,” said Cora. While she recognized thatstudents come to class with their own ideas, and would like to learn what they are, sheadmitted being not quite sure how to use them to guide her planning. While Cora notedtime as one constraint to making this next step, there was some indication from Cora thatthe methods class could have gone further to model or discuss various ways of doing this,as elaborated in Marion et al. (1999).

By her second year of teaching Cora felt more comfortable with students and felt lessself conscious while teaching, “I am more confident...more myself this year. Last year I wassolemn, I have loosened up. I am beginning to see more of the student body language andread students better. I look at their response to what we are doing...and am less focused onmyself.” This shift in focus may help Cora think about ways to incorporate studentconceptions into plans for follow-up lessons, as she becomes more aware of theirunderstanding of science concepts and can adjust mid-lesson in response to their reactionsto the activities.

Curriculum

There were few external constraints placed on Cora with respect to curriculum choices. Shementioned an obligation to use the state curriculum guidelines as a framework, but was freewithin that framework to make choices about the topics her students study. With thisfreedom, came the ongoing burden of developing lessons on a daily basis. When askedabout long range planning, Cora laughed and noted she was lucky to stay one or 2 daysahead of the students. Time for development of curriculum was not provided in Cora’sworkday, and therefore became a constraint to such development.

726 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741

Colleagues and School

Cora had tremendous support from her administrator based on our interview with him.Interestingly, Cora was surprised to hear that fact, noting that while she had no reason tobelieve he was dissatisfied, he had never verbalized his level of approval to her directly.While her science colleague was helpful, and Cora had good rapport with other staffmembers, there was little in the way of encouragement at the school site to continuepursuing conceptual change teaching. It isn’t clear that Cora herself had a clear vision ofhow an entire science lesson might play out using a conceptual change framework.

Discussion of Cora’s Preservice and Early Years of Teaching

Cora’s increased confidence, particularly with regards to classroom management, her focuson students and their needs, the support of her administration, and the rapport she had withstudents are all evidence of her continuing growth as a teacher. She is reflective about herpractice and how it affects individual students. While her teaching contains elements ofconceptual change, it is not clear that Cora has as a goal fully enacting a conceptual changeconception of teaching science. Cora is dissatisfied with what she perceived to betraditional science teaching, but she doesn’t necessarily have a grasp on ways to makeconceptual change a plausible alternative.

There is a strong continuity of Cora’s conceptions of teaching and learning science fromher preservice year and into her first years of teaching. As a student teacher she had adefinite interest in students as individuals that developed into a student centered way ofteaching. She planned lessons with the desire to engage and motivate students to think andlearn. This student focus develops further in her first year of teaching as she becameincreasingly confident with respect to classroom management, allowing her to focus moreon questions and ideas emerging from students. Cora’s awareness of the need to follow upon student questions and ideas is not enough to enable her to incorporate them smoothlyinto her planning of upcoming activities. She continues to work on this aspect of herteaching.

Early in her preservice year Cora voiced dissatisfaction with traditional science teaching.That dissatisfaction grows in her first year of teaching, particularly when she found that thetime it takes to develop new lessons is prohibitive, and she is instead limited tomodifications of commercially available materials. While time is certainly a factor withregards to this shift away from traditional teaching, Cora has a sense that time might beneeded as much to gain a deeper understanding of conceptual change teaching, and theways in which lessons that create such a learning environment arise, as to plan and preparefor the lessons themselves.

Cora also indicated fairly early on that science was more than a body of facts to bememorized. She holds to this conviction throughout her first years of teaching, providingoutlets for student creativity and innovation.

Case 2: Nancy


Knowledge, in Nancy’s view, was external truth that students must discover throughobservation, discussion, sense making, and, ultimately, reliance on the judgment of

Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741 727

authorities, especially the teacher. As far as science was concerned, Nancy defined it interms of content and skills. The content of science had two aspects: a fixed body of factsand a changing knowledge base resulting from the process of discovery throughexperimentation. The skills are those needed to engage in the process of discovery, i.e.gathering facts and developing explanatory models of how things work. Finally, Nancy’sstated conception of teaching science was one of looking up information in a textbook,preparing an intelligible explanation of it for class, and then presenting the information tothe students.

Nancy’s student teaching placement was in a small rural town near her home. Thestudent population of the school was about 250, predominantly white and middle class.Nancy’s classes were small and contained students with a wide range of abilities. Shetaught a curriculum developed by her cooperating teacher under a district-wide scope andsequence umbrella. Nancy was somewhat constrained in her teaching by her cooperatingteacher’s attitude about time. He thought that spending extra time on a difficult topic wasbabying the students, that they were just being lazy. In practice, however, she usedconsiderable class time for students to present their conceptions of the topic of study. Nancysaw it as her role then to step in with the authoritative “correct” information, rather thanusing strategies to get students to make judgments about the status of their conceptionsrelative to others. Students liked Nancy’s student-centered discussions. In her actionresearch seminar journal, Nancy wrote about a survey she gave her classes about herteaching and how she ran her class. “The question about discussion really surprised me. Alot of the kids thought discussion in class was pretty good”, shared Nancy. Apparently, bykeeping the discussion centered on student questions, Nancy captured the interest andapproval of her students. She made them feel good enough about the value of their ownideas that they came to value discussion.

In Nancy’s view, her student teaching experience was an important step in her learningbiology in a manner useful for teaching. She stated that she had a better understanding andmore confidence in her biological knowledge for having taught it.


Nancy spent her first year teaching in a medium-sized high school. The school was wellsupported by the community. According to an administrator, the faculty was stable andcontent. The science department offered biology, chemistry, physics, physical science, andenvironmental science. There were nine teachers in the department, five of whom taughtbiology for at least part of their day. While there was a district curriculum, it neverthelessallowed teachers to follow divergent paths within the constraints imposed by sharing oflaboratory materials and equipment. In Nancy’s view, the school administration wassupportive of teachers.

Nancy was the only permanent female science faculty member. She taught two sectionsof sophomore biology, one section of physics, and two sections of LEAP, an alternativeprogram for students with difficulty meeting graduation requirements. Nancy was free todesign the LEAP curriculum, “I was told I could do what I liked.” She found the lack ofguidance a stressful experience, but felt she was improving. Nancy was also explicit that,were she to stop teaching LEAP, she would leave all her materials for her successor toprovide the guidance she didn’t receive.

A biology teacher with more than 20 years’ experience was assigned by the sciencedepartment to mentor Nancy in her biology teaching. She taught her biology in hisclassroom, followed his curriculum closely, did the same labs he did, and used his handouts

728 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741

most of the time. As a first year teacher, she found the support provided by thisarrangement invaluable; as she commented: “I don’t know what I’d do without him.” Itprovided her with a broad curriculum structure and a wealth of resources she would havebeen unable to prepare in her first year. As the months passed, she found there were variouspoints over which she disagreed with him, e.g. the level of detail in some of his handouts,his discussion of controversial topics such as abortion, his low opinion of students’ abilities.These disagreements, however, were never a problem to Nancy because she felt free toadjust her teaching and focus on big ideas rather than detail, leave out issues she believeddid not belong in a biology curriculum, etc. As she commented, “I don’t really have anypressure from the school at all...so it’s really up to the individual teacher as to what wewould teach, so I guess it’s my freedom in that sense.”

It was clear that Nancy was content with the school, “I think this is a wonderful schooldistrict.” She enjoyed teaching, “I do like what I do and I definitely want to teach more”,and she felt she was making progress. The school administrator was happy with her andimpressed with her handling of the LEAP class that he’d taught the previous year, “I wentin 10 min before the end of class and they were asking her questions about orbital levels,”and commented she was one of the best new teachers he had seen.

Observations of Nancy’s Teaching

Nancy was observed teaching three different biology lessons at different times during theyear. On two occasions she was observed repeating a lesson to another class later in the day.The tasks described below took up a little more than half of the three lessons observed.

Nancy’s biology classes were studying the atomic structure of compounds. She handedout a set of questions as a review task for groups. The procedure for setting up groups andsorting out individual roles within the group was very familiar to the students; without anyfuss they formed into groups, rearranged chairs, and started the task. They looked up theirnotes, consulted different textbooks, discussed their answers, and wrote them down. Later,each group reported back to the class items that were “important to know” from theirreview sheets, writing them on the overhead for the rest of the class to copy down. Nancycommented on their responses, asked questions about why some were important,occasionally amplified or changed a conclusion, and announced at the end that those weretheir notes for the topic.

As one part of the second lesson, Nancy conducted a review activity, the purpose ofwhich was to name parts of the human reproductive system. It had been some time sincethis topic had been done, and there was to be a test the following week. She put a diagramon the overhead, pointed at particular organs, and asked different students, some with theirhands up and others without, to respond. The emphasis was largely on nomenclature, withlittle mention of function.

The third lesson observed was the fourth day of a chick lab, a department-wide activitydesigned to follow the influence of a hormone, testosterone, on the growth anddevelopment of young chicks. Once a week over the period of a month, students tookmeasurements of secondary characteristics of chicks that had been injected with thehormone, painted with the hormone, or left untouched as a control. This was the fourth andfinal occasion for gathering data. Nancy gave a brief introduction to remind students ofsalient features of the experiment. Small groups of students then worked independently,collecting their three chicks from the common cage, weighing them, measuring their combsizes, and observing the frequency of various aspects of their behavior. These were not alleasy procedures to accomplish with agitated, mobile chicks, but for the most part students

Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741 729

responded with enthusiasm to the tasks, the chicks as creatures to be treated humanely, andto others in the classroom, including the observer. Nancy kept a watchful eye on the class,circulating, answering questions and keeping track of the clock to remind students to cleanup before the end of the class. She also encouraged them, if they had time, to start graphingtheir data so that they could study the results of the experiment the following day.


Nancy focused on students in her teaching. This emerged from observation of the extent towhich she gave students opportunities to talk with each other in groups and duringlaboratories, to ask and answer questions, and to provide input in whole class settings. Shewas prepared to listen to students and to adjust her lesson plan in response to what she hadheard, particularly if there was confusion and lack of understanding. This approach wasobserved in both the group review and the chick lab described above, where within theconstraints of tasks clearly defined by the lab instruction sheet, she wanted students to takeresponsibility. It seemed clear that students had come to accept this expectation andbehaved accordingly. Nancy supported these observations in talking about her teaching. Inseveral contexts she reiterated the importance of making sure that her students wereengaged in the lesson. In discussing planning she said, “The question comes to my head ofsomething they might ask so I write it down and ask it to them and go from there...againjust to get them vocal and not to make it a passive class.” She commented about herteaching, “Kids will say that they don’t understand stuff and then we’ll stop...it takes meout of my lesson plan but...we work around it...I’m pretty flexible...I tend to get off track...that’s good that they’re at least engaging in the conversation and they’re thinking about it.”On another occasion she shared, “I just think if I just try to jam so much stuff down they’renot going to remember anything.” When asked about her expectations of students shereplied, “The one main expectation was 100% effort...I guess I judge it by how they usetheir time in class...it’s a lot of me observing them and I guess getting to know them.”

Teacher Role

In her teaching Nancy considered a number of issues in addition to students. In talkingabout her use of a question-and-answer review of detailed factual material, she commentedabout two aspects of the review, its format and its content. She wasn’t happy with theformat, saying, “We always try to play some type of game...rather than me just standing upthere...and basically go(ing) through everything...I’ll think of some little activity that wecan do that will get them thinking about what they know and what they don’t know.” Inorder to improve student engagement, Nancy would ideally have chosen to format thereview differently although she was satisfied with the content. Nancy focused strongly onstudents she was teaching. Her relationships with them were excellent, she respected them,she listened to them, she varied her teaching in response to their words and actions, and sheconstantly sought to engage them in the tasks she set for them. The classroom environmentwas congenial and cooperative.

Science

Nancy viewed biology as having two aspects: a) a body of factual material that, b) isembedded in a social structure that produces the possibility of opinion and controversy, e.g.evolution, birth control. While teaching, she chose to steer clear of the controversial. In

730 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741

commenting on her review of factual material she said, “Unfortunately that’s what a lot ofbiology is, knowing what terms are and what things are...there’s only so many questionsyou can ask in biology that are opinion questions, at least at this stage...most of thequestions are going to be factual, ‘Do you know what an ovary is?’ I usually try to put insome type of thought questions, but it’s hard to think of these questions.”

The contrast Nancy drew here between factual and opinion questions reiterated earliercomments she made about the role she had as a biology teacher. In talking about a decisionshe made not to discuss birth control in class she said, “I think that biology should be factualmaterial on...the human body, plants, and animals. Whether you decide if you want to getpregnant or not, you know, is not a fact...it’s a judgment, it’s a moral issue, it’s something thatsomeone is going to decide on their own. Whether I tell you how you can or cannot getpregnant, I don’t think—it’s not the place to do it as a teacher in a public school.”

In order to probe Nancy’s two-part view of biology, she was asked the following daywhether she saw a balance between providing information gathered by scientists and talkingabout the process of finding out that information. She commented, “We teach the kids at thebeginning of the year about the scientific method...we do go over what a theory is,something that has evidence but hasn’t been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it’strue...kids basically think what they get in class is fact and what their teacher says is true. Ithink they put a lot of emphasis on ‘so and so said it so it must be true’. You have to becareful about that because if you do say something that is kind of opinionated or a theory,they may think it’s true.” The methods by which scientists produce knowledge appear toplay a minor role for Nancy. She saw her responsibility as largely to teach the facts, in partbecause she doesn’t want her students to come to accept her opinions as the truth.

Curriculum

Nancy tacitly accepts the district curriculum by basing her teaching largely on the resourcesprovided by her mentor, her other colleagues in the science department, and textbooks. Asshe said, “I’d say 95% of the handouts I get are from my mentor, he lets me look throughand see which ones I want to use, which is just great. I don’t know what I’d do withouthim...he gives me, about a month in advance, everything—like a sentence or two on whathe’s going to do...I kind of follow his schedule...because there are so many teachers here,too, we all do the same labs and so they’re available.”

Nancy also relies on textbooks, “I have four or five textbooks at home...and I see whatthey see as important...I don’t take it into my own hands...I guess through time I’m justgoing to know through experience whether I should have done this or didn’t need to.” On aday-to-day level, she does her own planning, “I’m pretty flexible...I usually write down apretty detailed lesson...notes...questions.”


Nancy was, to a large extent, content with the degree of support she received from hercolleagues and the school. While she acknowledged some constraints from the schoolcurriculum and the need to coordinate with her mentor, she also felt that she had thefreedom to make her own professional judgments as she saw fit. In her words, “The onlything would be in...the actual order of the content that we teach, we do that the same, so wedo the same labs because he has all the material ordered...I probably don’t cover as muchas other teachers, but I don’t feel pressure that I have to...I guess it’s my freedom in thatsense...I think this is a wonderful school district.”

Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741 731

Discussion of Nancy’s Preservice and First Year of Teaching

There is a strong continuity between Nancy’s approach to students in her preservice yearand the first year of teaching. As a student teacher she believed it was important to givestudents time and space to express themselves, in spite of her cooperating teacher’s attitude.Her strong focus on engaging students and having them involved in lessons continues inher first year of teaching.

An important aspect of Nancy’s view of science remains unchanged. In both herpreservice and first year of teaching a key aspect of science in general and biology inparticular was the body of factual knowledge representing the objective truth about theworld. We can see this explicitly in many of her statements. We can also see it tacitly inboth years, as evidenced by her need to step in with authoritative information whenstudents’ answers are faulty, and from her substantial reliance on the district curriculumguide, textbooks, colleagues’ written materials and laboratory activities.

There are two important changes during the time we studied Nancy. In her preserviceyear Nancy spoke about science incorporating a process of discovery through experimen-tation that changes the base of available knowledge, a process in which students canparticipate to learn objective truths about the world. In her first year, Nancy does not appearto emphasize discovery as a way of thinking about experimentation. In addition, in her firstyear of teaching Nancy spoke on several occasions about the role that matters of opinionplayed in biology and stated she does not think she should teach these in her high schoolbiology classroom. Nancy does not appear to emphasize this aspect in her pre-service year.

Case 3: Ralph


Ralph began and ended his pre-service year with a didactic view of teaching. Like hiscohorts in the action research seminar, Ralph developed a greater focus on his students, butthis did not result in a change in his teaching. He held non-constructivist conceptions ofscience and knowledge and these might have been important factors blocking hisdevelopment towards conceptual change teaching (Tabachnick and Zeichner 1999). Ralphwas aware that his students brought their own conceptions about the world to his classroom.These conceptions were important to Ralph because they were often wrong or incomplete,and this informed Ralph about what to teach. Once Ralph identified a misconception, hepresented the scientific conception with an explanation of why it was the correctconception. He called this “dispelling the myths.” Ralph’s cooperating teacher was anotherimportant influence on his teaching. He often praised Ralph’s teaching, reinforcing Ralph’sviews of science and knowledge. Ralph’s cooperating teacher was very affirmative, andstated that Ralph was the best student teacher with whom he had ever worked.


Ralph’s first years of teaching was in a medium-sized public school. The school offeredmany resources to teachers, including computers, nearby field trip destinations, experiencedteacher mentors, and various texts or reference books. Ralph admitted he had been too busyto use many of them. There were eight Macintosh computers in the science department anda variety of science software available for use. Another 58 computers were available withinthe school. Although he was often too busy to familiarize himself with the use of the

732 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741

computers during his first year of teaching, Ralph hoped to incorporate more computerwork during his second year of teaching.

The science department head was an informal mentor for Ralph in Biology, and anotherteacher played the same role for Ralph in Science 9. Both were experienced teachers whooffered Ralph advice from how well different labs worked to what materials were availablefor use. Four other teachers rounded out the science department faculty. All were availableas human resources for Ralph to call upon, and he used them as both formal and informalmentors quite a bit during his first year of teaching. Ralph relied on the course textbook hisfirst year, as well as some books and materials he had become familiar with during hiscollege years. These included notes, personal experiences and video presentations fromclasses he attended while in college, as well as the textbooks and workbooks associatedwith the courses.

Ralph was happy to be teaching that first year, and impacting his students’ lives. He feltteaching was an outlet for his creativity that offset the pressure of feeling solely responsiblefor what his students were learning about biology or earth science. He admitted thatteaching was a lot of hard work, but felt that if he could get through the first 2 years, thingswould improve.

Observations of Ralph’s Teaching

Ralph’s teaching was observed on two different occasions, approximately 3 months apart.The first was a 1 day visit in late January to his 5th hour sophomore biology and his 7thhour freshman science classes, the second a 2 day visit to his 5th and 6th hour biologyclasses.

During our first observation of Ralph, the biology class studied photosynthesis and theabsorption spectrum for chlorophyll. This was a lively, good natured class. Ralph seemed tohave good rapport with the students in this class. He began by leading a lecture/discussionabout photosynthesis. As part of this lesson he questioned the class about what they couldrecall of the light reaction and the by-products of the Calvin cycle. Student responses wererecorded on the blackboard. Ralph then quickly summarized the Calvin cycle, and asked ifthere were any questions before going on. The rest of the class time was spent introducing achromatography lab. Ralph had the students open their texts and look at an absorptionspectrum for chlorophyll a and b. Ralph asked the class what they thought the color of lightmight be. The class had some very divergent responses: white, nothing, black. Ralphcontinued with the lesson, explaining the role of chlorophyll in light absorption. In aninterview after class he explained, “I didn’t want to get into it because I wanted to makesure we got through the stuff for the lab on Monday.” Since most labs were preppedcooperatively with another teacher, Ralph needed to stay on pace.

During the second observation of Ralph, the 5th hour biology class was studyingmeiosis. Ralph began by asking the class to get out text and notebooks. “Do chromosomescome in odd or even numbers?” he asked. The ensuing discussion centered on why theycame in even numbers. Students wrote down in their notebooks what was written by Ralphon the blackboard. Next Ralph took the class through prophase, metaphase, anaphase andtelophase for mitosis and compared them to the first meiotic division. Students were verycurious about the genetic implications of meiosis. Comments flowed about babies born withblue eyes that later change to brown and whether a person born blind would be likely tohave blind children.

The following day students picked up where they had left off the previous one. Ralphbegan by reviewing the stages of mitosis, writing characteristics of each phase on the board.

Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741 733

He then took students through the second meiotic division while they followed along intheir texts. Before completing the lesson, at the request of students Ralph dismissed theclass to observe a solar eclipse occurring outside. After the eclipse, Ralph had studentsdraw the stages of meiosis in their notebooks. He circulated to be sure students were beingaccurate. Following the drawings, Ralph asked students to make a model cell on paper,using one pair of homologous chromosomes to move through meiosis. Quite a bit ofconfusion resulted regarding chromosomes versus chromatids. At the end of class Ralphdrew the phases on the board for each student to check their drawings or re-draw as needed.

The 6th hour class began with a scuffle between two students that Ralph managed well.The same lesson was repeated, with one student asking what homologous pairs ofchromosomes were. Ralph had another student read the definition from his notebook, aftercommenting that the definition was explained the previous day. A class poll was conductedto see how many daughter cells were produced in meiosis.

Science

Ralph held to his view of science knowledge as fact-based truths about an external reality tobe transmitted from teacher to student. At one point Ralph told his class that he had theknowledge to teach them. He viewed his students as receivers of knowledge. Ralph coveredthe structure and content well. He asked students to supply answers to questions he chose.The information was recorded in student notebooks. Ralph’s view of science varied littlefrom his preservice view (cf. Lemberger et al. 1999). He regarded science as a collection offacts generated from scientists’ observations of reality. Scientific method was covered as aseparate topic early in the year and not revisited explicitly.


Ralph’s classes were subject-centered and teacher-directed. The students were often calledupon to recite information, from lectures or copied from the text. Student misconceptionswere viewed by Ralph as opportunities to provide correct explanations. Ralph shared in aninterview that he often intentionally called on someone in class who he thought likely toprovide a wrong answer to create that opportunity.

Teacher Role

If Ralph determined from the student’s answer that there were gaps in knowledge, or amisconception, he gave the class the scientifically acceptable information or called onstudents until he found someone who knew the answer; a practice he referred to during hispreservice year as “dispelling the myths”. Ralph expected his students to get answers to hisquestions from readings, lectures or other classroom activities. In commenting about histeaching he said, “I throw out a question and try to get them to answer it. When they start toget in the right area...I lead them to the answer and we do note taking from that.”

Asked directly about using student’s conceptions, Ralph said, “A little. Not much.” Hissense of using student conceptions arises from the following statement: “Back at thebeginning of the year I asked them what things they wanted to study. Not really lookingtowards conceptual change, but it was more about what sorts of things they were interestedin. During the year I’ve looked back on that list and made sure we have covered them.”

Ralph stated in an interview that his teaching methods relied too much on lecture. “I triedto balance it out as much as I can with group work and labs. I spend approximately 20–25% of

734 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741

class time doing labs.” The group work emphasis arose from the administration’s desire to seemore cooperative learning introduced in science. As Ralph said, “The vice-principal verymuch wants to see cooperative grouping and things like that.”

Curriculum

The school practiced informal tracking, according to Ralph. All the incoming freshmenwere required to take Science 9. Starting their sophomore year the students were split, withthe academic top two-thirds placed in biology, while the lower third took life science.

The biology curriculum and Ralph’s teaching were constrained by the selection of theBiological Science—The Molecular Approach (BSCS) text. The reading level was grade14, and Ralph felt the molecular approach too detailed for his 10th graders. He felt lockedinto this curriculum due to shared resources and mid-year switching from one class toanother. Given a choice, Ralph would use a more “macro” approach to biology, and heplanned to add some during his second year of teaching. In Science 9, however, Ralph hadcomplete freedom to teach whatever he wanted. He chose astronomy and earth science.


Ralph felt he received good support from his science department colleagues. Theadministration, however, was not happy with his classroom management. After severalpositive evaluations, Ralph received one poor evaluation from the vice-principal. This wasbased on discipline problems in Science 9 and lack of cooperative group activities ingeneral. The poor evaluation shook Ralph’s confidence, but he used it in a positive way torethink what he was doing. Ralph discussed with his classes characteristics of a goodteacher and good student, and what resulted were classroom guidelines that improvedclassroom management and increased mutual respect between Ralph and his students.

Discussion of Ralph’s Preservice and First Year of Teaching

Ralph’s teaching practice during his first year is much like we observed during thepreservice year. Like most first year teachers, he has some rocky moments, but none makehim question his basic conception of science teaching. The only encouragement forchanging his classroom practice comes from the vice-principal who criticized somemanagement and practice techniques Ralph uses. Without development of dissatisfactionwith a conception it is unlikely that a new conception will be allowed to compete for statuswith the old one (Hewson 1981). In Ralph’s case it appears that even if he does eventuallybecome dissatisfied with his teaching, conceptual change teaching is not clear enough to bea plausible alternative.

Ralph’s dissatisfaction focuses on the course textbook and the level of study itemphasizes. He is locked into this curriculum by a variety of factors, but especially theguidance department that requires him to use the same book and keep pace with the sciencedepartment head, who teaches the other sections of sophomore biology. The guidancedepartment wants this so that students can be switched to other sections at the end of thefirst semester. An additional factor affecting Ralph stems from time constraints. Thesepreclude the opportunity to reflect on his practice.

Most of the influences Ralph fell under during his first year of teaching provide anadequate context to explain the continuation of Ralph’s didactic teaching style. The forcefor change Ralph encountered from the vice-principal is the most significant factor

Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741 735

promoting change in Ralph’s first years of practice. His reaction was to try more groupactivities, but deeper change may require dissatisfaction by Ralph with his conception ofteaching science.

Conclusion and Implications

We conclude this paper by extending what we have learned from the three cases to abroader set of conclusions regarding the professional development of secondary scienceteachers vis-à-vis conceptual change teaching. As they approached the end of their first yearof teaching, all three teachers expressed increased levels of confidence in their teachingcompetence, both in their classroom performance and their places in their departments andschools. There is every reason to regard all of them as successful graduates of the secondaryscience certification program. The specific goal of the program, however, was implemen-tation of conceptual change teaching praxis, an approach that none of them had fullyimplemented. This raises the questions of why this is so, and how they integrated theirconceptions of teaching science with environmental factors to develop the observed praxis.After summarizing key aspects of their praxis, we consider the extent that their supportingconceptions (about learning, knowledge, etc.) influenced the status of conceptual changeteaching, and the interactions with the school and classroom environments in which theirconceptions of teaching science were necessarily expressed as their enacted praxis.

Of the three cases, Cora’s teaching is furthest from the traditional subject-centered,teacher-directed approach (i.e., teaching as telling, Gallagher 1993, or the traditional modelof teaching, Porlán and del Pozo 2004). In her case there is evidence that she had enteredthe teaching program already dissatisfied with traditional didactic teaching based on asubject-centered curriculum. This strong distaste was confirmed in her reactions during herstudent teaching semester to her cooperating teacher’s practices. Cora’s conception ofteaching science based on her interviews and classroom practice would be classified as a setof hands-on activities contextualized in a learning cycle (Gallagher 1993). Cora’s increasingfocus on students’ ideas in her second year may indicate that she is evolving toward acompeting conception of teaching science that could be classified as science teaching asconceptual change (Gallagher 1993; Porlán and del Pozo 2004). It’s hard to determine whatis driving Cora’s evolution toward conceptual change teaching, but her conceptions ofscience and science learning as thinking through observations to come to new conclusions sether apart from Nancy and Ralph, and may play a role. Environmental influences contributingto the expression of conceptual change praxis included a high degree of curricular freedom,strong approval of administrators and colleagues for her student-centered approach, and goodclassroom management skills. The greatest negative environmental influence was the lack ofplanning time to develop student-centered lessons. This was aggravated by Cora’s need to usea great deal of time to refresh her content knowledge.

Despite Nancy’s strong focus on her students, her classroom praxis and interviewsindicate that her conception of teaching science should be classified as teaching as telling,and teaching science as the organization of scientific content (Gallagher 1993) ortraditional/technical model (Porlán and del Pozo 2004). Her satisfaction with her currentconception of teaching was reinforced by its consistency with her high status conception ofscience as truth represented by a fixed body of facts. Environmental factors contributing toher praxis consisted of her students’ success based on her assessments and the positivefeedback she received from her administrators, common laboratory preparation with otherteachers, and the use of teaching materials (handouts) from her mentor.

736 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741

Ralph entered the program with a high status conception of teaching science as teaching astelling, or transmission of knowledge (Gallagher 1993; Porlán and del Pozo 2004). Ralph’sconception of teaching science was supported by a high status conception of science as fact-based truths about an external reality. Environmental interaction with his conception ofteaching science was most significant in the context of classroom management. This,however, did not indicate to Ralph that he needed to change his praxis aside from the veryspecific recommendation from his administrator that he add small group learning to hispedagogical repertoire. One other environmental interaction with Ralph’s praxis waspressure Ralph felt from the school’s advisors to stay on pace with the other biologyteaches so students could be switched from one section to another at semester break.

The slow movement toward conceptual change praxis demonstrated by our participantsis consistent with Adams and Krockover (1999) who, using an observational rubric(STAM) developed by Gallagher and Parker (1995), found that a novice biology teachershowed no significant change in his praxis until his third year when he moved from adidactic/transitional teacher to a conceptual/transitional teacher. The use of STAM providedthe reflective opportunities for this change to occur. Koballa et al. (2005) found nonoticeable changes in the praxes of three preservice teachers in an alternative preparationprogram. This is consistent with the results reported by Lemberger et al. (1999) of threepreservice teachers in a traditional preparation program, even though the preservice teacherswere encouraged to be reflective through an action research component to their program.

There are some encouraging signs however. Both Cora and Nancy focused strongly onstudents in their teaching, carrying patterns that were evident in their student teaching intotheir own classrooms. They engaged students’ conceptions and involved them in theirlessons, being willing to change their plans in mid-lesson, if necessary. They oftenexpressed this student-centered orientation as concern about motivation, student engage-ment in the lesson, and student interests and activities. In contrast Ralph was satisfied fromthe outset with traditional forms of teaching. This was reinforced during his semester ofstudent teaching by his cooperating teacher who praised the way in which he taught.

While all three teachers were interested in eliciting students’ ideas, there was a sense,particularly during their student teaching, that they were not sure what to do with theseideas beyond noting that they were often wrong and in need of correction. It seemsreasonable that for them elicitation revealed the deficits in students’ knowledge where theteacher’s task was to remedy these shortcomings by telling students the right answer in thecases of Nancy and Ralph, or to arrange relevant hands-on activities in the case of Cora.Not helping their students to address the status of their own ideas in comparison with peersand ultimately against scientific ideas is a key indicator that Cora, Nancy and Ralph had notfully implemented conceptual change praxis.

An important prerequisite for conceptual change is dissatisfaction with the image of“traditional-didactic teaching”. As indicated earlier, Ralph was content with his practice,except over matters of classroom management, throughout the period of this study. Underthe circumstances, why should he have changed? Similarly, Nancy expressed very littledissatisfaction with her teaching during the study; it seems she came into the program witha strong student focus, influenced in part by her own experiences in high school. Cora, onthe other hand was unhappy with the teaching of her cooperating teacher and resolved to dothings differently.

The next thing to consider is the relative status of competing conceptions of teachingscience in terms of their intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness. Making a newconception intelligible is a crucial starting point if the conception is to gain high statuswithin the conceptual ecology of a learner. In the teacher education program, the only

Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741 737

opportunity for discerning the intelligibility of conceptual change teaching came in thescience methods course. Conceptual change was partially modeled by the science methodsinstructor, discussed at the beginning of the methods class, and assigned readings focusedon issues of conceptual change. However, based on our teachers’ statements aboutconceptual change, and their actions in the classroom, this did not appear to have been anadequate opportunity to gain a firm understanding of conceptual change teaching and howit develops in an actual classroom context. In addition, teaching differently from theirmentors and peers without a doubt represented significant risk for student or first yearteachers. It might have been unrealistic to expect them to take such risk with only asuperficial understanding of conceptual change teaching.

Second, the three teachers needed the opportunity to test the plausibility of conceptualchange teaching. This meant exploring how conceptual change teaching fits with theirconceptions about knowledge, science and learning. Conceptual change is an attempt toexplain learning using a constructivist epistemology. Conceptual change teaching requiresthat the teacher accept assumptions about learning underlying constructivist pedagogy. Aconstructivist view of learning stresses the critical role that prior knowledge plays inlearning and understanding new ideas. There was little evidence that these three teachersthought of learning from a constructivist perspective. While on occasion they elicitedstudent ideas, they didn’t encourage students to explore metacognitively the status of theirideas or the basis on which they justified them. There are no indications that the teacherssaw the importance of further exploration of students’ ideas to identify what might beuseful for future learning. This strongly suggests that, for these teachers, a constructivistview of learning had low status; thus they had little incentive to explore its implications forinstruction. In addition the ways in which they understand conceptual change pedagogymay have limited their ability to implement it even partially. A forum, such as actionresearch, for exploring a deeper understanding of knowledge, science and learning and howthey fit with conceptions of teaching might be crucial before conceptual change teachingbecomes plausible to a new teacher. The three teachers under study seemed to holdconceptions of science and knowledge that to varying degrees were inconsistent withconstructivist views of the world. A key factor in understanding their dilemma about whatto do with students’ ideas seems, to us, to be their views of knowledge and of science. Theytended to regard knowledge as a manifestation of an external reality, and science as a bodyof factual knowledge that is tested, true, and obtained by a scientific method that uncoversthis reality. From this perspective, the task of a teacher is to organize, present, or otherwisemake available this body of proven knowledge. When students stray from the path, theteacher points out the errors and helps them return.

Cora, Nancy and Ralph also need better chances to test the fruitfulness of conceptualchange teaching. Stofflett and Stoddard (1994) and Dhindsa and Anderson (2004) reportthat prospective teachers may need opportunities to learn science content throughconceptual change teaching before being inclined to use conceptual change teachingstrategies in their own teaching. Studies in situated cognition (Anderson et al. 1996; Brownet al. 1989) reinforce the idea that Cora, Nancy and Ralph may have been predisposed to acertain conception of teaching science based on the way they were taught science.Additionally, there are few classrooms where secondary student teachers can work withcooperating teachers versed in conceptual change teaching theory, constructivist theory, andhow it translates into successful student learning. Student teachers are commonly socializedinto more traditional kinds of teaching practice. Without more scaffolding, it will bedifficult for emerging conceptual change conceptions of teaching science to find thereinforcement needed to gain status in the conceptual ecology of the developing teacher.

738 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741

For all three novice teachers the expression of their conceptions of teaching scienceinteracted significantly with environmental components in their schools and classrooms.The intellectual and practical aspects of the teachers’ environment are importantconsiderations in the expression of praxis. None of our study participants had the time,nor were they encouraged to try conceptual change teaching by their colleagues during theirfirst year of teaching. Instead, they found that they were often expected to teach in atraditional manner to keep up with the schedule of other teachers who were teaching thesame course. Covering the same material as their colleagues is a consistent theme amongour teachers. Partly this is a self-imposed desire to borrow teaching ideas and materials, butlargely it is a very real, external constraint upon the three teachers by structures in place intheir schools. It is our view that in order to operate effectively in a classroom teachers mustintegrate their conception of teaching science (and supporting conceptions of learning,science knowledge, etc.) with salient features of their teaching environment to develop apraxis that works in their classroom, school, and community.

The points discussed above represent a challenge to the science education community. Ifwe are to create an opportunity in which beginning teachers are able to successfullyintegrate conceptual change conceptions of teaching science with practical environmentalcomponents, we must find creative solutions to the problems described in this study. If notthe best we might expect are teachers like those reported in Koballa et al (2005) who holdcompeting conceptions of teaching, an ideal conceptual change conception and anotherconception that is expressed as praxis. Conception sensitive environments must be providedfor the different stages of praxis through which novice teachers pass on their way toexpressing conceptual change conceptions of teaching science (Gallagher 1993; Adams andKrockover 1999; Porlán and del Pozo 2004). Initially, prospective teachers’ high school andcollege science experiences are significant influences on developing key conceptions aboutteaching, knowledge, science, and learning that are largely unexamined and unquestioned.As this study shows, these conceptions interact significantly with environmental factors toproduce teachers’ praxis. The failure to achieve fully our desired goals of producingconceptual change teachers points to the need to reconsider our programs. Thus it is ofenormous importance to find ways of encouraging administrators to provide the properenvironment for novice teachers as they evolve towards a conceptual change praxis.

References

Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1999). Stimulating constructivist teaching styles through use of anobservational rubric. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 955–971.

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. EducationalResearcher, 25(4), 5–11.

Beeth, M. E. (1993). Dynamic aspects of conceptual change instruction. Unpublished Dissertation.University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Beeth, M. E., & Adadan, E. (2006). The influences of university-based course work on field experiences.Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(2), 103–120.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (eds). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,and school. Washington: National Academy Press.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. EducationalResearcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Bryan, L. (2003). Nestedness of beliefs: examining a prospective elementary teacher’s belief system aboutscience and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 835–868.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. ThousandOaks: Sage.

Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741 739

Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. New York:Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachersshould learn and be able to do. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Dhindsa, H. S., & Anderson, O. R. (2004). Using a conceptual change approach to help pre-service teachersreorganize their knowledge structures for constructivist teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education,15(1), 63–85.

Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1986). Students’ thinking and the learning of science: a constructivist view. SchoolScience Review, 67, 443–456.

Gallagher, J. J. (1993). Six views of teaching science: An invitation to reflection and discussion. EastLansing: Michigan State University, college of Education, National Center for Research on Teacherlearning.

Gallagher, J. J., & Parker, J. (1995). Secondary teacher analysis matrix (STAM). East Lansing: Department ofTeacher Education, Michigan State University.

Hancock, E. S., & Gallard, A. J. (2004). Preservice science teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: theinfluence of K-12 filed experiences. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(4), 281–291.

Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of ScienceEducation, 3(4), 383–396.

Hewson, P. W. (1985). Epistemological commitments in the learning of science: Examples from dynamics.European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 163–172.

Hewson, P. W. (1991). Conceptual change instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the nationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching, Fontana, WI.

Hewson, P. W. (1993). Constructivism and reflective practice in science teacher education. In L. MonteroMesa & J. M. Vez Jeremias (Eds.), las didaticas especifias en la formacion del profesorado (I) (pp. 259–275). Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Torculo Edicions.

Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In K. G. Tobin &B. J. Fraser (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Hewson, P. W., & Hennessey, M. G. (1991). Making status explicit: A case study of conceptual change. InR. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niederer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues andempirical studies (pp. 176–187). Kiel, Gemarny: IPN.

Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. A’B. (1988). An appropriate conception of teaching science: A view fromstudies of science learning. Science Education, 72(5), 597–614.

Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. A’B. (1989). Analysis and use of a task for identifying conceptions ofteaching science. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 191–209.

Hewson, P. W., & Lemberger, J. (2000). Status: The hallmark of conceptual learning: An example fromlearning genetics. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving Science Education: Thecontribution of research (In honor of Rosalind Driver’s work in science education). London: OpenUniversity Press.

Hewson, P. W., Tabachnick, R. B., Zeichner, K. M., & Lemberger, J. (1999a). Educating prospective teachersof biology: Findings, limitations, and recommendations. Science Education, 83(3), 373–384.

Hewson, P. W., Tabachnick, R. B., Zeichner, K. M., Blomker, K. B., Meyer, H., Lemberger, J., et al. (1999b).Educating prospective teachers of biology: Introduction and research methods. Science Education, 83(3),247–273.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (eds). (1988). The action research planner (3rd, ed.). Australia: DeakinUniversity Press.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Koballa, T. R., Gräber, W., Coleman, D. C., & Kemp, A. C. (2000). Prospective gymnasium teacher’

conceptions of chemistry learning and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 209–224.

Koballa, T. R., Glynn, S. M., Upson, L., & Coleman, D. C. (2005). Conceptions of teaching science held bynovice teachers in an alternative certification program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(4),287–308.

Lemberger, J., Hewson, P. W., & Park, H. (1999). Relationships between perspective secondary teachers’classroom practice and their conceptions of biology and of teaching science. Science Education, 83(3),347–372.

Marion, R., Hewson, P. W., Tabachnick, B. R., & Blomker, K. (1999). Teaching for conceptual change inelementary and secondary science methods courses. Science Education, 83, 323–346.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National AcademyPress.

740 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741

Porlán, R., & del Pozo, M. (2004). The conceptions of in-service and prospective primary school teachersabout the teaching and learning of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1), 39–62.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientificconception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.

Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for All Americans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Stofflett, R. (1998). Putting constructivist teaching into practice in undergraduate introductory science.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2), 26.Stofflett, R., & Stoddard, T. (1992). Conceptual change and teacher education. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Stofflett, R., & Stoddard, T. (1994). The ability to use conceptual change pedagogy as a function of prior

content learning experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 31–51.Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl &

R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice(pp. 147–176). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1999). Idea and action: action research and the development ofconceptual change teaching of science. Science Education, 83, 309–322.

Thorley, N. R. (1990). The role of the conceptual change model in the interpretation classroom interactions,Unpublished Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum. ScienceEducation, 80, 223–241.

Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education washed out byschool experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7–11.

Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:717–741 741

Documents

The Interactions of Conceptions of Teaching Science and Environmental Factors to Produce Praxis in Three Novice Teachers of Science