20
Four Case Studies of Prospective Science Teachers’ Beliefs Concerning Constructivist Teaching Practices JODI J. HANEY, JULIA MCARTHUR Department of Educational Curriculum and Instruction, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA Received 24 March 1996; revised 27 August 2001; accepted 5 December 2001 ABSTRACT: To gain a better understanding of the emerging constructivist beliefs and classroom practices, case studies were constructed for four prospective teachers who were purposely selected as a result of their scores on the Classroom Learning Environment Sur- vey (CLES) (Taylor, Fraser, & White, A classroom environment questionnaire for science educators interested in the constructivist reform of school science. Paper presented at the an- nual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA, 1994). The case studies provided insight into two primary questions (1) what are the beliefs of the prospective science teacher regarding constructivist teaching practices and (2) are these beliefs consistent with subsequent classroom practice? The components of construc- tivist teaching by Taylor, Fraser, and White (1994) were used as a theoretical framework in conjunction with Ajzen and Fishbein’s components of the Theory of Planned Behav- ior (Ajzen, 1985). Data collection consisted of document analysis, classroom observation, and interviews. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Findings from the case studies suggest that at least two kinds of beliefs were in operation: central be- liefs and peripheral beliefs. The central beliefs were defined as those dictating subsequent teaching behaviors; whereas the peripheral beliefs were those that were stated but not oper- ationalized. C 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 86:783 – 802, 2002; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/sce.10038 INTRODUCTION Calls for constructivist classroom teaching practices are included in many of the na- tional science education reform recommendations; namely, the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council [NRC], 1996); Project 2061 (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990), and the report from the Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) (1994). Un- surprisingly, research regarding constructivist teaching practices is now quite fashionable. However, constructivism is not really a theory about teaching, but rather, it is a theory about knowledge and learning. Following one constructivist framework, knowledge can be described as “temporary, developmental, socially and culturally mediated, and thus, nonobjective” (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; pg. vii). Following this assertion, both learning Correspondence to: Dr. Jodi J. Haney; e-mail: [email protected] C 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Four case studies of prospective science teachers' beliefs concerning constructivist teaching practices

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Four Case Studies of ProspectiveScience Teachers’ BeliefsConcerning ConstructivistTeaching Practices

JODI J. HANEY, JULIA MCARTHURDepartment of Educational Curriculum and Instruction, Bowling Green State University,Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA

Received 24 March 1996; revised 27 August 2001; accepted 5 December 2001

ABSTRACT: To gain a better understanding of the emerging constructivist beliefs andclassroom practices, case studies were constructed for four prospective teachers who werepurposely selected as a result of their scores on the Classroom Learning Environment Sur-vey (CLES) (Taylor, Fraser, & White, A classroom environment questionnaire for scienceeducators interested in the constructivist reform of school science. Paper presented at the an-nual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA,1994). The case studies provided insight into two primary questions (1) what are the beliefsof the prospective science teacher regarding constructivist teaching practices and (2) arethese beliefs consistent with subsequent classroom practice? The components of construc-tivist teaching by Taylor, Fraser, and White (1994) were used as a theoretical frameworkin conjunction with Ajzen and Fishbein’s components of the Theory of Planned Behav-ior (Ajzen, 1985). Data collection consisted of document analysis, classroom observation,and interviews. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Findings fromthe case studies suggest that at least two kinds of beliefs were in operation: central be-liefs and peripheral beliefs. The central beliefs were defined as those dictating subsequentteaching behaviors; whereas the peripheral beliefs were those that were stated but not oper-ationalized. C© 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 86:783–802, 2002; Published online in WileyInterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/sce.10038

INTRODUCTION

Calls for constructivist classroom teaching practices are included in many of the na-tional science education reform recommendations; namely, the National Science EducationStandards (National Research Council [NRC], 1996); Project 2061 (Rutherford & Ahlgren,1990), and the report from the Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) (1994). Un-surprisingly, research regarding constructivist teaching practices is now quite fashionable.However, constructivism is not really a theory about teaching, but rather, it is a theoryabout knowledge and learning. Following one constructivist framework, knowledge canbe described as “temporary, developmental, socially and culturally mediated, and thus,nonobjective” (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; pg. vii). Following this assertion, both learning

Correspondence to: Dr. Jodi J. Haney; e-mail: [email protected]

C© 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

784 HANEY AND McARTHUR

and teaching should reflect the dynamic nature of knowledge. Since beliefs are thought tobe action agendas (Ajzen, 1985; Pajares, 1992) and the teacher is thought to be central tothe educational change process (Bybee, 1993), identifying and understanding the beliefs ofteachers regarding any educational reform idea becomes critical (Bybee, 1993; Cuban, 1990;Fullan & Miles, 1993; Haney, Czerniak, & Lumpe, 1996; Tobin, Tippin, & Gallard, 1994).

The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) have outlined goals for theprofessional development of both practicing and prospective science teachers. These goalssuggest that the preparation of science teachers should include frequent inquiry based andconstructivist experiences that allow learners to gain both content knowledge and pedagog-ical skills. These experiences should enhance a science teacher’s abilities to provide similarexperiences in their own classroom. Although research regarding constructivist teachingpractices in the science classroom is accessible, queries specifically addressing the beliefsof teachers concerning constructivist practice are insufficient. Studies examining the con-structivist beliefs of teachers are necessary to understand a teacher’s journey as they attemptto implement constructivist teaching and learning practices. Prospective teachers often lacksufficient professional classroom experiences to “play out” their developing beliefs aboutconstructivist teaching. Therefore, understanding how teachers’ early belief structures con-tribute to their introductory classroom practices is of particular interest.

To gain a better understanding of the relationship between prospective teachers’ con-structivist beliefs and classroom practices, case studies were constructed of four teachersduring their science methods and student teaching experiences. These four individuals werepurposely selected based on their scores on the Classroom Learning Environment Survey(CLES) (Taylor, Fraser, & White, 1994). The case studies provide insight in two realms:(1) the beliefs of prospective science teacher regarding constructivist teaching practices;and (2) whether or not these beliefs are consistent with subsequent classroom practices.

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS

As defined by Brooks and Brooks (1999), a social-constructivist classroom is one inwhich students are viewed as partners in the learning process. Learning is a filter by whicheach student creates personal meaning through peer negotiation of the sensory experiencesthat are provided. The teacher’s role in this type of classroom changes from someonewho typically provides information on a certain topic to someone who orchestrates theenvironment and provides opportunities for students to create meaning through active andrelevant experiences. In a constructivist classroom, student questions and input are highlyvalued and encouraged, as opposed to a more traditional classroom where the existingcurriculum (often a science textbook) dictates student learning. Table 1 compares traditionalclassrooms to constructivist classrooms (Brooks & Brooks, 1999, p. 17). For the purposesof this investigation, constructivism will be defined using these descriptions as well as theconstructivist model proposed by Taylor, Fraser, and White (1994).

Constructivist Learning Environment Survey

Taylor and Fraser developed the CLES to enable classroom teachers to monitor and re-flect on their own development in constructivist teaching practices. The instrument includedsub scales to assess student perceptions of the degree to which opportunities for studentprior knowledge, autonomy, and negotiation existed in the classroom. Taylor, Fraser, andWhite (1994) revised the CLES in light of the realization of dominant “sociocultural re-straints” that often impede the ability of teachers to use constructivist approaches. Assuch, the revised instrument reflected a critical constructivist theoretical framework that in-cludes both prior knowledge and interpersonal negotiation of meaning as the fundamental

PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS 785

TABLE 1A Look at School Environments (Brooks & Brooks, 1999, p. 17)

Traditional Classrooms Constructivist Classrooms

Curriculum is presented part to whole, withemphasis on basic skills.

Curriculum is presented whole to part withemphasis on big concepts.

Strict adherence to fixed curriculum ishighly valued.

Pursuit of student questions is highlyvalued.

Curricular activities rely heavily ontextbooks and workbooks.

Curricular activities rely heavily on primarysources of data and manipulativematerials.

Students are viewed as “blank slates” ontowhich information is sketched by theteacher.

Students are viewed as thinkers withemerging theories about the world.

Teachers generally behave in a didacticmanner, disseminating information tostudents.

Teachers generally behave in aninteractive manner, mediating theenvironment for students.

Teachers seek the correct answer tovalidate student learning.

Teachers seek the students’ point of viewin order to understand students’ presentconceptions for use in subsequentlessons.

Assessment of student learning is viewedas separate from teaching and occurs al-most entirely through testing.

Assessment of student learning isinterwoven with teaching and occursthrough teacher observations ofstudents at work and through studentexhibitions and portfolios.

Students primarily work alone. Students primarily work in groups.

components in creating opportunities for conceptual understanding. From this social con-structivist perspective, the role of the teacher drastically transforms from the traditionalobjectivist role of “giver of knowledge of the established curriculum” to “mediator of stu-dents’ encounters with their social and physical worlds” (Taylor, Fraser, & White, 1994,p. 3). The social constructivist teacher facilitates student interpretations and reconstruc-tions of individual knowledge and provides opportunities for students to engage in criticaldialogue regarding the viability and implications of their ideas on socially constructedknowledge and values in the classroom and the broader community.

Two different versions of the CLES instrument exist (student and teacher). Both instru-ments include sub scales that measure the degree to which five related components areperceived to be present in the classroom environment (Table 2).

The Beliefs of Teachers

Central to the idea of effective educational change is the premise that teachers and theirteaching are the most essential components for educational progress (Bybee, 1993). Severalresearchers (Bybee, 1993; Cuban, 1990; Haney, Czerniak, & Lumpe, 1996; Tobin, Tippin,& Gallard, 1994) support the notion that teacher beliefs are precursors to change and thatthe teacher is the crucial change agent in paving the way to reform. However, teacherbeliefs are largely ignored by the national recommendation reports listed above. Therefore,investigations examining teacher belief structures in the context of constructivist teachingpractice are required to guide the current science education efforts.

786 HANEY AND McARTHUR

TABLE 2Classroom Learning Environment Survey (CLES): Subscales, Descriptions,and Samples

CLES Subscale Description Sample Item From Instrument

Scientific uncertainty Whether or not the prospectiveteacher believed thatscience should be presentedas a tentative discipline.

Students learn that sciencecannot provide perfectanswers to problems.

Student negotiation Whether or not the prospectiveteacher believed thatstudents should beencouraged to interactsocially to develop scientificmeaning.

Students get the chance totalk to other students.

Shared control Whether or not the prospectiveteacher believed that thestudents should have somedecision making ability incourse curriculum.

Students help you plan whatthey are going to learn.

Critical voice Whether or not the prospectiveteacher believes thatstudents are free to questionteacher practice.

It’s okay to ask the teacher‘‘why do we have to learnthis”.

Personal relevance Whether or not the prospectiveteacher believes that it isimportant for students tohave some personal interestin the content.

Students learn how sciencecan be part of out-of-schoollife.

Beliefs are often disguised behind a variety of aliases, including attitudes, values, judg-ments, opinions, ideology, perceptions, conceptions, conceptual systems, dispositions, im-plicit theories, explicit theories, internal mental processes, action strategies, rules of prac-tice, and perspectives, among others (Pajares, 1992). The confusion in meaning generallyfocuses on the distinction between beliefs and knowledge. Nespor (1987) helped definethe construct by asserting that beliefs are deeply personal, stable, lie beyond individualcontrol or knowledge, and are usually unaffected by persuasion. They create an ideal oralternative situation that may differ from reality and are stronger affective and evalua-tive components than knowledge. Moreover, beliefs are rooted in vivid memories of pastexperiences.

Clusters of beliefs form belief structures or systems. Rokeach (1968) compared the beliefstructure to an atom and explained that some beliefs form the nucleus in a central–peripheralsystem. These central beliefs are more important, and therefore, more resistant to change.The central beliefs hold the less important peripheral beliefs together to form the beliefstructure. Moreover, centrality of beliefs is related to connectedness of the belief to theother beliefs possessed by an individual. Beliefs that are more “connected” include beliefsassociated with an individual’s identity, those that are shared by others, and underivedbeliefs obtained from first hand experience. Beliefs are complex and are therefore difficultto measure. Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (1985), provides a workable model forresearch of this nature, since the model provides information regarding an individual’sbeliefs and intentions to behave in a particular fashion.

PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS 787

The Theory of Planned Behavior

In the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985), beliefs are used to predict an individ-ual’s intention to engage in a behavior. Three direct variables are needed so as to predictintention and behavior; they include: the attitude toward the behavior (AB), the subjectivenorm (SN), and the perceived behavioral control (PBC).

The AB variable includes the individual’s salient beliefs that reflect the extent to whichthe individual believes that engaging in the behavior will lead to favorable outcomes. Thus,the attitude represents a personal component. The SN variable includes the salient beliefsregarding the people who are supportive of engaging in the behavior. This component rep-resents a social component and measures the extent to which the individual believes thatother people, important to his/her life, think the behavior should be performed. Lastly, thePBC variable includes the salient beliefs regarding both the resources and the obstacles thateither facilitate or impede engagement in the behavior. In other words, PBC reflects theindividuals’ perceptions regarding how the behavior is complicated by internal (skill, abil-ity, knowledge) and external (resources, opportunity, cooperation) factors. Ajzen (1985)explains that the intent, attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control con-structs are directly linked to behavior and that the relationship is causal and unidirectional.Because of its’ utility in targeting teacher beliefs and behaviors, the Theory of Planned Be-havior was used as a framework to help identify the prospective teacher’s AB, SN, and PBCbeliefs.

Recently, the Ajzen model has been critiqued because it is believed to utilize a ratherbehaviorist approach of describing human behavior as a linear cause and effect (belief toaction) relationship. However, we believe this model is still appropriate in a constructivistparadigm because beliefs have repeatedly been shown to be used in pedagogical decision-making (Bandura, 1997; Czerniak et al., 1999; Haney et al., in press; Lumpe, Haney, &Czerniak, 2000; Morine-Dershimer, 1989; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992); thus warrantingthe elicitation of the beliefs of the prospective teachers by including the three open endedquestions from the Azjen model. These questions include, what are the positive and negativeconsequences associated with constructivist teaching and learning; who supports or opposesyour teaching in a constructivist manner; and what things could happen that would make iteasier or harder for you to teach in a constructivist manner?

In a recent case study, Haney et al. (in press) examined the relationship between sixelementary teachers’ beliefs about teaching science and their ability to effectively imple-ment science instruction. The findings suggest that the teachers who possessed the mostpositive belief structures (capability and context beliefs) scored relatively higher on all ofthe effective science teaching domains (design, implementation, science content, and class-room culture); however, it was the degree of teacher reflectivity that was the determiningfactor. Teachers who possessed high belief scores but did not reflect upon issues related tostudent learning did not demonstrate the effective teaching strategies as did their peers whopracticed reflected upon teaching behaviors. The authors concluded that the Ajzen beliefsto action model must be modified to include a feedback mechanism in order to emphasizethe importance of teacher reflection of the action and how the action further modifies beliefstructures.

The following fundamental assumptions, based on the preceding theoretical framework,were used to design this study:

1) beliefs are precursors to action;2) effective teaching is linked to learning theory; and3) social constructivist teaching strategies foster student learning.

788 HANEY AND McARTHUR

DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

To investigate the developing constructivist beliefs of prospective teachers, qualitativemethods were employed. Purposeful sampling was used to determine the students whowould act as informants (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Pre- and posttest scores on the ClassroomLearning Environment Survey (Taylor, Fraser, & White, 1994) were used to identify fourstudents (assigned pseudonyms will be used):

Ross: The student who reported the lowest pre- and postconstructivist beliefs;

Phoebe and Cliff: The students who reported the highest pre- and postconstructivistbeliefs; and

Audrey: The student who reported the greatest pre–post change in constructivist beliefs.

The students were enrolled in a secondary professional semester that included a 6 weekscience methods course followed by a 10 week student teaching experience. One of the pri-mary goals for the methods course was to introduce or deepen the students’ understandingsof social constructivist theory and to promote the implementation of social constructiviststrategies during the student teaching experience. The instructor of the course includeddiscussions, readings and reflections regarding social constructivist practice, and consci-entiously planned student experiences that, in her mind, modeled constructivist teachingstrategies. This instructor, was also one of the authors of this paper and was involved incollecting data (via class assignments), analyzing the data and writing the final report. Inorder to avoid bias in the evaluation of the course, the nonteaching author observed andinterviewed the students, as these events took place during the semester and only for thefour students. All of the data were analyzed after the students completed the course.

Data were collected from the informants in several different ways. Written documentsin the form of reflective analyses, journals, lesson plans, and portfolio entries from courseassignments were analyzed. Each participant was observed teaching a self-selected con-structivist lesson. Finally, a semistructured interview was conducted after the observation(see below). The three previously identified focus interview questions were developed usingAjzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior constructs to provide insight into the informant’s AB,SN, and PBC beliefs.

Prior to the interview, a one page graphic organizer was reviewed with the informanthighlighting the five tenets of constructivist teaching according to the model by Taylor,Fraser, and White (1994). This graphic organizer reviewed information that the studentshad learned in the secondary science methods course. Both the observations and the in-terviews were conducted by without the researcher’s prior knowledge of the scores on theCLES.

The data set for each of the informants were coded using different sets of belief cate-gories, preestablished and other (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994).The preestablished categories were defined according to the constructivist beliefs and ac-tions derived from the five components of constructivist teaching (Taylor, Fraser, & White,1994). Beliefs that did not fall into the CLES categories were grouped together using theconstant comparative method and categorized as other (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Maykut& Morehouse, 1994).

Defining Beliefs

Following the coding process, a hierarchy of beliefs was established. It appeared that atleast two kinds of beliefs were in operation: core and peripheral. Core beliefs were defined as

PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS 789

those beliefs that were both stated and enacted. An example of a core belief identified in thisway was the statement, “I believe students should solve problems together while workingin groups,” followed by an action (as evidenced through lesson planning, observation, orlesson reflection) depicting student negotiation and problem solving.

Peripheral beliefs were defined as the constructivist beliefs that were stated, but were notenacted. The statement, “I believe in student negotiation and problem solving,” followed byclassroom experiences that were void student negotiation or problem solving opportunities,offered evidence that a peripheral belief was in operation. Some students acknowledgedand were dissatisfied that their beliefs were in conflict with their classroom practices.An example of this type of peripheral belief is the student statement “I’m disappointedbecause I wanted to include student negotiation and problem solving, but can’t becauseI am not able to choose my own lesson. In the future, this is the thing I will do to makethis lesson successful.” For this example, a perception of an external factor (lack of controlover lesson planning) kept the peripheral belief from becoming an operationalized corebelief.

The core beliefs were further classified into one of three groups: constructivist beliefs,conflict beliefs, and emerging beliefs. Constructivist core beliefs were aligned with con-structivist theory (student negotiation, critical voice, shared control, scientific uncertainty,and personal relevance) and were also put into practice. Conflict core beliefs were thosebeliefs that were enacted, yet were in opposition to constructivist theory. They were thebeliefs that made it difficult for the students to operationalize the constructivist beliefs.The statement “I believe in hands-on student inquiry” followed by classroom actions de-picting heavy reliance on lecture is an example of this type of belief. In this case, the conflictcore belief was the belief in didactic teaching strategies.

Emerging core beliefs were the beliefs that were both stated and put into action during thecase studies, yet were not directly related to the constructivist practice components offeredby Taylor, Fraser, and White (1994). These beliefs are associated with effective scienceteaching however. An example of an emerging core belief would be “good teachers arecaring, and respectful.” For this example, the identified emerging core beliefs were care andrespect for students. A summary of the belief categories follows:

Core Beliefs: Beliefs that are enacted in the classroom.

Constructivist core beliefs: Enacted beliefs that are consistent with constructivist modelby Taylor, Fraser, and White (1994) (e.g., personal relevance).

Conflict core beliefs: Enacted beliefs that oppose constructivist model by Taylor,Fraser, and White (1994) (e.g., heavy reliance on didactic teaching).

Emerging core beliefs: Enacted beliefs associated with effective teaching, yet are notdirectly related to the constructivist model by Taylor, Fraser, and White (1994) (e.g.,care and respect).

Peripheral Beliefs: Beliefs that are associated with the constructivist model by Taylor,Fraser, and White (1994) stated, but not enacted. (e.g., stated belief in personal relevance,but not implemented).

After analyzing the beliefs and actions of the prospective teachers, metaphors weredeveloped illustrating our perceptions of the role of the teacher. It is important to note thatthe researchers created the metaphors as a way of summing up the data set generated foreach informant. They were intended to help us succinctly communicate the similarities anddifferences in the prospective teachers’ beliefs and actions.

790 HANEY AND McARTHUR

Approximately 1 year after the first interviews were conducted, three of the four partici-pants were interviewed again as a member’s check (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). The fourthcould not be located for a follow-up interview. All three agreed with the interpretations ofthe data (i.e., the generated teaching metaphor and the identified beliefs).

In writing the case studies for the four participating students, the metaphors, core beliefs(constructivist, conflict, and emerging), and peripheral beliefs were identified and described.The attitude toward the behavior beliefs were interwoven within the core beliefs. However,the subjective norm and perceived behavioral control beliefs were identified and discussedfor each case. Figures 1–4 graphically depict the identified belief structures of the fourprospective teachers.

THE CASES

Case 1: Ross

Ross was the student with the lowest pre- and postscores on the CLES. After analyzingthe data collected for Ross, the metaphor describing Ross’ role as a teacher as that of the“Efficient Manager” was developed (Figure 1). In the various data sources reviewed, Rosscontinually focused on management details as he answered questions or reflected on histeaching. He was very much concerned with getting things done in the most efficient mannerpossible. During the interview, Ross told us that he sought out student input when searchingfor efficient classroom management strategies. For example, his students told him that theyliked to use dry erase boards, so he planned lessons where the students could use the boards.The decision to use the boards did not seem to be based on learning theory, but rather onthe appeal and efficiency component they brought to the classroom. Ross stated that “theboards are a quick way to quiz students about the topics that were just covered in class” andthat “students respond well to this type of activity.”

Core Beliefs. The only core constructivist belief that was identified was student ne-gotiation. Ross demonstrated this belief in both talk and deed. During Ross’ observa-tion, students were working together to solve genetics problems. At several different

Figure 1. Ross’s constructivist belief structure.

PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS 791

points in his interview, Ross described the importance of students working together in hisclasses.

A strong belief in the existing local curriculum emerged from the interview and obser-vation data. Ross’ belief that his teaching role is that of the supplier of information (theinformation from the text and science course of study) appeared to be in direct conflict withconstructivist practices that call for active, concrete, and social constructions of knowledge.His belief in didactic teaching seemed to be a central belief and one that prevailed: therefore,it was identified as a conflict core belief.

Creating a caring respectful environment for the students in Ross’ class was an emergingcore belief. In a journal assignment, Ross discussed the importance of using alternativeassessment to help students who are not good test takers. He also mentioned in his interviewthat he wanted to make sure the students had multiple ways of demonstrating their ability.Ross shared

If I had the perfect classroom with all the prefect teaching styles and all. I’d like to get itdown to where I could explain something in four to six different ways, reach the smarteststudent, and still reach that student that’s at the bottom struggling. And not belittle anybodyby doing it.

Peripheral Beliefs. Ross did not develop as many of the constructivist ideas as some ofhis classmates; therefore he had relatively little inconsistency between his teaching beliefsand actual practices. In his philosophy of teaching statement completed at the end of thesemester, he stated that he believed in a student-centered classroom. If student centeredis defined as a classroom where students have choice over curricular decisions (sharedcontrol), this was an example of a peripheral belief. Ross was not able to put this belief intoaction and did not recognize any apparent conflict. Ross’ students did have some shareddecision making over management tasks such as the use of the dry erase boards.

Subjective Norm. Ross’ cooperating teacher had a very strong positive impact on him.Ross referred to his teacher quite often in his interview and discussed ideas that he adaptedfrom his cooperating teacher. During the interview he often replied to answers about histeaching by using the pronoun “we,” indicating his bond with his cooperating teacher. Muchof Ross’ teaching philosophy at the end of the student teaching experience seemed to be adirect result of his cooperating teacher’s influence.

Perceived Behavior Control. PBC factors were not really an issue for Ross. For the mostpart, he was very happy with his student teaching position. He had compiled a wish list ofequipment that he wanted in his first teaching job and mentioned that he might not be ableto implement cooperating learning if he was in a room that had tables which were bolteddown. However, he did not feel that needed external support structures were missing.

Case 2: Phoebe

Phoebe posted one of the highest pre- and post-CLES scores. Her highest pre- and post-CLES subscores included the domains of scientific uncertainty and personal relevance.At the beginning of the semester, Phoebe asserted that the teacher’s role in the learningprocess was that of a motivator. This metaphor, “the Motivator,” was used to summarizePhoebe’s teaching beliefs (Figure 2). Phoebe consistently defined good teaching as makingthe curriculum interesting and relevant to the students’ lives.

792 HANEY AND McARTHUR

Figure 2. Phoebe’s constructivist belief structure.

Core Beliefs. Her primary constructivist core belief was personal relevance. Phoebe de-scribed her fundamental goal in teaching as helping her students see how science is “relevantto my students’ lives, not only important on a personal level, but a global level as well.”When asked how students learn, Phoebe explained:

I believe students learn best by doing and seeing things, things that relate to the real world,and things that they are very familiar with. Experiments & demonstrations are a must!Students should be involved in the acquisition of knowledge.

As evidence of a core belief, Phoebe’s lesson plans invariably included modifications tootherwise traditional lessons to spark student interest, elicit curiosity, give students somedecision making, and include ties to the real world.

Other core constructivist beliefs for Phoebe include scientific uncertainty and studentnegotiation. In Phoebe’s philosophy of science education statement, she advocated scienceprocessing, critical thinking, and problem solving. Many of Phoebe’s lesson plans incorpo-rated active learning, science process skills, collaborative or cooperative learning strategies,and guided science inquiry.

Phoebe’s conflict core beliefs included her perceptions of the need for (a) strict adherenceto the local curriculum, (b) teacher control, and (c) teacher perspective. Phoebe’s beliefsrequire her to be the motivator, coordinator, planner, and implementor for successful scienceteaching. Yet this role appeared to be in conflict with her constructivist beliefs that learningshould be meaningful and relevant and that it should foster student decision making andinquiry. It did not appear that Phoebe consulted with her students to find out what they foundto be relevant and interesting prior to planning, rather, relevance were defined by Phoebe.

Another apparent conflict belief was that “management issues get in the way of goodteaching.” Phoebe reflected that active learning, shared control, and student negotiationare often difficult because “the kids aren’t used to this type of teaching.” She revealeddissatisfaction with the behavior of the students during the activities and recognized thisconflict.

Phoebe was an art major before switching to science education. Her emerging corebeliefs in creative and holistic teaching were consistent with her prior experience as an artist.

PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS 793

Many of Phoebe’s lessons incorporated creativity and integration with the arts. Her handoutsincluded samples of her art work and she provided opportunities for her students to use theircreativity on multiple assignments and course projects. Active learning is another emergingbelief that was found in both Phoebe’s belief statements and in her classroom practice. Thelesson plans and lesson reflections submitted by Phoebe, as well as the observed lesson,depicted active student experiences.

Peripheral Beliefs. Phoebe’s peripheral beliefs seemed to include the desire to incorpo-rate shared control strategies into her classroom teaching. Phoebe made several statementsregarding the need for students to have input in the learning process. For example, Phoebestated that “students must be given opportunities to explore topics of interest on their own.This gives them ownership of their learning and this is how science is really done.” Phoebemodified some of her lessons to give students limited decision making opportunities; how-ever, the curricular decisions were still left up to the teacher. We were unsure if this beliefwas core or peripheral, yet we have classified it as peripheral because the belief was stated(and even incorporated to some extent into the lessons), yet the shared control componentwas a source of conflict with other core beliefs, as previously noted.

Subjective Norm. Phoebe described her cooperating teacher as being content oriented.Phoebe communicated her frustration regarding her cooperating teacher by saying, “myteacher doesn’t even want to me to take the time to show them how to graph.” When askedin the interview if she perceived her cooperating teacher to be a support structure, Phoebereplied:

Well, she really doesn’t say much, but recently she said I was doing a good job and thatshe’s enjoyed my lessons, you know and so on. But throughout, she never really said muchand I didn’t want to ask, you know, how am I doing?

Phoebe identified her methods instructor as her biggest support structure. It should benoted however that the methods instructor had no professional contact with any of the meth-ods students during the student teaching experience. Phoebe also identified “newer teachers”as support structures, by saying, “so I think the newer teachers, the newer generation, we’rethe ones that are going to have to change the whole field of teaching.”

Perceived Behavioral Controls. When asked what control factors or barriers were pre-sent that made it difficult for her to include constructivist teaching practices, Phoebeidentified the lack of time and the fact the her students were not used to a new way ofteaching. Otherwise, she had little to say about external barriers impeding her ability to teachscience.

Case 3: Cliff

Cliff was identified by the CLES instrument as reporting one of the two highest pre-and post constructivist belief scores. His highest sub scores were in personal relevance andscientific uncertainty. At the beginning of the semester, Cliff pointed out that the teacher’srole in the learning process was that of a “Tour Guide”; therefore, this metaphor was used(Figure 3). Cliff’s view of a teacher as a tour guide is highlighted in his journal entry aboutscience equity. Cliff writes

794 HANEY AND McARTHUR

Figure 3. Cliff’s constructivist belief structure.

In order to reach these students who are disinterested with science, I could use examples inmy classroom of important female, minority, or disabled people who have been influentialor important in the realm of science (e.g., Stephen Hawking).

Cliff elaborates on his role as an effective teacher as one who promotes learning, usesdiverse strategies, aligns practice with national and state educational reform recomme-ndations, allows for student decision making, and uses constructivist instructional models.

Core Beliefs. Cliff’s primary constructivist core beliefs were personal relevance and stu-dent negotiation. During the interview, Cliff voiced, “one of the biggest things I’ve learnedis that what you say doesn’t mean anything to the kids until it directly affects them orit means something to them.” In the lesson plans analyzed, Cliff’s lessons included ac-tivities that were structured to foster personal relevance. Cliff also consistently discussedthe need for students to communicate with one another and to solve problems collabora-tively. Evidence of student negotiation was also seen in his lesson planning and reflectiveanalyses.

A belief in the need to cover the entire local curriculum was a source of conflict for Cliff.This belief appeared to be an obstacle to the implementation of the constructivist beliefsdescribed above. Many of Cliff’s lesson plans and reflections depicted instruction focusedon teaching the existing science curriculum. Evidence of student decision-making regardingcourse content or management issues was not observed.

Beliefs regarding active learning and the relationship between student learning and as-sessment emerged as core beliefs. These beliefs were consistent throughout his dialogueand he incorporated these ideas into his classroom practice, when permitted.

Peripheral Beliefs. Cliff’s desire to establish shared control in his classroom was evidentin his response to an interview question regarding his role in teaching. He stated that he wasextremely frustrated because he was not able to deviate from his cooperating teacher’s plansand incorporate his own strategies. Cliff acknowledged, and was highly dissastisfied with,the conflict between his beliefs about shared control and his actual classroom practices.

PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS 795

Cliff emphasized the need to incorporate all five of the constructivist strategies when he hasmore control over his teaching.

Subjective Norm. Cliff repeatedly expressed frustration with the support and guidancereceived from his cooperating teacher. Like Phoebe, he perceived his cooperating teacheras a negative source of support. In the interview, Cliff voiced the need for family, peer, andadministrative support for future success and happiness in teaching.

Perceived Behavioral Controls. When asked what barriers were present that made itdifficult for him to include constructivist teaching practices, Cliff quickly identified as, time,resources, curriculum materials, equipment and facilities, class size, and proficiency testing.Cliff seemed to possess several external attributes for his recognized conflicts betweenbeliefs and actions.

Case 4: Audrey

Audrey had the greatest change in constructivist belief from the pre- to the post-CLEStest. At the beginning of the semester, Audrey defined her role as a teacher in the followingmanner, “My role is to provide the students with the means or resources they need to learn.”The metaphor of teacher as “Resource Person” was developed to describe Audrey’s teachingbeliefs and actions (Figure 4). She defined good teaching as “setting up a good classroomenvironment.”

Core Beliefs. The data set compiled for Audrey indicated that she had implemented theconstructivist core beliefs of personal relevance and student negotiation. Although scientificuncertainty and critical voice may have been core beliefs, we did not see strong evidencethat either of these two beliefs were put into action.

Audrey was a strong advocate of personal relevance. During an interview at the endof her student teaching experience, she described her goals, “to have the students learn

Figure 4. Audrey’s constructivist belief structure.

796 HANEY AND McARTHUR

to think on their own because they’re going to need to think on their own 10 years fromnow; and learn how to use chemistry for themselves.” Audrey frequently discussed the ideathat students should possess scientific ways of thinking about the world around them. Sheplanned and implemented many inquiry-based experiences that required her students to beproblem solvers.

Audrey demonstrated in statements and by action that student negotiation was one ofher core beliefs. In a journal assignment she made the following comment, “In addition tousing independent research and promoting creativity, implementing cooperative learningcan also enhance positive attitudes.” The lesson observed was one in which students wereworking together to create a hot air balloon.

When discussing her ideas about good teaching, Audrey wondered if students would comeup with all the chemistry they needed to on their own. By Audrey’s own admission thisconflict between constructivist ideas and the existing curriculum (defined content standards)would take some time to figure out. At the time of the interview, it appeared that theimportance of the local science curriculum was still a conflict core belief.

The importance of active learning was a constant thread throughout all of Audrey’sjournals, reflections and interview answers. Not only did she talk about the importance ofstudent learning, but also she put her beliefs into action. She planned and implementedactive hands-on lessons for her students. Although Audrey spoke a great deal about herdesire to foster active learning, in attempting to do so she ran into some problems. Forexample, the students did not seem to want to be active participants in the learning process,preferring to “sit and take notes.” Audrey’s continual focus on student learning allowed herto operationalize her beliefs and continue to create student-centered activities.

Peripheral Belief. Audrey frequently discussed the importance of offering students sha-red control in curricular decision making. Because no evidence was uncovered of Audreyactually putting this belief into practice, it was classified as peripheral.

Subjective Norm. Audrey had a very positive relationship with her cooperating teacher.Many of the attributes of good teaching that she described were occurring in the cooperatingteacher’s classroom. Audrey was given a great deal of freedom to create lesson plans and hercooperating teacher commented frequently that she will utilize many of the new teachingideas that Audrey employed.

Perceived Behavioral Control. Audrey did not really express any concerns about thebarriers that might prevent her from doing her job. She was very positive about her studentteaching position. She discussed some equipment problems she encountered while tryingto use a computer simulation. However, she was able to use the program and the problemsdid not prevent her from doing what she had planned.

DISCUSSION

A summary of the prospective teacher belief structures is found in Table 3. For theprospective teachers that were studied, it is evident and expected that their core beliefs(constructivist, conflict, and emerging) were stable and resistant to change. Generally speak-ing, student negotiation, scientific uncertainty, and personal relevance were constructivistcore beliefs that these students were able to put into practice during their student teachingexperience. However, each teacher was unable to operationalize the peripheral belief of

PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS 797

TAB

LE

3S

um

mar

yo

fP

rosp

ecti

veTe

ach

erB

elie

fS

tru

ctu

res

Con

stru

ctiv

ist

Con

flict

Em

ergi

ngP

erip

hera

lO

ther

Bel

iefs

Cas

esC

LES

Ran

king

Cor

eB

elie

fsC

ore

Bel

iefs

Cor

eB

elie

fsB

elie

fsFa

ctor

s

1:R

oss

Low

pre

&po

stS

tude

ntne

gotia

tion

Exi

stin

gsc

ienc

ecu

rric

ulum

Cre

atin

ga

carin

g&

resp

ectfu

len

viro

nmen

t

Sha

red

cont

rol?

(stu

dent

cent

ered

lear

ning

)

SN

:Pos

itive

(coo

pera

ting

teac

her)

PB

C:T

able

s,ch

airs

,wis

hlis

t2:

Pho

ebe

Hig

hpr

e&

post

Per

sona

lre

leva

nce

Exi

stin

gsc

ienc

ecu

rric

ulum

Act

ive

lear

ning

Sha

red

cont

rol

SN

:Neg

ativ

e(c

oope

ratin

gte

ache

r)S

tude

ntne

gotia

tion

Man

agem

enti

ssue

sC

reat

ivity

&im

agin

atio

nP

ositi

ve(m

etho

dsin

stru

ctor

)S

cien

ceun

cert

aint

yTe

ache

rco

ntro

l&pe

rspe

ctiv

eP

BC

:Kid

sno

tuse

dto

this

way

ofte

achi

ng3:

Clif

fH

igh

pre

&po

stP

erso

nal

rele

vanc

eE

xist

ing

scie

nce

curr

icul

umA

ctiv

ele

arni

ngS

hare

dco

ntro

lS

N:N

egat

ive

(coo

pera

ting

teac

her)

Stu

dent

nego

tiatio

nLe

arni

ng&

asse

ssm

ent

rela

tions

hip

PB

C:T

ime,

reso

urce

s,cl

ass

size

,pro

ficie

ncy

test

s,et

c.4:

Aud

rey

Gre

ates

tpre

–po

stch

ange

Per

sona

lre

leva

nce

Exi

stin

gsc

ienc

ecu

rric

ulum

?A

ctiv

ele

arni

ngS

hare

dco

ntro

lS

N:P

ositi

ve(c

oope

ratin

gte

ache

r)S

tude

ntne

gotia

tion

Stu

dent

lear

ning

PB

C:S

omet

imes

equi

pmen

t

798 HANEY AND McARTHUR

shared control. Although all four communicated that enabling students to be involved indecision-making practices in the classroom was an effective teaching strategy, none wereable to actually implement this idea. Shared control requires teacher confidence and risktaking. It may very well be that novice teachers are simply not ready to employ sharedcontrol strategies.

The belief in the need to adhere to the existing local science curriculum was an evidentobstacle (conflict core belief) for all four teachers. It is likely that the belief in the existingcurriculum was perceived as a block to enabling classroom students to make curriculardecisions. In this Midwestern state, high stakes proficiency tests are given in the eighth orninth grade (the grades that all four university students were teaching). The learner outcomesframing the tests tend to drive instruction in the state. It was obvious that all four prospectiveteachers struggled with the role that they needed to play in preparing the students for thetest.

According to Ajzen (1985), attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and perceivedbehavioral control components are three motivational factors that predict intent and sub-sequent action. Haney, Czerniak, and Lumpe (1996) concluded that attitudes toward thebehavior were primary determinants influencing teachers’ intentions to implement sciencereform recommendations, yet SN components made little, if any contribution towards in-tent. We found the SN component was extremely important in helping prospective teachersimplement their beliefs about teaching, thus the subjective norm factors likely facilitatedthe development of core beliefs. If the cooperating teacher shared the belief, or was at leastsupportive of the belief, then the student teachers were generally encouraged to incorporatetheir beliefs into classroom practice. Often times, peripheral beliefs became core beliefsbecause of the supportive nature of the cooperating teacher. Classroom teachers are oftenskeptical of allowing student decision making opportunities. Therefore, it is likely that sincethe shared control peripheral beliefs were not supported by the cooperating teacher, therewas no mechanism in place to allow this belief to become centralized.

As previously noted, the relationship between the cooperating and student teacher wasdescribed as synergistic. Ross and Audrey seemed to experience this synergy with theircooperating teachers. An asynchronous relationship existed between Cliff and Phoebe andtheir respective cooperating teachers. For example, Cliff held shared control as a strongperipheral belief; however he became extremely frustrated when he was not able to plan andimplement lessons of this nature due to perceptions of external control. Phoebe discussed herconflict and frustration in not being able to incorporate as many active teaching experiencesas she would have liked. The context of the students’ first professional experience is criticaland that synergistic pairings between cooperating and student teachers should be a priority.This implies that the beliefs of the cooperating teachers should be identified prior to studentteaching placements and that these beliefs be used to pair prospective teachers with theirmentors. Further research regarding the belief relationships between the cooperating teacherand the assigned student teacher is necessary.

Another finding of interest was the apparent lack of overt concern regarding PBC com-ponents. Haney, Czerniak, and Lumpe (1996) concluded that PBC factors significantlyinfluenced inservice teachers’ intentions to implement new teaching strategies. In similarstudies, inservice teachers cited many PBC factors including, time, resources, class size,teacher training, and equipment. Yet only Cliff quickly and robustly identified several ex-ternal factors that he perceived were getting in his way of implementing constructivistteaching. It is likely that novice teachers are not fully aware of the perceived (or real) lackof support needed to implement contemporary reform ideas.

An emerging pattern depicting a conflict between the student’s core belief in the sciencecurriculum (defined content standards) and the constructivist belief of shared control was

PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS 799

particularly interesting. Although three of the students identified shared control as a strategythey would like to implement, they found it both difficult and frustrating to incorporate. Afterthe reexamination of the student metaphors, this conflict is somewhat predictable. Phoebe’smetaphor of teacher as “the motivator” does not permit her students the opportunity to beresponsible for their own learning because she (and not her students) is the motivator oflearning. As a result, Phoebe assumed all responsibility and tried very hard to figure outways to hook her students into learning, instead of allowing her students to offer ideas andcomplete projects on topics they find personally relevant. Cliff’s role as the “tour guide” alsorelies on the teacher’s definition of curriculum and issues of relevance. According to Cliff,he will show the students what is interesting about science and will make the “material”meaningful. Both of these students were continually frustrated because they recognized thevalue of constructivist practice without fully understanding the value of shared control inthe implementation of constructivist theory.

The “efficient manager” metaphor described by Ross was much more focused on teachingthan on student learning. Shared control was not on Ross’ agenda, nor was it a real sourceof conflict. The “efficient manager” believed in the curriculum (defined content standards)and set out to teach it as pragmatically as possible. Only Audrey’s metaphor, “teacher asa resource,” is consistent with the idea of shared control. Her constant questioning of thelocal science curriculum was a good indicator that shared control might very well becomea core belief sometime in her profession.

This conflict between shared control and the existing curriculum is found on a much largerscale. National and state science recommendations include content standards, while at thesame time advocate constructivist teaching practices. While incorporating both ideas maybe feasible, teachers are hearing mixed messages. The recommendations advocate indepen-dent research and student decision making (American Association for the Advancementof Science, 1993; NRC, 1996; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990); however, the teachers feelextremely pressured to teach the content that is found on high stakes tests. In fact, ac-countability of teaching identified content standards is growing in many states. As a result,constructivist ideas such as shared control may be forfeited in the name of content coverage.

Perhaps the most interesting finding deals with the fact that Audrey substantially changedher beliefs throughout the semester. What lead to this change? Was the change due toalterations in her AB, SN, or PBC belief factors? If so, which factors and what events orpeople influenced these alterations? Unfortunately, we can only hypothesize likely sourcesof the changes to her belief structure. We believe that of the four prospective students,only Audrey focused on student learning versus teaching behaviors. She continually usedevidence of student learning as a primary source of information needed for pedagogicaldecision-making. This process enabled her to question her own practice as well as thescience curriculum, and we believe that it was this reflective process that allowed Audreyto modify her belief structure. This hypothesis is supported by the work of Haney et al. (inpress) suggesting that implementation of teaching beliefs relies heavily on the self-reflectionof teaching behaviors as related to student learning.

Jofili, Geraldo, and Watts (1999) found that action research opportunities were essential sothat teachers an could test hypotheses and then try to “search from improvement of their ownteaching” (p. 8). Similarly, Tabachnick and Zeichner (1998) advocate that action researchhelps prospective teachers shift their thinking from themselves as teachers to their studentsas learners. Hopefully, the course described in this study provided novice teachers with thistype of opportunity, but as this study shows, only one of the four teachers (Audrey) wasable to use these experiences to reconstruct her teaching beliefs. Goodfellow and Sumison(2000) espouse that student teacher wisdom is a valuable characteristic and that wisdomhas reflective, affective, and experiential qualities. As such, we believe Audrey was very

800 HANEY AND McARTHUR

wise and that her wisdom may explain why she was able to move beyond her originalbeliefs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Excluding teacher beliefs from any teacher training experience is tantamount to ig-noring the importance of prior knowledge in student learning: Examining and exploringthe developing beliefs of prospective teachers in both methods courses and field experi-ences is extremely important. Without a close examination of beliefs, the teacher educatorcannot be confident that the students are prepared to implement constructivist practices.Holt-Reynolds (1994) provides a case study of such miscommunication. It was found thatalthough one particular student (who seemed to be understanding the concepts presented ina teacher education class, was succeeding academically, and was very positive about imple-menting the ideas and activities she was learning) had conflicting beliefs about the use ofmany of the reform-minded strategies. Interviews with this student suggested that her priorexperience and beliefs about what constituted “good” teaching were the most importantfactors in her growth as a classroom teacher. She assimilated her professor’s theories intoher well-developed ideas concerning good teaching. However, this assimilation was verydifferent that what the instructor thought was taking place. This result is not surprising inlight of the fact that, as teacher educators, we deal with students who have spent more than12 years in developing their beliefs about teaching and learning.

Holt-Reynolds’ findings regarding the developing beliefs of her student are congruent tothe findings presented in this study (Holt-Reynolds, 1994). From the very beginning of thesemester, the core beliefs about teaching and learning were fairly consistent. Unfortunately,the conflict core beliefs acted as barriers in the development of constructivist beliefs, almostin spite of the prospective teacher’s desire to put the constructivist beliefs into practice.Without careful examination of the developing beliefs of the teachers, it is possible that weare setting our students up for frustration and failure. When teachers experience frustrationand failure, they are likely to throw out the strategies they perceive to be the source ofsuch outcomes. Thus, their attempt to implement constructivist teaching practices maybe short lived. Most importantly, it is well documented that action research opportunitiesenable novice teachers to reflect upon their beliefs and actions by focusing on studentlearning (Goodfellow & Sumsion, 2000; Jofili, Geraldo, & Watts, 1999; Tabachnick &Zeichner, 1998). Therefore, we advocate the use of action research in all teacher educationcourses. If teachers are unable to think about how their beliefs and subsequent actionsinfluence student learning, then it is unlikely that changes to the belief to action cycle willoccur.

The environmental context needed to develop desired pedagogical skills and bring pe-ripheral beliefs towards the core beliefs appears to be crucial: The cooperating teacher isinfluential in the developing practices of prospective teachers. Again, we may be settingour prospective teachers up for failure when a great mismatch occurs between the devel-oping teacher’s beliefs and those of the cooperating teacher. This happened in both Cliff’sand Phoebe’s cases. And on the other hand, Ross and Audrey were very well matched interms of beliefs with their cooperating teachers. As previously described, Ross and Phoebeexperienced constructivist synergy with their cooperating teachers. We believe that syner-gistic belief pairings provide the prospective teacher with a needed support structure. Whenteachers perceive support, they are more likely to bring outlying peripheral beliefs closerto the core. In other words, with support, it is more likely that beliefs will predict action.The beliefs of the cooperating teachers should be identified and examined prior to studentteaching placements.

PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS 801

Based on the inferences made in light of the case studies, new questions emerged. Should“traditional” prospective teachers be paired with “traditional” cooperating teachers? Doesplacing a prospective teacher with strong constructivist beliefs with a cooperating teacherwith more traditional beliefs (or visa versa) hinder professional growth or does it fostergrowth by demanding students to reflect upon their untamed experience? Further researchexamining the constructivist beliefs of both the cooperating teachers and the assignedprospective teacher would provide information regarding the potential for professionalsynergy.

Teacher metaphors may be antecedents for intention to implement constructivist prac-tices: Teacher metaphors can be predictors of intent to implement constructivist practices.We found that the metaphorical roles were often in conflict with peripheral beliefs. More-over, a combination of several factors (many of which the teacher lacked control over) wereresponsible for the apparent conflicts in their metaphorical teaching roles. In this study, themetaphors constructed for Ross (“the Efficient Manager”), Phoebe (“the Motivator”), Cliff(“the Tour Guide”), and Audrey (“the Resource Person”) were instrumental in identifyingand explaining their science teaching belief structures. The insight that metaphors providefor predicting behavior is another telling component worthy of future investigation.

BouJaoude (2000) found that both metaphors and open-ended questions are effectivemeans of assessing conceptions of teaching; yet the author points out that metaphors areproblematic since they are so experientially based, and without elaboration, a researchercould misconstrue the metaphor. Therefore, we advocate the use of metaphor in combinationwith open-ended questions and interviews is necessary.

Science education goals and testing policies must reflect the socially and culturally me-diated, dynamic, and nonobjective nature of how and what we come to know: Too oftenin education we “throw the baby out with the bath water.” We sacrifice one innovation oridea at the expense of another. The ebb and flow of educational innovations and recom-mendations turnabout at a rate that we can no longer afford. We believe it is possible andnecessary to reconcile the conflict between teachers’ core beliefs in the existing curriculum(content standards) with their beliefs that support the tenets of constructivist practice. How-ever, collectively we must adequately communicate the critical need to harmonize thesegoals. We must pursue efforts to help teachers find ways to include experiences that affordstudents’ personal relevance, student negotiation, shared control, critical voice, and scienceuncertainty while at the same time foster understanding of the content standards. We needto justify how much and what science should be taught (and when students need to knowthis science). Importantly, it will be extremely difficult and unlikely for teachers to alignthese seemingly opposing beliefs unless testing policies reflect both what students need toknow as well as how they come to know it. Only then will constructivist practices in theclassroom be both prevalent and impactful.

REFERENCES

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman(Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) (1994). Innovations in science education survey instru-

ment. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Boston, MA: Allyn

and Bacon.

802 HANEY AND McARTHUR

BouJaoude, S. (2000). Conceptions of science teaching revealed by metaphors and by answers toopen-ended questions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(2), 173–186.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for the constructivistclassroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publications.

Bybee, R. W. (1993). Leadership, responsibility, and reform in science education. Science Educator,2, 1–9.

Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19, 3–13.Czerniak, C. M., Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Beck, J. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs about using educa-

tional technology in the science classroom. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2),[online]. Available at http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/issues.html [1999, Dec 15].

Fullan, M. G., & Miles, M. B. (1993). Getting reforms right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi DeltaKappan, 73, 745–752.

Goodfellow, J., & Sumison, J. (2000). Transformative pathways: Field-based teacher educators’ per-ceptions. Journal of Education for Teaching, 24(3), 245–257.

Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding theimplementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33,971–993.

Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M., & Egan, V. (in press). From beliefs to actions: The beliefsand actions of teachers implementing change? Journal of Science Teacher.

Holt-Reynolds, D. (1994). When agreeing with the professor is bad news for preservice teachereducators: Jeneane, her personal history and course work. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21,13–35.

Jofili, Z., Geraldo, A., & Watts, M. (1999). A course for critical constructivism through action research:A case study from biology. Research in Science & Technology Education, 17(1), 5–17.

Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their scienceteaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3).

Morine-Dershimer, G. (1989). Preservice teachers’ conceptions of content and pedagogy: Measuringgrowth in reflective, pedagogical decision-making. Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 46–52.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19,317–328.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1998). Idea and action: Action research and the developmentof conceptual change teaching of science. Science Education, 83, 309–322.

Taylor, P. C. S., & Fraser, B. J. (1991). CLES: An instrument for assessing constructivist learningenvironments. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Researchin Science Teaching, Fontana, WI.

Taylor, P. C. S., Fraser, B. J., & White, L. R. (1994). A classroom environment questionnaire forscience educators interested in the constructivist reform of school science. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.

Tobin, K., Tippin, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teachingscience. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York:National Science Teachers Association.