- : Ms Word Format
- : 70 Pages
- : ₦3000
- : 1-5 Chapters
- Click to DOWNLOAD Materials
A SUBSTANTIVE-LEVEL THEORYOF HIGHLY-REGARDED SECONDARY BIOLOGY TEACHERS’ SCIENCE TEACHING ORIENTATIONS
ABSTRACT
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) has been used as a heuristic for examining a specialized knowledge base for teaching. One proposed overarching component within the PCK model for science teaching is teaching orientations, defined as teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the purposes and goals for teaching science at a particular grade level. Nine different orientations to teaching science have been identified in the science education literature, yet there are few empirical studies specifically examining science teachers’ orientations. This qualitative case study re-examines science teaching orientations using grounded theory methods. The study focused on the nature and sources of the science teaching orientations held by four highly-regarded secondary biology teachers. Data collection consisted of a card-sorting task, semi-structured interviews, and classroom observations. Inductive data analysis led to the construction of a substantive-level theory of science teaching orientations.
In regard to the nature of science teaching orientations, the use of central and peripheral goals, as well as the means of achieving these goals, better represents the complex nature of science teaching orientations. Although the participants were secondary biology teachers, they held more general teaching orientations than sciencespecific orientations. The participants held goals in the affective domain, e.g., the development of positive attitudes toward biology, as well as general schooling goals, including preparing students for college and the development of life skills. Although each participant held science content goals, these goals were not always a central component of their teaching orientation. In addition, goals and purposes shape the means
that a teacher chooses, but a limited repertoire of means can also restrict the teacher’s purposes and goals.
In regard to the sources of teaching orientations, participants were influenced by a multitude of factors, including prior work experiences and professional development. Professional development served as a feedback loop, as participants selected professional development that re-enforced their teaching orientation. The school context, with its perceived time constraints, was another contributing factor. The participants’ teaching orientations were strongly influenced by their daily interactions with students. The teachers’ beliefs about learners and learning were major sources of their teaching orientations. Implications are given for practice, research and policy.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………………………. x
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………………………… xi
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………. xii
Chapter 1. SETTING THE STAGE ………………………………………………………………. 1
1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.2 The Problem: Visions of Reform vs. Today’s Teaching Practices …….. 2
1.3 A Specialized Knowledge Base for Teaching: PCK…………………………. 5
1.3.1 PCK: Too Big of an Idea?………………………………………………….. 9
1.3.2 A Component of PCK: Orientations ……………………………………. 11
1.3.3 A Messy Construct: Teaching Orientations ………………………….. 11 1.3.4 Orientations in the Science Education Literature…………………… 14
1.3.5 Gaps in the Literature………………………………………………………… 22
1.4 The Purpose of the Dissertation Study……………………………………………. 24
1.5 Research Questions ……………………………………………………………………… 25
1.6 Significance of the Study ……………………………………………………………… 26
1.7 Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………………….. 27
1.8 Summary and Preview………………………………………………………………….. 28
Chapter 2. METHODS OF INQUIRY……………………………………………………………. 30
2.1 Overview…………………………………………………………………………………….. 30
2.2 Research Design: An Interpretative Case Study……………………………….. 30
2.3 Analytic Framework: Grounded Theory …………………………………………. 34
2.4 Role of the Researcher………………………………………………………………….. 36
2.4.1 Researcher Background ………………………………………………….. 37
2.4.2 Substantive Sensitivity……………………………………………………. 39
2.4.3 Ontology……………………………………………………………………….. 40
2.4.4 Epistemology ………………………………………………………………… 41
2.4.5 Axiology……………………………………………………………………….. 42
2.4.6 Causality……………………………………………………………………….. 43
2.5 Data Collection……………………………………………………………………………. 44
2.5.1 Sampling ………………………………………………………………………. 44
2.5.2 Informed Consent…………………………………………………………… 48
2.5.3 Classroom Observations …………………………………………………. 49
2.5.4 Interviews……………………………………………………………………… 51
2.5.5 Card-sorting Task…………………………………………………………… 54
2.5.6 Data Collection Procedure and Schedule…………………………… 54
2.6 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………………. 57
2.6.1 Data Analysis: Concurrent with Data Collection………………… 57
2.6.2 Data Analysis: Post Data Collection…………………………………. 65
2.7 Continued Data Analysis: Substantive-level Theory Development…….. 68
2.8 Criteria for Evaluating the Research Study……………………………………… 70
2.8.1 Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Research……………………… 71
2.8.2 Criteria for Evaluating Grounded Theory………………………….. 74
2.9 Summary and Preview………………………………………………………………….. 76
Chapter 3. CONTEXT, NATURE AND SOURCES: INTRODUCTION
TO THE PARTICIPANTS……………………………………………………………. 78
3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………. 78
3.2 Sharon………………………………………………………………………………………… 80
3.2.1 The Context of Sharon’s Teaching …………………………………… 81
3.2.2 A Representation of Sharon’s Science Teaching Orientation.. 83
3.2.3 Probable Sources of Sharon’s Science Teaching Orientation.. 87
3.3 Mike…………………………………………………………………………………………… 90
3.3.1 The Context of Mike’s Teaching……………………………………… 91
3.3.2 Representations of Mike’s Science Teaching Orientations ….. 92
3.3.3 Probable Sources of Mike’s Science Teaching Orientations… 97
3.4 Peg …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 100
3.4.1 The Context of Peg’s Teaching………………………………………… 101
3.4.2 Representations of Peg’s Science Teaching Orientations…….. 102
3.4.3 Probable Sources of Peg’s Science Teaching Orientations ….. 109
3.5 Martha………………………………………………………………………………………… 114
3.5.1 The Context of Martha’s Teaching…………………………………… 115
3.5.2 Representations of Martha’s Science Teaching Orientations.. 116
3.5.3 Probable Sources of Martha’s Science Teaching Orientations 125
3.6 Summary and Preview………………………………………………………………….. 129
Chapter 4. SCIENCE TEACHING ORIENTATIONS:
A SUBSTANTIVE-LEVEL THEORY…………………………………………… 130
4.1 Introduction and Overview……………………………………………………………. 130
4.2 A Substantive-level Theory of Science Teaching Orientations…………… 131
4.3 The Nature of Science Teaching Orientations………………………………….. 135
4.3.1 Assertion #1: Need for More Elaborate Representation of the
Construct………………………………………………………………………. 136
4.3.2 Assertion #2: Participants Hold More General Teaching
Orientations…………………………………………………………………… 145
4.4 The Sources of Science Teaching Orientations………………………………… 152
4.4.1 Influence of Prior Work Experience…………………………………. 153
4.4.2 Influence of Professional Development and Collaboration….. 155
4.4.3 Influence of Students and Beliefs about Learning………………. 150
4.4.4 Influence of Time Constraints………………………………………….. 161
4.5 Summary and Preview………………………………………………………………….. 165
Chapter 5. DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………… 167
5.1 Overview…………………………………………………………………………………….. 167
5.2 Substantive-Level Theory Situated in the Current PCK Literature……… 167
5.2.1 Comparison with Models of Domains of Teacher Knowledge 170
5.2.2 Comparison with PCK Models for Science Teaching…………. 175
5.2.3 A Revised Model of Domains of Teacher Knowledge………… 179
5.3 Conclusion and Preview……………………………………………………………….. 180
Chapter 6. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE, RESEARCH AND POLICY…….. 182
6.1 Review of Study and Overview of Implications……………………………….. 182
6.2 Implications for Practice: Science Teacher Education and
Professional Development…………………………………………………………….. 184
6.2.1 Making Beliefs Explicit………………………………………………….. 185
6.2.2 Explicit Attention to the Syntactical Aspects of Science……… 187
6.2.3 Toolbox of Means………………………………………………………….. 189
6.2.4 Issues of Time Constraints and Pedagogical Efficiency………. 190
6.3 Implications for Research……………………………………………………………… 190
6.3.1 Elaboration of the Substantive-level Theory ……………………… 192
6.3.2 Further Development of the Construct………………………………. 193
6.3.3 Research Implications for Science Teacher Education
Practice and Professional Development…………………………….. 196
6.4 Implications for Policy …………………………………………………………………. 198
6.4.1 Funding for Protocol Development…………………………………… 198
6.4.2 Need for Funding of Longitudinal Studies ………………………… 199
6.4.3 Need for Policy Implementation Studies…………………………… 200
6.5 Summary of Implications ……………………………………………………………… 202
6.6 Concluding Thoughts……………………………………………………………………. 204
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………………………. 205
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 214
Appendix A: Protection of Human Research Subjects…………………………… 215
Appendix B: Principal’s Informed Consent Form ………………………………… 219
Appendix C: First Semi-Structured Interview Protocol…………………………. 220
Appendix D: Second Semi-Structured Interview Protocol……………………… 222
PAGE
Appendix E: Third Semi-Structured Interview Protocol 223
Appendix F: Card Sorting Interview Protocol 224
Chapter 1 SETTING THE STAGE
1.1 Introduction
Imagine walking down the hallway of the science wing in a high school. What would you see teachers and students doing as you peered into each classroom? Even when comparing classrooms across the same subject, for example, biology, you would likely see teachers using different instructional approaches. You might see a classroom where students are copying vocabulary terms from the overhead screen, looking up definitions in textbooks that are open on their desks. In the next classroom, you might see small groups of students engaged in lively discussions as they try to analyze and interpret data collected during a long-term investigation. Why do biology teachers, given the same state academic standards and district curricula, school setting, and student population, choose different approaches to teach their subject matter? To better understand the instructional choices observed in each classroom, it can be useful to understand each teacher’s purposes and goals for science teaching. This dissertation tackles the issue of teachers’ purposes and goals for teaching biology.
The teacher in the second classroom described above gives us a glimpse of reform-based science teaching and learning (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993; National Research Council [NRC], 1996; National Association of Biology Teachers [NABT], 1990). This chapter begins with an overview of reform-based science teaching as described in the National Science Education
Standards (NRC, 1996) and then compares the vision of current reform to many current secondary science classrooms. To better understand teachers’ thinking in regard to their changing roles, the construct of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) will be used as a heuristic. Pedagogical content knowledge The PCK literature will be reviewed including a discussion of issues related to the assessment of teachers’ PCK. To narrow the study, one theoretically overarching component within the PCK model, orientations to teaching science, is the focus. An orientation to teaching science is defined as “a teacher’s knowledge and beliefs about the purposes and goals for teaching science at a particular grade level” (Magnusson, Krajcik and Borko, 1999, p. 97). A review of the literature on teaching orientations will follow, with an emphasis on science teaching orientations. Based on the lack of empirical studies on science teaching orientations in the extant literature, this study examines the construct of science teaching orientations as held by a set of exemplary, biology teachers. As the purpose of this study is to gain new insights in an area ill-defined and well-studied, this study can be considered a bounded case of science teaching orientations using a grounded theory approach — an approach in which theory is derived inductively from data (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
1.2 The Problem: Visions of Reform vs. Today’s Teaching Practices
“Contemporary goals of science education require not only that students learn the products of science (facts, laws, principles) but that they understand science as a principled process of inquiry,” state Magnusson and Palincsar (1995, p. 43). In providing guidelines for achieving this goal, the National Science Education Standards (NSES) call for teachers to place more emphasis on “understanding scientific concepts and developing abilities of inquiry” (NRC, 1996, p. 113). Rather than having students memorize scientific terminology and isolated facts, NSES call for students to develop conceptual understanding across eight content standards: “Unifying concepts and processes in science, science as inquiry, physical science, life science, earth and space science, science and technology, science in personal and social perspectives, and history and nature of science” (NRC, 1996, p. 104). Within the Science as Inquiry Standard, students need to acquire the “abilities necessary to do inquiry as well as understandings about inquiry”
(NRC, 1996, p. 105). When students are engaged in inquiry, they “mesh these processes [science process skills] with scientific knowledge as they use scientific reasoning and critical thinking to develop their understanding of science” (NRC, 1996, p. 18). To meet the “abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry” component of the Science as Inquiry Standards, students need opportunities to generate testable questions, design and conduct experiments over extended periods of time, collect and manipulate data, and build evidence-based explanations. Student collaboration and public communication of ideas are emphasized. In having students use data to create models and build explanations, science is portrayed as a process of knowledge generation based on data-driven arguments and explanations (NRC, 1996; NRC, 2000). As part of the Science as Inquiry
Standard, students also need to develop understandings about scientific inquiry. The NSES state, “Understandings of scientific inquiry represent how and why scientific knowledge changes in response to new evidence, logical analysis, and modified explanations debated within a community of scientists” (NRC, 2000, p.21).
In order to meet the vision of the reforms described in the National Science
Education Standards, practicing teachers will need to change the ways in which they have traditionally taught science. Weis (1994) states, “While use of hands-on activities has increased since the mid-1980s, lecture/textbook methodologies continue to dominate science and mathematics education” (p. 15). The 1993 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education reports that 60% of high school science students listen to lectures and take notes on a daily basis, while 43% of high school students never engage in a science project that is beyond a few days’ duration (Weiss, 1994). If science teachers are to meet the goals outlined by reform documents, teachers will need to alter their current roles as information transmitters (Zucker, 1997).
A complication for the vast majority of current teachers is that they have not experienced science teaching or learning as it is described in the Standards. To help practicing teachers consider new teaching roles, as demanded by current reform documents, it could be fruitful to examine teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about teaching science. Knowledge and beliefs about teaching influence teaching practice. Borko and Putnam (1996) state, “To be successful, efforts to support teachers’ learning must recognize that teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about teaching, learning, learners, and subject matter will play a critical role in determining whether and how they implement new instructional ideas” (p. 702). Teaching orientations have been proposed as an overarching component with the PCK model (Grossman, 1990). Carefully executed research is needed to better understand teachers’ goals and purposes for teaching subject matter.
1.3 A Specialized Knowledge Base for Teaching: PCK
What teachers know and can do makes a critical difference in what students learn (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996, p. 5). To support teachers in developing standards-based teaching practices, teacher educators and researchers need to better understand teacher thinking. Borko and Putnam (1996) state, “The knowledge and beliefs that prospective and experienced teachers hold serve as filters through which their learning takes place. It is through these existing conceptions that teachers come to understand recommended new practices” (p. 675). Based on work with beginning teachers in the Knowledge Growth in Teaching Project, Shulman (1986) proposed a specialized knowledge base for teaching, with content knowledge as one of the domains. Within this domain, Shulman introduced the subcategory of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), defined as “subject matter knowledge for teaching” and “the ways of representing and formulating a subject that make it comprehensible to others” (p. 9). Shulman offered the following elaborated definition of PCK:
Pedagogical content knowledge also includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult: the conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons. If those preconceptions are misconceptions, which they so often are, teachers need knowledge of the strategies most likely to be fruitful in reorganizing the understanding of learners, because those learners are unlikely to appear before them as blank slates. (pp. 910)
Shulman and his colleagues outlined a theoretical framework for examining a knowledge base for teaching (Shulman, 1986, 1987; Wilson, Shulman, and Richert, 1987). They proposed seven categories within a professional knowledge base for teaching: content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge; pedagogical content knowledge; curricular knowledge; knowledge of learners and their characteristics; knowledge of educational contexts; and knowledge of educational philosophies, goals and objectives. This theoretical framework was based on research with beginning secondary teachers in the areas of English, mathematics, social studies and biology.
Grossman, as a researcher in the Knowledge Growth in Teaching Project, examined the beliefs and practices of beginning secondary English teachers. In The Making of a Teacher, Grossman (1990) offers a well-articulated model of a professional knowledge base for English teachers. Grossman merges and rearranges the original categories listed above and provides a model with four general cornerstones of professional knowledge for teaching: subject matter knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of context and pedagogical content knowledge. PCK, as a construct itself, becomes better articulated (see Figure 1.1). Grossman identifies four major components of PCK: “1) knowledge and beliefs about the purposes of teaching a subject at different grade levels. . . 2) knowledge of students’ understanding, conceptions and misconceptions of particular topics in a subject matter. . . 3) knowledge of curriculum materials available for teaching particular subject matter, as well as knowledge about both the horizontal and vertical curricula for a subject. . . and 4) knowledge of instructional strategies and representations for teaching particular topics” (pp. 8-9). In Grossman’s model, the first component of “knowledge and beliefs about the purposes for teaching subject matter” is placed as an overarching conception within the
PCK domain (p. 12). Grossman (1990) identifies this overarching component as a “form of conceptual map for instructional decision-making, serving as a basis for judgments about textbooks, classroom objectives, assignments, and evaluation of students” (p. 86).
Figure 1.1. Model of teacher knowledge (simplified version) Source: The making of a teacher: teacher knowledge & teacher education. (p. 5), by Grossman, P., 1990. New York: Teachers College Press.
Pedagogical content knowledge, as a construct of teacher knowledge, has been a visible line of research in science education, both in studies of practicing teachers
(Hashweh, 1987; Veal, 1997, Smith and Neale, 1989; Smith, 1999, Lederman and GessNewsome, 1999, Tobin and McRobbie, 1999) and prospective science teachers in teacher education programs (Zembal-Saul, Starr and Krajcik, 1999; Niess and Scholz, 1999;
Mason, 1999). Science education researchers have added components to early models of PCK, originating from the work of Shulman, Grossman and colleagues. Tamir (1988) proposed the knowledge and skills of assessment as another dimension of PCK. Carlsen (1999) reiterates the importance of the inclusion of “understandings of students misconceptions” as a component of a model of PCK for science teaching (p. 141). Within topic-specific instructional strategies, Carlsen includes “knowledge that science teachers draw upon in choosing and using models, orchestrating substantive classroom discourse, and managing laboratory activities” (p. 141). Magnusson et al. (1999) propose a refined model of PCK for science teaching with the following five components: “(a) orientations toward science teaching, (b) knowledge and beliefs about science curriculum, (c) knowledge and beliefs about student understanding of specific science topics, (d) knowledge and beliefs about assessment in science, and (e) knowledge and beliefs about instructional strategies for teaching science” (p. 97). Refer to Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.2. PCK model for science teaching (simplified version). Source: Examining pedagogical content knowledge. (p. 99) by Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., and Borko, H., 1999. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: the construct and its implications for science education. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
1.3.1 PCK: Too Big of an Idea?
Although PCK as a construct has been a visible line of research in science education, at the same time, problematic issues remain. Kagan (1990) reviewed the literature on teacher cognition, defined as “pre- or in-service teachers’ self-reflections; beliefs and knowledge about teaching, students, and content; and awareness of problemsolving strategies endemic to classroom teaching” (p. 421). Kagan discusses the literature in terms of Katz and Rath’s (1985) Goldilocks Principle that some ideas in education are too small and some are too large to be of use. Kagan postulates that teacher cognition may be too large of an idea to be of utility for several reasons. First, Kagan finds the notion of teacher cognition to be ambiguous in the literature. She also found that teacher cognition generally cannot be assessed directly, and the methods used to elicit teacher thoughts are time-consuming. Consequently, most studies lack any generalizability.
Baxter and Lederman (1999) applied many of Kagan’s findings in their review of science education literature on assessing and measuring PCK. In reviewing convergent methods of assessing PCK, Baxter and Lederman question if multiple choice test items can capture the context upon which teachers will react. Concept mapping, card sort tasks, and pictorial representations have been used to assess PCK, but the question remains if these methods can be established as literal representations of how knowledge is stored and integrated in teachers’ memory. In their review of multi-method evaluation of PCK, Baxter and Lederman discuss the practicality of these studies. Transcribed interviews are labor and time-intensive, and difficult decisions need to be made as to which data sources will yield the most useful information. Baxter and Lederman conclude in their review, “PCK is a highly complex construct that is not easily assessed” (p. 158). Nonetheless, the unique knowledge and beliefs of science teaching captured by PCK makes the construct of vital interest to researchers working to understand how and why teachers implement reform-oriented practices.
1.3.2 A Component of PCK: Orientations
Based on Baxter and Lederman’s review, the Goldilocks Principle may apply to the construct of PCK as well, in that it may be too big of an idea to be useful to teacher education researchers. Initially it may be more useful to closely examine one overarching component within the PCK model, that of teaching orientations. Grossman (1990) defines orientations as the “knowledge and beliefs about the purposes for teaching a subject at different grade levels” (p. 8). She describes the central role of orientations in the following way:
Although beginning teachers may lack the managerial skills necessary to implement their plans successfully, their beliefs about the goals for teaching their subjects become a form of conceptual map for instructional decision making, serving as the basis for judgments about textbooks, classroom objectives, assignments, and evaluation of students (p. 86).
Magnusson et al. (1999) retain this central component in their PCK model for science teaching, applying the term “orientations to teaching science” (p. 99). Magnusson et al. (1999) define orientations as “teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the purposes and goals for teaching science at a particular grade level” (p. 97).In this proposed PCK model, orientations toward teaching science shapes and is shaped by the other four components of their model. In the science education literature, Anderson and Smith (1985) describe teachers’ orientations toward science teaching and learning as “general patterns of thought and behavior relating to science teaching and learning” (p. 99).
1.3.3 A Messy Construct: Teaching Orientations
Teaching orientations, as a unique construct, has a limited literature base and may be described as a messy construct. Pajares (1992) uses the term “messy construct” to describe educational research on teachers’ beliefs and knowledge. Pajares describes a messy construct as one that lacks clear definitions and common usage of terms among researchers. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1989) use the term “conceptions of teaching” rather than “teaching orientations.” No clear definition is given for a “conception of teaching,” except as “a view of teaching” (p. 37). Scardamalia and Bereiter state, “No generally agreed classification of views of teaching exists” (p. 37). Based upon a review of the literature, Scardamalia and Bereiter do propose four generalized views of teaching: (a) teaching as cultural transmission; (b) teaching as the training of skills; (c) teaching as the fostering of natural development; and (d) teaching as producing conceptual change.
Within sociology, Enseki and Hancock (1979) discuss the unsystematic use of such terms as “style,” “orientation,” and “technique.” They propose a different categorization system for teaching orientations. They hypothesize a spectrum of teaching orientations – with a “classical orientation” at one extreme and a “modern orientation” at the other (pp. 48-49). In a classical orientation, the faculty act as content experts while in the modern orientation, the teaching role is that of facilitator. Across this spectrum, Enseki and Hancock propose three dimensions to the teaching process: (a) direction refers to the degree that information is organized, (b) control refers to degree of status differentials maintained in the classroom, and (c) participation refers to the degree of desired classroom interaction (p. 47). To illustrate, an individual with a classical orientation would desire low levels of student participation but maintain high levels of direction and control. The Enseki and Hancock study introduces a new classification system for teaching orientations, but lacks empirical evidence to support the proposed model.
In fact, most reports even remotely related to “orientations” lack an empirical basis. For example, Richards, Gipe and Duggy (1992) used student-generated metaphors to examine the teaching orientations held by a group of 23 prospective elementary teachers. The orientations of authoritarian/technocratic and progressive/student-centered were derived from the literature and used to classify the students’ metaphors, rather than allowing categories of orientations to emerge from the data. Similarly, in physical education, Curtner-Smith (1997) examined the effects of a teacher education program on pre-service teachers holding either a coaching or a teaching orientation. Again, these orientations are theoretically derived from the physical education literature. Also, it is difficult to generalize from this study due to the small sample size, one individual with a coaching orientation and one individual with a teaching orientation.
Several studies did explicitly compare the teaching orientations held by individuals to the theoretical derived teaching orientations described in that particular field. White (1982) tested the reliability, content validity and construct validity of the Barth-Shermis Social Studies Preference Scale, which identifies three separate theoretical orientations to teaching social studies: (a) social studies taught as citizenship transmission (CT); (b) social studies taught as social science (SS); and (c) social studies taught as reflective inquiry (RI). In a study of 190 secondary-school social studies teachers, White found that 81% of the respondents held aspects of all three orientations and did not distinguish between the theoretical orientations: “Social studies teachers showed themselves to be a most eclectic group of educators, choosing liberally from each tradition to achieve their instructional goals” (p. 18).
In the area of mathematics teaching, Sosniak, Ethington and Varelas (1994) describe similar findings to those described above. Sosniak et al. examined eighth grade teachers’ data from the Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS). The original intent of the study was to compare student outcomes between two groups of teachers, those who held “progressive” orientations and those who held “traditional” orientations. A progressive orientation was defined as being “primarily concerned with the transmission of factual and procedural information, while a traditional orientation emphasized “qualitative transformations in the character and outlook of the learner (p. 98). Sosniak et al. were unable to complete the study. Using the SIMS data, they were unable to categorize the teachers into these two theoretically derived orientations. Using the results from the SIMS instruments, they concluded that the teachers participating in the SIMS study held no coherent orientation to mathematics teaching.
1.3.4 Orientations in the Science Education Literature
In reviewing the science education literature for the PCK construct, Magnusson et al. (1999) identify the following nine orientations to science teaching: process, academic rigor, didactic, conceptual change, activity-driven, discovery, project-based science, inquiry and guided inquiry (see Table 1.1.) The table includes each orientation’s primary goal for teaching science and gives characteristics of instruction associated with each goal. One key concept to remember is that it is not a particular activity that a teacher utilizes which indicates their orientation to teaching science, but it is how an activity meets a teacher’s goals and purposes for teaching science. Magnusson et al. hypothesize the central role that orientations play in decision making related to planning, teaching, and reflecting. However, they offer the following caveat, “Few studies have been conducted . . . that directly assess teachers’ orientations to teaching science in order to put that claim to an empirical test” (p. 102). This issue will be explored in more detail in this section.
Table 1.1
The Goals of Different Orientations to Teaching Science
| Orientation | Goal of Teaching
Science |
Characteristic of Instruction |
| Process | Help students develop the
“science process skills.” (e.g., SAPA) |
Teacher introduces students to the thinking processes employed by scientists to acquire new knowledge. Students engage in activities to develop thinking process and integrated thinking skills. |
| Academic
Rigor (Lantz and Kass, 1987) |
Represent a particular body
of knowledge (e.g., chemistry) |
Students are challenged with difficult problems and activities. Laboratory work and demonstrations are used to verify science concepts by demonstrating the relationship between particular concepts and phenomena. |
| Didactic | Transmit the facts of science | The teacher presents information, generally through lecture or discussion, and questions directed to students are to hold them accountable for knowing the facts produced by science. |
| Conceptual
Change (Roth, Anderson and Smith, 1987) |
Facilitate the development of scientific knowledge by confronting students with contexts to explain that challenge their naïve conceptions. | Students are pressed for their views about the world and consider the adequacy of alternative explanations. The teacher facilitates discussion and debate necessary to establish valid knowledge claims |
| Activitydriven (Anderson and Smith,
1987) |
Have students be active with materials; “hands-on” experiences. | Students participate in “hands-on” activities used for verification or discovery. The chosen activities may not be conceptually coherent if teachers do not understand the purpose of particular activities and as a consequence omit or inappropriately modify critical aspects of them. |
| Discovery
(Karplus, 1963) |
Provide opportunities for students on their own to discover targeted science concepts. | Student-centered. Students explore the natural world following their own interests and discover patterns of how the world works during their explorations. |
| Project-based Science
(Ruopp et al., 1993; Marx et al., 1994) |
Involve students in investigating solutions to authentic problems. | Project-based. Teacher and student activity centers around a “driving” question that organizes concepts and principles and drives activities within a topic of study. Through investigation, students develop a series of artifacts (products) that reflect their emerging understandings. |
| Inquiry
(Tamir) |
Represent science as inquiry | Investigation-centered. The teacher supports students in defining and investigating problems, drawing conclusions, and assessing the validity of knowledge from their conclusions. |
| Guided
Inquiry (Magnusson and Palinscar, 1995) |
Constitute a community of learners whose members share responsibility for understanding the physical world, particularly with respect to using the tools of science. | Learning community-centered. The teacher and students participate in defining and investigating problems, determining patterns, inventing and testing explanations, and evaluating the utility and validity of their data and the adequacy of their conclusions. The teacher scaffolds students’ efforts to use the material and intellectual tools of science, toward their independent use of them. |
Source: Examining pedagogical content knowledge. (pp. 100-101) by Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., and Borko, H., 1999. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: the construct and its implications for science education. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
In reviewing the literature cited for the nine orientations shown in Table 1.1, I have grouped the orientations into the following general categories: (a) teacher-centered orientations (didactic and academic rigor), and (b) orientations based on reform efforts and associated curriculum projects. The latter category is subdivided into orientations based on the reform efforts of the 1960s (process, activity-driven, and discovery) and orientations based on contemporary reform efforts and curriculum projects (conceptual change, project-based science, inquiry, and guided inquiry).
A didactic orientation is placed within the first category of teacher-centered orientations. Anderson and Smith (1985) state, “We have encountered this [didactic] orientation toward teaching far more often than any other among teachers at all levels” (p. 100). Eaton, Anderson and Smith (1984) observed elementary teachers using a popular elementary science textbook to teach units on light and photosynthesis. Elementary students’ pretest and posttest scores were compared and they found that students’ misconceptions persisted after didactic instruction. Conclusions were drawn, apparently, from student achievement when a popular science text was used for instruction, and did not explore the teachers’ thinking in regard to their purposes and goals for teaching science. Consequently, readers are left unable to deduce whether the teachers actually held a single didactic orientation to teaching science.
An orientation toward academic rigor is also placed within the first category of teacher-centered science teaching orientations. Lantz and Kass (1987) describe this orientation in a study of chemistry teachers’ implementation and translation of a new curriculum. Three high school chemistry teachers were interviewed five times over a period of four months. A questionnaire was also used to collect data from 69 high school chemistry teachers. To interpret their findings, Lantz and Kass use the concept of a “functional paradigm” with the following four categories: perceptions of high school chemistry, teaching, students, and school setting. These categories are based on Schwab’s four commonplaces of schooling: (a) the subject matter, (b) learners and learning, (c) teachers and the teaching, and (d) the milieu in which education take place (Schwab, 1969). Lantz and Kass define “perception of teaching” as the teacher’s view of requirements for effective teaching, as well as the overall aims of teaching. Among the teacher participants, three primary perceptions of teaching emerge. One perception places a high value on pedagogical efficiency, another view emphasized academic rigor, while a third perception emphasizes student motivation. In the science education literature reviewed, Lantz and Kass’s study is one of the few that uses teacher interviews to generate categories of orientations held by science teachers. However, their findings suggest that the chemistry teachers in the study held multiple orientations, valuing both academic rigor and pedagogical efficiency.
Process, activity-driven, and discovery orientations are student-centered orientations placed in the subcategory of reform efforts of the 1960s. Within the science education literature on orientations, no empirical studies were found that indicate that science teachers’ hold a process orientation. However, Science – A Process Approach
(SAPA) was one of three NSF sponsored elementary science programs developed in the
1960s. “The course [SAPA] utilized a highly structured approach to teaching specific processes of science, such as observing, classifying, measuring, and predicting, while it de-emphasized the mastery of specific science facts” (DeBoer, 1991, p. 158).
Magnusson et al. cite Anderson and Smith (1985) as a reference for an activitydriven orientation. In describing this orientation, Anderson and Smith state, “We have observed this orientation primarily among elementary school teachers who are uncomfortable teaching science. These teachers focus primarily on the activities to be carried out in the classroom: textbook reading, demonstrations, experiments, answering questions, and the like” (pp. 99-100). Anderson and Smith cite Smith and Sendelbach (1982) as a reference for an activity-driven orientation. The Smith and Sendelbach study described the practice of one elementary teacher using a single unit in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS), and examined the differences between the teacher’s intentions and the actual instruction using the SCIS material. DeBoer (1991) describes the activity-oriented SCIS curriculum: “The course focused on both the processes and products of science and made extensive use of the laboratory” (p. 158). Smith and Sendelbach’s (1982) study may better be described as a study examining one teacher’s use of SCIS, rather than a study exploring a teacher’s goals and purposes for teaching science. Other science curriculum projects of the 1960s were structured around the extensive use of student activities, including Time, Space, and Matter, and the Earth Science Curriculum Project (DeBoer, 1991).
Magnusson et al. cite Karplus (1967) as a reference for a discovery orientation. Interestingly, upon closer examination, Karplus (1963) offers a description of the overall design of the SCIS program with advice for implementation. This study is not a description of a discovery orientation held by teachers, but a description of the “orientation” or overview of SCIS curriculum. The Elementary Science Study (ESS) was another curriculum project of the 1960s that used a discovery approach (DeBoer, 1991, p. 158). Teaching science as a set of process skills, hands-on science, and the move from a textbook centered curriculum to a materials-based curriculum were outcomes of the
National Science Foundation sponsored curriculum projects in the 1960s (Victor and Kellough, 1997, pp. 7-8). In the absence of empirical studies focusing on teachers’ orientations, it is difficult to ascertain whether teachers actually hold these orientations-process, activity-driven, or discovery, or whether these orientations exist in the literature as a result of the descriptions, and evaluation studies of the NSF-sponsored curriculum projects of the 1960s.
Conceptual change, project-based science, inquiry and guided inquiry are studentcentered orientations grouped in the subcategory of orientations based on contemporary reform efforts and curriculum projects. Magnusson et al. cite Roth, Anderson and Smith (1987) as a reference for a conceptual change orientation. Roth et al. observed fifth grade teachers teaching lessons on light and photosynthesis over a period of three years. They describe cases in which teachers use different approaches, one group of teachers relied solely on the textbook, one teacher relied solely on activities and used a discovery approach, while a third group of teachers used researcher-designed conceptual change instructional materials. Student achievement was highest in classrooms where the teachers used the conceptual change materials provided by the researchers. Roth et al.’s empirical study describes teaching approaches and their link to student achievement, but the teachers’ thinking is not probed to examine their underlying beliefs and purposes for using a particular teaching approach. Again, the orientation of the intervention, conceptual change-based instruction, was the focus of the study.
Project-based science is placed within the third category of orientations. Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, Blunk, Crawford, Kelly and Meyer (1994) describe four middle school teachers as they attempted to enact project-based science. The study describes the teacher’s background, their school setting, as well as the teachers’ barriers and challenges in enacting project-based science. The four teachers faced some common problems-time constraints, pressures to cover the district’s curriculum, and the need to control and maintain order in the classroom. Marx et al. do not use orientations as a theoretical framework and therefore do not examine the teachers’ beliefs about the purposes and goals for teaching science, although these beliefs may be inferred from the teachers’ perceptions of barriers and challenges.
Tamir (1983) is cited as a reference for an inquiry orientation to teaching science.
Tamir compared pre-service and practicing biology teachers’ conceptions of inquiry. Data collection consisted of asking participants to write down three associations that came to mind about the concept inquiry, and to write a definition of inquiry. Tamir found that “experienced teachers are more inclined to associate inquiry with scientific research, while the student teachers associate inquiry more with learning and teaching” (p. 661). Tamir discusses the desirability of representing science as inquiry and offers suggestions for helping pre-service teachers acquire the view of science as inquiry. Tamir’s study examines pre-service and practicing teachers conceptions of inquiry, but does not support the idea that teachers do or do not hold inquiry as an orientation to teaching science.
Guided inquiry, as an orientation, may best exemplify the subcategory of orientations associated with contemporary reform and curricula projects. Magnusson and Palinscar (1995) describe guided inquiry in the following way:
Guided inquiry attempts to blend the emphases of several science education reform efforts of the past. First, it assumes an inquiry-based approach similar to curricula developed in the 1960s, which were focused on discovery learning. . . . Second, guided inquiry emphasizes the development of conceptual understandings of science, an essential feature of the conceptual change approaches first developed in the 1980s and still in development today (p. 44). Magnusson and Palinscar (1995) do not identify guided inquiry as an orientation held by practicing teachers, rather they describe the use of a guided inquiry heuristic with elementary teachers attempting to implement guided inquiry for the first time. This descriptive implementation report supports the assertion in this dissertation that studentcentered orientations reported in the literature are desired orientations to science teaching based on reform efforts, not orientations held by prospective and practicing science teachers.
1.3.5 Gaps in the Literature
In reviewing the science education literature on orientations, several issues emerge. First, the majority of the studies cited as references for specific orientations focus on describing the teacher’s practice without exploring teacher thinking, specifically the teacher’s purposes and goals for teaching science. Only one of the cited references, Lantz and Kass (1987) uses an inductive approach to generate categories of “perceptions of teaching.” In a study with pre-service teachers, Hewson and Hewson (1989) used a card-sorting task to elicit participants’ “conceptions of teaching science”(p. 141). While the study was inductive in nature, the researchers chose not to label or categorize the orientations of the teachers’ participating in the study. In the majority of the studies reviewed, however, the orientation was theoretically based on desired teaching approaches of past curriculum projects of the 1960s or contemporary reform-based projects.
Second, the orientations defined in the literature may not accurately describe the orientations held by prospective and practicing teachers. Two studies conducted in the spring of 2000 revealed a mismatch between the categories in the literature and the teaching orientations of prospective teachers. Friedrichsen and Dana (2000), in a study of prospective and practicing elementary teachers, asserted that participants did not hold specific orientations to teaching science. The participants held a more generalized orientation to teaching that guided their instructional decision-making process for teaching elementary science. The participants’ decision-making was not based on their knowledge and beliefs about the purposes and goals for teaching science to elementary students, but rather on a non-specific, generalized theory of how students learn. Tsur (2000) examined the reflective journals and lesson plans of prospective secondary science teachers enrolled in a science methods course and concurrent practicum. Using the nine categories of science teaching orientations in the literature, individual participants were identified as having between two to five different orientations with one or two major orientations. Tsur (personal communication, June 2000) confirmed a mismatch between the categories in the literature and the orientations held by participants in the study. A similar finding emerged from an earlier study surveying the orientations held by social studies teachers. A majority of the teachers did not hold a single orientation, but held aspects of two or three of the orientations described in the literature (White, 1982). These studies provide evidence that the theoretical categories of orientations toward science teaching may not match those of prospective and practicing teachers.
The PCK model as a construct of teacher knowledge has been useful in science education research. Within this PCK model, orientations have been proposed as an overarching conception that shapes and is shaped by other components of the model. However, in recent years, the number of student-centered categories of science teaching orientations has grown in the absence of empirical studies. If orientations do play an important role in teacher thinking in terms of curricula, instructional strategies, assessment, and knowledge of students’ science understandings, then it is important to reexamine the orientation component of the model. Do the orientations of practicing teachers match the theoretical orientations in the science education literature? There is a need for inductive studies that explore the orientations held by practicing science teachers. By revisiting the theoretical orientations in the literature and their relationship to the PCK model, the PCK model can be strengthened and be a more useful tool to researchers.
1.4 The Purpose of the Dissertation Study
The purpose of this study is to empirically examine the nature and sources of science teaching orientations held by practicing teachers. A case study design was used in this research. Merriam (1988) states, “A case study is an examination of a specific phenomenon such as a program, an event, a person, a process, an institution, or a social group” (p. 9). Following this definition, this study is a bounded case study of orientations. This study examines the process of teacher thinking focusing on teachers’ goals and purposes for teaching science. Particularistic is one defining characteristic of a case study (Merriam, 1998). To better inform science education researchers and teacher educators, this case study is further limited to highly-regarded teachers who may best offer insight into meeting the guidelines described in reform documents. Within this case study, grounded theory methodology, defined as “developing a theory grounded in data from the field,” is utilized (Cresswell, 1998, p. 65). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the science teaching orientations held by highly-regarded biology teachers using an inductive approach, allowing categories to emerge from data collected from the participants.
1.5 Research Questions
This study of science teaching orientations focuses on the following two research questions:
- What is the nature of the science teaching orientations held by a group of highly-regarded biology teachers?
- What are the sources of the science teaching orientations held by a group of highly -regarded biology teachers?
The first question is designed to examine the orientations held by highly-regarded science teachers. Participation in the study was limited to exemplary, reform-minded teachers who have been nominated by multiple science educators familiar with each individual’s teaching. In this study, a reform-minded teacher is defined as a teacher who is studentcentered, incorporates inquiry approaches to learning, and desires to teach for conceptual understanding rather than focusing on coverage of the science textbook.
The second question is designed to explore sources of highly-regarded teachers’ orientations to teaching science. The sources of an individual’s orientation are defined as descriptions of experiences that individuals believe have contributed to the formation of their science teaching orientations. Sources may include, but are not limited to, teacher education coursework, teaching practice, the classroom setting, mentors, engagement in scientific research, etc. By understanding the source(s) of a teacher’s orientation to teaching science, this information may inform the design of secondary teacher education programs and professional development opportunities for practicing teachers.
1.6 Significance of the Study
This study of the nature and sources of practicing biology teachers’ orientations toward teaching science is significant because of its contribution to the scholarly research in science education. In the literature, categories of science teaching orientations have been identified. Upon review of the literature, these categories may be more a product of curriculum reform efforts, past and present, than descriptions of actual orientations held by teachers. The study specifically explores teachers’ science teaching orientations with descriptions and categories emerging from the field data. As science education researchers continue to explore the construct of pedagogical content knowledge, the theory generated from this study may inform the refinement of components of the currently proposed PCK model for science teaching.
This study is significant to improving teaching practice for several reasons. First, the interview protocols developed for this study offer practical tools for eliciting individuals’ orientations to science teaching. Prospective teachers enter teacher education programs with strong beliefs about teaching and for the most part, these beliefs remain unchanged (Kagan, 1992). In teacher education programs, Kagan recommends that one of the foci of self-reflection should be on individuals’ beliefs about teaching. This study also has significance for improving the practice of classroom teachers. Teachers’ orientations influence the ways in which they implement new curriculum (Lantz and Kass, 1987). To successfully support teachers’ learning, professional development opportunities need to take into account teachers’ existing knowledge and beliefs about their role as teachers (Borko and Putnam, 1996). Freeman (1991) argues that one important role of professional development is to help teachers make their implicit beliefs explicit. In doing this, teachers are better able to examine their classroom practice and to consider inconsistencies between their beliefs and practice. As science curriculum coordinators and staff developers work with classroom teachers to implement reformbased curricula, an exploration of individuals’ orientations to teaching science should aid the implementation process.
1.7 Limitations of the Study
In any research endeavor, “There are no perfect research designs. There are always trade-offs” (Patton, 1990, p. 162). One limitation of this study is the small number of participants. The number of potential participants was limited by a criterion for participation, that of being identified as an exemplary biology teacher. As a solo researcher working in the field, available time and energy also dictated the number of participants that could be included in the study. In considering this limitation, the positive aspects outweigh the negative. Due to the small number of participants, I was able to spend more time with each individual teacher, gaining a thorough understanding of each participant’s science teaching orientation(s).
An inherent limitation in case study research is that the reader may think of the case study as a whole, when in actuality the case study represents just a part (Merriam,
1998). An item on any researcher’s wish list is the desire to spend more time in the field. Due to scheduling constraints, most of the classroom observations occurred during the same curriculum unit. My preference would be to observe in participants’ classrooms throughout the school year. As the reader proceeds through the study, I would caution that the individual case reports represent a slice of the participant’s teaching world. Furthermore, this slice represents my interpretations, although they were created with significant input from the participants in the study.
1.8 Summary and Preview
In this chapter, I have set the stage by situating the context of the study within the theoretical framework of pedagogical content knowledge. In doing so, I have explored some of the issues associated with researching PCK, specifically the issue of the messiness of the construct. To address this issue, I have narrowed the study to examine one overarching component of PCK, that of science teaching orientations. In discussing gaps in the literature on science teaching orientations, I have shown the significance of this study – i.e., an inductive study that specifically focuses on teachers’ thinking. As a cautionary note to readers, I have included a discussion of the limitations of the study.
The purpose of Chapter 1 was to give an overview of the study, while Chapter 2 discusses the methodological framework for the study — a case study design employing grounded theory methods. In Chapter 2, participant selection is discussed, and data collection and analysis techniques are described to make the research process more apparent to the reader. Chapter 3 introduces each of the four participants in the study, describing their teaching contexts, the nature of each participant’s science teaching orientation(s), and probable sources that shaped their teaching orientations. The information in Chapter 3 is included only to show the inductive process from individual data to collective interpretations.
Chapter 4 presents a theory of science teaching orientations, grounded in empirical data from the four participants. The theory is presented as a diagram, illustrating the complex interrelationships between nature, sources and means of science teaching orientations. Two sets of assertions are offered relating to the nature of science teaching orientations, while a third assertion addresses probable sources of participants’ science teaching orientations. In Chapter 5, the grounded theory of science teaching orientations is situated within models of domains of teacher thinking and specific PCK models for science teaching. Chapter 6 offers implications in three areas: (a) improvement of science teacher practice, (b) future scholarly research on science teaching orientations, and (c) improvements in policy.
A SUBSTANTIVE-LEVEL THEORYOF HIGHLY-REGARDED SECONDARY BIOLOGY TEACHERS’ SCIENCE TEACHING ORIENTATIONS
