BASELIOS MARTHOMA MATHEWS II

TRAINING COLLEGE

KOTTARAKARA

ON LINE ASSIGNMENT

Topic: Role of science teacher in developing

scientific attitude in students

NAME: ARUN KUMAR S

OPTIONAL SUBJECT: NATURAL SCIENCE

CANDIDATE CODE: 13 35 0003

Introduction What is the role of the science teacher educator? To put it simply, the science

teacher educator must be a catalyst for change. The changes required are

conceptual and cultural. The changes must empower individuals to transcend the

typically over-learned ways of thinking (or non-thinking) about the role of science

education, to transform mental models of the roles and goals of students and

teachers in the learning environment, and to translate new understandings about

inquiry and meaningful learning into actual habits of practice.

The change we speak of must be systemic -- occurring simultaneously across

several levels including individual, small community, and broader community.

These changes are absolutely necessary before the overarching goal of science

education -- scientific literacy for all Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990) -- is

possible. For today, increasingly complex scientific and technological issues

challenge our global society. The present quality of life is, and in the future will

continue to be, affected by such issues both old and new. Yet the models of science

education that widely persist in schools across the grade levels (including the

college science classroom) are inadequate for developing the knowledge needed to

tackle those problems. Those models largely fail to truly engage most students in

the learning process; their consequences on student outcomes are disastrous.

Students not engaged in the learning process leave with little more than shallow

understandings, weak connections between big ideas, trivial knowledge,

unchallenged naive conceptions of how the natural world operates, and an inability

to apply knowledge in new settings. As a result, students do not develop the ability

or propensity to become self-regulating learners or inquirers.

Science teacher educators, therefore, must facilitate the cognitive departure by

their students (preservice and inservice teachers) from traditional models of

teaching and learning of science -- models that are no longer valid in a society

confronted with exponential advancements in information and technology. The

science teacher educator must also help his/her students to carefully consider what

they will value in the learning community they seek to establish as teachers.

Equally important, the science teacher educator must help the pre-professional and

professional teacher understand how a teacher's personal values affect the type of

community their students establish in the classroom. For many prospective and

practicing science teachers, radically new ways of viewing the teaching and

learning of science must be adopted to meet the new demands in science education

(e.g., Hurd, 1993; Yager, 1991). Unfortunately, this typically requires the rejection

and abandonment of models of pedagogy that are all too familiar and all too easy

to mimic.

The science teacher educator must understand that the process of challenging

deeply held, personal mental models -- and, perhaps, their subsequent rejection --

is extremely difficult. Indeed, a great deal of anxiety can result in a classroom

where personal ideas and values are questioned. Thus, it is imperative that the

science teacher educator establish a learning environment conducive to the safe

expression and exploration of ideas and thoughts by the individual and the group.

In such an environment, learners must engage in inquiry, value thinking, and

dedicate themselves to working together as they explore and test their thoughts,

ideas, and perspectives. Finally, the science teacher educator must help his/her

students realize that such values must extend beyond small communities of

learners (e.g., classrooms). That is, the learning environment we speak of needs to

be nested within a broader program -- one that also values inquiry and thinking,

one that presents a coherent and consistent experience for the learners, and one that

seeks to be self-improving through processes of reflection, feedback, and critical

inquiry. Consequently, science teacher educators must help their students

understand the role of teacher as leader and professional change agent within the

broader school community.

The role, therefore, of the science teacher educator is to perturb

comfortable, over-learned views about schools and schooling in hopes of

promoting conceptual changes within individuals, across small communities of

learners, and across the broader community of people contributing to a program of

education. In this paper, we explore what the science teacher educator can do to

actualize the change processes at each of these levels. We will begin with the

processes associated with individual learners, move on to the processes of

establishing an engaged learning community, and end with the processes

associated with establishing a coherent, purposeful educational program aligned

with the goal of Science for All.

CONTENT

Currently, there is a mandate that all students achieve scientific literacy (National

Research Council, 1996). The qualities and characteristics of scientifically literate

high school graduates (NSTA, 1990) are provided in Appendix A.

Scientifically literate ways of thinking and acting, however, require the

development of higher order cognitive skills. Such skills enable one to identify ill-

defined problems, to generate a variety of solutions to any particular problem, to

act upon informed decisions, and to evaluate actions and their consequences (Hurd,

1993; Resnick, 1992). Resnick argues that successful schools not only cultivate

these skills -- they cultivate the habit to use them. Such schools place value on

activities such as questioning, thinking, communicating, and judging -- all within

the boundaries of a safe learning environment.

Regrettably, too few students experience science education in classrooms and

schools that cultivate the habits of mind necessary for scientific literacy (Perkins,

1992). In Smart Schools, David Perkins (1992) explains that schools largely ignore

thinking skills because the system is steeped in a culture of trivia -- or, what

Schwab (1965) had called "a rhetoric of conclusions." Others (e.g., Kagan, 1992;

Weinstein, 1989; Book, Byers, & Freeman, 1983) argue that socialization

processes perpetuate such cultures. For example, a number of studies (see

Goodlad, 1990; Sarason, 1981; and Lortie, 1975) describe how views regarding the

roles of the teacher and the learners are forged by years of observation and

experience. As a result, many people construct implicit sets of beliefs about how

schools and classrooms should operate -- operations that are often antithetical to a

culture of thinking, inquiry, and scientific literacy. With teachers, such beliefs

manifest themselves in inferior classroom practice.

Evidence continues to emerge suggesting that a teacher's views of the world,

teaching and learning, as well as his/her beliefs about knowledge and intelligence

have direct impact on the way they teach (e.g., Kennedy, 1998; Kagan, 1992;

Hollen, Anderson, & Roth, 1991; Brickhouse, 1990; Prawat & Anderson, 1989).

Currently, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting certain beliefs about

learning, intelligence, and knowledge are more conducive to teaching in ways that

promote meaningful learning (Craven, 1997; Kuhn, 1992, 1991; Dweck & Legget,

1988; Ryan, 1984). Students, therefore, should take the time to explore, articulate,

and analyze their beliefs on such topics.

Thus, a fundamental role of science teacher educators is to get preservice and

inservice to think about their own explicit and tacit thoughts about schools, science

education, teaching, and learning. One way to accomplish this is to get students to

articulate and discuss their understandings, beliefs and prior science experiences

(Prawat & Floden, 1994; Hewson, Zeichner, Tabachnick, Blomker & Toolin, 1992;

Wittrock, 1985; Novak, 1985). In this way, students learn to develop the habits of

mind to probe, challenge, and regulate their own conceptions of science education.

This, in essence, is what developing a reflective practitioner is all about (Showers

& Joyce, 1996; Doyle, 1990; Schon, 1987)

The discussion above yields clear guidelines for the practice of professional

development within our community. We suggest the following actions for the

students in the teacher education program:

1. Exploring their personal beliefs and ideas about teaching, education, the nature

of science, and the nature of knowledge. Students can do this, for example, by

keeping journals of their thoughts prior to and following classroom discussions on

these topics.

2. Writing a philosophy of education and/or researched-based rationale paper that

articulates their professional views on the goals of science education along with

roles of the student and teacher that best facilitate them. To promote critical

thinking and skill in evidence-based argument, the papers are to be research-

supported.

3. Expressing and defending their views on science teaching and learning as they

interact with peers, teachers, supervisors, cooperating teachers, and the other

partners engaged in the professional development program.

4. Conducting action research projects that require them to articulate and test their

ideas on teaching and learning. Practicum classrooms, student teaching classrooms,

or informal science education centers serve as the setting for the research projects.

5. Engaging in scientific inquiry to develop implicit and explicit understandings on

the nature of science as well as develop the cognitive skills essential for critical

thinking.

6. Evaluating their own work, assess their own learning, understanding, and

outcomes. The purpose of these assessments must unambiguously aim at

improving competencies, informing instruction and practice, and promoting

learning motivations and strategies that result in deep conceptual understandings.

7. Constructing long-term inquiry units for their own students that have context

and are relevant. In doing so, students experience ways in which scientific ideas

are introduced for conceptual understandings. Use of the Learning Cycle must be

routine. The long-term inquiry units should also address the broader definition of

science content including: a) unifying concepts, b) science as inquiry, c) science

and technology, d) science in personal and social perspectives, and e) history and

nature of science.

8. Joining professional societies within science education to understand and engage

in current debates surrounding issues of concern within the community.

The student's reluctance to abandon his or her perspectives, even at times when

they conflict with other developing ideas is one of the great challenges teacher

educators face. Therefore, as a facilitator of the conceptual change process, the

science teacher educator functions in a variety of specific roles. These roles require

the educator to 1) know how students learn; 2) use expertise to structure an

environment that promotes meaningful learning; 3) purposefully design tasks that

lead to conceptual understanding, promote professional attitudes, and foster

reflective practice; and 4) use assessments that inform instruction yet cultivate

meaningful strategies for learning by students. The question now remains, "What

does a 'facilitator' do?" We propose that facilitators probe, prod, model, and

mentor. The teacher educator must continuously and simultaneously play and teach

these roles as they challenge and improve the developing professional's

understandings, beliefs, and skills. We describe the roles below (Table 1).

Table 1. Roles of the Science Teacher Educator

1. Probe

The student's understandings and skills about science education are continually probed by the

science teacher educator (as well as the students themselves). Pre existing knowledge, beliefs, and

prior experiences have on a powerful influence teacher's approach to teaching science. Teacher

educators, therefore, must have students articulate, discuss, support, and defend their views about

the goals and roles in the science classroom. The science teacher educator uses their expertise as

they listen for "holes" and "gaps" in the students' conceptual frameworks regarding the teaching

and learning of science. The teacher educator must also use exemplary habits and strategies of

questioning for purposes of instruction, conceptual scaffolding, and evaluation.

2. Prod

The activities chosen for the methods course are designed to move the learner toward deeper

understandings about the teaching and learning of science. The investigations must be rich enough

to provide context for fruitful discussions of topics in science education including, in part, content

and principles, curriculum design, the nature of science, teaching and learning, classroom

management, questioning, naive and/or misconceptions, scientific literacy, and standards.

Investigations both inside and outside the classroom as well as in the K-12 setting are designed to

cause cognitive dissonance for students holding views and attitudes towards science education

that impede scientific literacy.

3. Model

The science teacher educator must continually model the habits and attitudes of a superior teacher.

Such habits include the use of exemplary questioning strategies, appropriate use of Wait Time (I

and II), active participation in professional organizations. Furthermore, the science teacher

educator must model active inquiry through on-going research endeavors, self-reflection and self-

evaluation, and flexibility in time and curriculum design. Additionally, the science teacher

educator must structure a classroom environment that values high expectations, fosters student-to-

student interactions, and promotes scientific literacy.

4. Mentor

The science teacher educator must recognize that the process of conceptual change can often be

difficult and deeply personal for the student. As a mentor, the science teacher educator moves the

student to develop professionally by engaging one-on-one with students as expertise is shared and

support is provided.

ENGAGING A COMMUNITY

Good and Brophy (1994) remind us that the most important factor affecting

opportunities to learn is the nature of the learning environment. While

constructivism suggests that meaning is constructed by the learner (e.g., Driver,

Ssoko, Leach, Mortimer, E., & Scott, 1994; Glaserfeld, 1989; Pope, 1982), it need

not be construed that learning occurs in isolation. Indeed, it has been clearly argued

that construction of meaning takes place in the social arena (Driver et al., 1994;

Hewson, Zeichner, Tabachnick, Blomker, & Toolin, 1992; Vygostsky, 1962; West

& Pines, 1985). Consequently, most of what people come to know and understand

results from complex social dynamics. The influence and outcomes of these

processes on individual views and knowledge are well documented (e.g., Erickson,

1991; Sarason, 1981; Bandura, 1977; Lortie, 1975; Kuhn, 1970).

Yager (1991) writes that in the best constructivist classrooms, student ideas and

questions are encouraged, accepted, and used for curriculum planning. He also

states that high value and emphasis are placed on open-ended questions,

cooperative learning, reflection, and analyses in those classrooms. Constructivist

classrooms are purposefully designed to promote the transformation and

internalization of new information by the learner (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Taylor,

Dawson, & Fraser (1995) provide us with a detailed description of the

constructivist learning environment. That description includes one wherein:

1. Students are given the opportunity to communicate their understandings with

other students, to generate plausible explanations for phenomena, to test, evaluate

and defend their explanations among their peers, and actively engage in the social

construction of knowledge - all of which are reflections of the nature of science.

2. Students are provided frequent opportunity to identify their own learning goals,

to share control of the learning environment, and to develop and employ

assessment criteria within the learning environment.

3. The environment of the classroom is conducive to inquiry. That spirit of inquiry

includes the freedom for students to question the operations of their class.

4. Students must have the opportunity to experience the tentativeness of scientific

knowledge. That is, students must understand that scientific knowledge is theory-

laden and socially and culturally constructed.

Chinn and Waggoner (1992), in reporting their findings of an examination of

classroom discourse dynamics, state that meaningful learning and student

reflection on personal knowledge occur when students share individual

perspectives through discussions with one another. The learning environments

described above resonate with those required for the development of critical

thinking (e.g., Clarke & Biddle, 1993; Resnick, 1992; Swartz & Perkins, 1990).

The structure and nature of the learning environment do indeed have powerful

influences on the learning outcomes of students. For example, Johnson & Johnson

(1991) found that when students work individually, they often believe that their

achievement is unrelated to and/or isolated from the achievement of the other

students in the class. The researchers report that such beliefs have adverse effects

upon the students' socialization and on healthy social as well as cognitive

development. In contrast, they report that in classrooms where there is a high

degree of student-to-student interaction (such as those that emphasize cooperative

learning) several positive outcomes occur including increased 1) positive

interdependence, 2) face-to-face promotive interaction (encouragement and

support), 3) individual accountability, and 4) interpersonal and small group skills.

We do think it would be difficult to find a teacher who would say that they are

against engaging students in critical thinking and establishing a learning

community buzzing with intellectual activity and scholarly endeavours. One can

only wonder, therefore, why the learning communities described by rhetoricians

(e.g., Dewey, Schwab, Suchman, Shaver, and Yager) are absent from so many

schools today. The answer, perhaps, is that most science teachers are more

concerned about what students would not learn if denied direct instruction than

what students would learn if given the freedom and latitude required for a student-

centered, inquiry-oriented learning community. Unfortunately, it would not be

difficult for a teacher to bolster those concerns by pointing to the constraints forced

by state-mandated curricula and tests. Or, perhaps it is easier for teachers to

imagine what students are not capable of doing or learning if left to their own

devices than it is for them to imagine what it is students are capable of doing if

given the role and responsibility for self-regulated learning, self-assessment, and

collaborative inquiry. The science teacher educator, therefore, must help preservice

and inservice teachers learn how to create learning environments that are

intellectually fertile, conducive to inquiry, and centered around student-to-student

interactions. For, as Marton (1988) reminds us, what is learned and how it is

learned are two inseparable aspects of learning.

The findings of the studies discussed above provide clear guidelines for the science

teacher educator's role in establishing an inquiry-based learning community within

the teacher education program. That is, s/he must create and model:

1. A classroom environment that predisposes students to accommodate ambiguity

and flexibility. Students typically experience high anxiety when confronted with

the responsibility for articulating their own interests, defining ill-defined questions,

and generating their own solutions to issues and problems. Students are, after all,

very often unaccustomed to these roles. Therefore, students can engage in dialogue

about these concerns and reach consensus on ways to deal with such anxieties.

These discussions should link to discussions on constructivism and/or the nature of

science. Student questions, thoughts, and interests are valued and expected.

Student-generated solutions to issues and problems are viewed as tentative and

subject to continuous testing.

2. A learning environment that values collaboration over competition and

cooperation over opposition. In such environments, student-to-student interactions

frequently occur. Joint research projects, team teaching, collaborative writing

exercises, group presentations and whole-class decision-making are ways in which

students can interact with each other.

3. Authority structures within the classroom consistent with student-centered

approaches toward learning. In these classrooms, the class negotiates criteria for

assessment, classroom ethics, and paths of inquiry collectively. Teacher-

determined criteria and grades are de-emphasized. Peer observation and evaluation

as well as self-assessments are useful approaches toward changing the typical

authority structure of the classroom.

4. Attitudes of collegiality that are palpable within the classroom. This is fostered

by active participation with professional societies, student organizations, and

whole-class endeavours.

5. A classroom environment reflecting the importance placed on student roles,

responsibilities, and learning. Student work, therefore, is displayed and highly

visible throughout the classroom.

6. A classroom learning environment extending beyond the classroom walls. There

is evidence within student work that content and concepts of the curriculum have

direct links to, and context within, the outside world.

In our experience, preservice and inservice teachers can and do express their ideas,

test their developing theories and apply their understandings of practice in such

environments. When students and teachers can do these things, efforts to improve

and advance science education are strengthened, classrooms and teachers will be

transformed, and we may begin achieving the education reform and goals we all

seek.

ENGAGING A PROGRAM

Without doubt, there remains much controversy regarding the constitution of an

ideal teacher preparation program. Indeed, theoretical and philosophical

differences have created a wide variety of both orientations and curricula within

science education programs (Anderson & Mitchener, 1994). Outside social and

political forces vying to influence program design and content only add to the

confusion. Anderson and Mitchener ultimately conclude that the foundation of a

viable program in science education is grounded on consistent perspectives and

clearly articulated goals. Recently, a national study, The Salish I Research Project,

examined the science teacher preparation programs of nine major institutions. The

collaborative, longitudinal, three-year study sought and evaluated links between

features of each preparation program, the abilities and skills of their graduates, and

the classroom outcomes of their graduates as new teachers. The final report

(Salish, 1997), in part, reveals the following:

1. Faculty outside the school of education (in particular, faculty within the

sciences) typically reported that they did not perceive a role in the preparation of

new teachers.

2. The philosophies of education articulated by faculty members (e.g., foundations

and educational psychology) involved in the teacher preparation program were not

consistent. Some reported that they did not have any particular philosophy of

education. Others stated that they would not wish to present any particular

philosophy to their students.

3. The variety and means of instruction and evaluation in many courses outside of

science education were seldom consistent with those endorsed by the National

Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996).

4. New teachers often saw little or no connection between what is advocated and

what is practiced in their content and teacher education courses.

5. Faculty in science, mathematics, and teacher education viewed teacher

preparation programs as lacking in coherence.

The implications of the Salish I Research Project and reports from other bodies of

research and commissions (see American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1990; Bell & Buccino, 1997; Goodlad, 1990; National Commission on

Teaching & America's Future, 1996; National Research Council, 1997; National

Science Foundation, 1996) are undeniably clear. The klaxons are sounding and

they are sending clear messages throughout the science education and teacher

preparation communities. Science teacher educators must tune to the national

issues and debates, prepare to take actions for change, and accept leadership

responsibilities in establishing exemplary programs using the lessons learned.

Therefore, for programmatic changes, the role of the science teacher educator is to

consider and act upon (not in any particular order) the following features:

1. Collaboration

Facilitate a dialogue across the campus (all faculty and staff playing a role in the

education of the teacher should understand their roles. Instructional approaches

should be consistent with the goals of the educational program).

2. Goals

Coordinate an articulation of the goals and philosophy among key partners of the

educational program. The roles of all the partners within the program including

teachers and students should foster the achievement of the goal(s). Programmatic

changes and operations are goal-oriented.

3. Coherence

Connections between all course, field, practicum, and student teaching components

are to be articulated. For example, the science teacher educator ensures that field

supervising faculty and staff understand what approaches to teaching, learning, and

classroom environments should be expected and observed. Coordination with

outside faculty occurs to align curriculum frameworks, methods of instruction and

evaluation, and exit criteria. Create a program that reflects alignment with

standards of the professional societies.

4. Pedagogy and Assessment

Ensure that the methods of assessment and instruction are consistent with the goals

across the program. The science teacher educator should provide leadership and

vision towards establishing inquiry-based learning communities. Core courses

should provide a coherent program of study, value higher order thinking and

inquiry

5. Research Experiences

Ensure that graduates of the program are expected to experience authentic research

in science as well as teaching and learning.

6. Cognitive Considerations

Conceptual change processes are slow. Therefore the program is designed to

maximize the time students are provided to reflect on their experiences, thoughts,

and understandings. Students moving together through a program as cohorts can

improve retention in the program by providing peer support and sense of

community.

7. Theory and Practice

The boundaries between the university campus and K-12 schools are made porous

by frequent exchanges between key partners including university faculty,

classroom teachers, administrators, and students. Frequent field components and

professional development opportunities are established for all partners associated

in education.

8. Feedback

Mechanisms are established that provide feedback on the outcomes of the program

(e.g., the abilities, knowledge, and habits of practice of the graduates). The

feedback is used to inform practice, modify the program, and improve education.

9. Inclusion

The broader community including business, informal science centers, and local

governmental agencies participate in appropriate ways to the preparation of science

teachers.

There are increasing pressures today from many corners to improve the preparation

of teachers by increasing the number of courses in liberal arts and sciences while

simultaneously reducing the amount of time spent in the schools of education. Yet

this is antithetical to all that the science education community has come to

acknowledge from a comprehensive research base regarding the professional

development of teachers (see Loucks-Horsley, 1997; Yager, 1996; Lederman,

Gess-Newsome, & Latz, 1994; Goodlad, 1990; Krajcik & Penick, 1989; Penick &

Yager, 1988; Lortie, 1975), learning and conceptual change (e.g., Driver &

Oldham, 1986: Strike & Posner, 1985: Osborne & Wittrock, 1983), and developing

reflective, professional practice (e.g., Schon, 1983, 1987). Aligning the program

along a consistent, internally consistent, goal-oriented approach to education is

absolutely crucial for science teacher education. In doing, we optimally leverage

the time students have to transition through the conceptual change process.

ASSESSING THE PROGRAM

Educational institutions are notorious for their ability to systematize.

Consequently, the institution that often calls on K-12 schools to change (such as

those preparing teachers) is itself frequently calcified. Yet to remain effective and

responsive, mechanisms for program feedback and improvement must exist and

they must be based on empirical methods. Therefore, a critical role exists for

science teacher educators in the assessment and evaluation of the science education

component and, importantly, of the institution's teacher preparation program as a

whole. Science teacher educators must be first among their teacher educator

colleagues to seek evidence that may either support or reject their choices in

program design. Unfortunately, far too many teacher preparation programs operate

ill-informed of their effectiveness and without the empirical evidence needed to

make informed judgements for change (see Anderson & Mitchener, 1994; Lanier

& Little, 1986). For example, in the initial phases of the Salish I Research Project,

it was found that many of institutions lacked basic information regarding the recent

graduates of the program including where they were teaching (Salish, 1997). In

response, we urge science teacher educators to consider the leverage they can ply

in demanding and ensuring that programmatic decisions are evidence-based.

Evidence collected informs the stakeholders on the outcomes of the program. We

recommend that mechanisms for collecting evidence be systematic and routine. Of

course, the data must be evaluated on an ongoing basis • the results of which are

used during discussions on program improvement and/or redesign. Suggestions for

the type of evidence collected include:

1. Trends in employment of the graduates of the program including location,

subjects, type of schools;

2. Feedback (specific and/or general) from school administrations and district

officials regarding the skills and understandings of recent graduates from the

program;

3. Feedback from all the partners involved in the preparation program;

4. Feedback from recent graduates including self-perceptions;

5. School-based performance indicators from new teachers and their students; and

6. Performances on portfolio evaluations, videotapes, and/or other measures

required for state certification.

CONCLUSION

This paper sought to define and establish the role of the science teacher educator.

Heeding a recommendation of Thomas Sergio vanni, we wished to do more than

illustrate what works, but rather to articulate the responsibilities and actions that

meet the standards of good practice. Many critics today advocate the reduction of

preparation programs to as short as a few weeks while others call for the

elimination of preparatory programs altogether. Thus, it is particularly appropriate

to explicitly describe the role and value of the science teacher educator across a

program -- particularly in such hostile times.

Well-prepared science teachers require specialized science teacher preparation

programs wherein teacher thinking, reflection, and beliefs lie at the core of

discourse (Hewson, Zeichner, Tabachnick, Blomker, & Toolinet al, 1992;

Shymansky, 1992; Penick & Yager, 1988). All the roles of the science teacher

educator, therefore, target these areas. They target them at the individual level, the

learning community level, and the broader, programmatic level. The resulting

changes we expect include teachers with improved attitudes, habits of mind, and

understandings for teaching toward scientific literacy.

References

1.American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). The Liberal Art

of Science. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.

2.Anderson, R. D. & Mitchener, C. P. (1994) Research on science teacher

education. In D. L. Gabel (Ed), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and

Learning (pp. 3 - 44). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

3.Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

4.Bell, J. A. & Buccino, A. (Eds.) (1997). Seizing opportunities: Collaborating for

excellence in teacher education. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.

5.Book, C., Byers, J., & Freeman, D. (1983). Student expectations and teacher

education traditions with which we can and cannot live. Journal of Teacher

Education, 34(1), 9-13.

6.Brickhouse, N.W.(1990) Teachers' beliefs about the nature of science and their

relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53-62.

7.Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist

classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

8.Chinn, C. A. & Waggoner, M. A. (1992, April). Dynamics of classrom

discussion: An analysis of what causes segments of open discourse to begin,

continue, and end. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

9.Clarke, J. H., & Biddle, A. W. (1993). Teaching critical thinking: reports from

across the curriculum. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

10.Craven, J. A. (1997). Relationships between new science teachers'beliefs and

student perceptions of the learning environment. Unpublished dissertation.

University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Arunkumar88ezn@gmail.com