Metaphors as seeds for conceptual change and the improvement of science teaching

SCIENCE TEACHER ED U CAT1 0 N

Thomas Dana and Vincent Lunetta, Section Editors

Metaphors as Seeds for Conceptual Change and the Imwovement of Science Teaching

KENNETH TOBIN Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-3032, USA

DEBORAH J. TIPPINS University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA

This article reviews research on the relationships between teacher metaphors and the teaching and learning of science. Metaphors are portrayed as one of several ways in which knowledge about science teaching can be re-presented and as potential foci for critical discussions about enacted science curricula and powerful tools for generating new ways of thinking about teaching and learning of science. Descriptions are provided of teachers constructing metaphors to fit their classroom practices and of metaphors being used to conceptualize salient teaching roles and implement changes in the classroom. Applications of metaphors, and associated narratives and sketches, as tools for generating propositional and procedural knowledge and changing teaching practices are provided throughout the article. Specific attention is given to applications for the education of prospective and practicing science teachers. 0 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

Class was hell today! Ms. Grayson must have got out of the wrong side of bed. She was grumpy and never let up on us. All we did was write, write, write. I sure hope she is back to her normal self tomorrow. (grade 10 student, 3/2/94)

Science Education SO(6): 71 1-730 (1996) 0 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/96/060711-20

712 TOBIN AND TIPPINS

Most of us can identify with comments like that. As students and teachers we have experienced how mood swings of a teacher can transform a classroom environment. When Ms. Grayson was her normal self she was relaxed and nonauthoritarian. Most of her lessons used small groups and allowed students considerable freedom to make decisions about their own learning. On this occasion the class was very different. Ms. Grayson realized the students were falling behind and she was determined to catch up, did not want a lot of noise, and she knew exactly what she wanted each student to do. What is interesting about the scenario encapsulated in the student’s comment is that Ms. Grayson changed the classroom environment dramatically by changing her goals. Most days she wanted to facilitate learning with understanding, but every so often she felt a need to cover content quickly. On those days learning with understanding was less of a priority. As Ms. Grayson changed her goals, her roles in the classroom and those of students changed, and so too did myriad behaviors of the teacher and students. A change of goals was associated with a significant change of teacher and student actions.

The above vignette illustrates that neither Ms. Grayson nor the students of her class could act in isolation of one another or the social forces that permeate all communities of practice. Ms. Grayson’s actions were constrained by her personal hierar- chy of beliefs and interactions with students, colleagues, and social organizations (e.g., department, school district). Although Ms. Grayson was clear about the goals she valued most and used them to guide her teaching she also was conscious of her colleagues’ expectations that she cover subject matter at a predetermined rate. Ms. Grayson’s decision to modify her approach to teaching was based on her perception that the class was not getting through the subject matter quickly enough. She was concerned that the students’ rate of subject matter coverage was less than other classes and decided to catch up, in the sense that she would cover such subject matter as necessary until her class, and other classes at the same grade level, were studying the same topic at about the same time. In coming to this decision Ms. Grayson examined the subject matter of science separately from the learners and decided to focus on how much subject matter she covered rather than whether or not students were learning with understanding. Her tendency to view science as a body of knowledge that could be separated from knowers was consistent with objectivist semantics (Johnson, 1987), as was her decision to take control of the pace of subject matter coverage. Furthermore, her actions were supported by a cultural press associated with her colleagues expressing a desire for all students at a given grade level to know the same subject matter. On this occasion her teaching was consistent with a transmission metaphor for disseminating knowledge to students who were regarded as receivers of the knowledge. The transmission-receiver metaphors for teaching and learning are part of an accepted tradition and their use in framing teaching is widespread and usually is supported by teachers, students, and parents (Taylor, in press; Tobin & McRobbie, in press). Consequently, there is not an impetus to change from transmission oriented approaches to teaching and learning since social forces provide tacit support for the retention of traditional practices. If teachers are to break away from this model, strategies are nkeded to initiate and sustain changes and support is needed from others who believe in the efficacy of changes and a rationale for effecting them.

METAPHORS AS SEEDS 713

Changes as striking as those that occurred in Ms. Grayson’s class are precisely what would-be reformers of science education would like to see happen in classrooms around the world. For many years, reports (e.g., Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990) have called for the reform of science education that more or less are the reverse of what happened in Ms. Grayson’s class. One response of researchers and teacher educators has been to attempt to change teaching and learning practices in terms of what research has shown to be most effective. These approaches to change have involved, more often than not, endeavors to alter one teaching behavior at a time, or a small set of teaching behaviors (e.g., Tobin, 1985). That is, by building propositional knowledge based on research, endeavors were made to modify classroom practices. In con- trast, Ms. Grayson significantly changed teacher and learner roles as if one set of interactive teacher and student actions was replaced by another.

This vignette about Ms. Grayson can be used by practicing and prospective teachers to introduce the idea of making changes to sets of teacher and student roles. Analyses of the scenario can draw attention to the different referents used by teachers, such as teachers as transmitters, knowledge as an object, and students as receivers, to frame their roles and the enactment of the cumculum. Discussion might focus on the identification of alternative referents that might have been used by Ms. Grayson to frame teaching in different parts of the vignette. If the referents underpinning the roles of the teacher and students are identified and changed then the cumculum might be enacted in ways that reflect reconceptualizations of these roles, the result being improved learning environments.

AN ERA OF REFORM

There can be little doubt that the present era is one of advocacy for reform. Ever since the wake up call of A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, in 1983 (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), there have been more than 400 national reports that have documented a growing dissatisfaction with the quality of science teaching and learning and have called for widespread changes in the practices of teachers, learners, and policymakers (Hurd, 1993, 1994). There is an overwhelming consistency in these reports, recognizing that students should build understandings about what they are endeavoring to learn and an advocacy for changes to the traditional roles of teacher and students. One popular slogan that has been included in most reports is that less is more, in the sense that fewer concepts need to be studied in greater depth to enable students to build deeper understandings (Palmer, 1995). However, the evidence suggests that teachers experience difficulty in implementing such a goal when the curriculum is enacted (Palmer, 1995; Tobin & McRobbie, in press). Consistent with this example, there is a degree of pessimism among some scholars that the attempts at reform will be successful. For example, Sarason (1991) noted that:

The traditional mode of classroom organization, as well as that of the school and school system, creates rather than dilutes problems that adversely affect or greatly constrict the productivity of all participants in the educational arena. What we have now is not working to anyone’s satisfaction. All efforts over the past several decades


to improve the situation have failed, and, I have to predict, efforts to implement cur- rent reforms will end in failure as well. (p. 95)

A possible reason for the failure of reform attempts is that attempts have involved only a limited number of stakeholders, and that research has not influenced practice in the way that researchers hope it will. Anderson and Mitchener (1994) drew attention to the need to involve all parts of the educational system in efforts to initiate and sustain reform. They noted that:

. . . substantial educational change generally is the result of systemic efforts. That is, it is not the result of any one action for improving education, such as inservice education. It is the result of some combination of endeavors that relate to each other and in combination have a significant impact in the context in which change is being sought. (p. 36)

Fullan (1 993) emphasized the importance of the individual teacher in the process of changing what happens in classrooms. He acknowledged the importance to educational reform of the capacity to think and work independently. Fullan commented that: “The very first place to begin the change process is within ourselves. In complex societies like our own, we have to learn to cope and grow despite the system” (p. 138). The significance of the individual learning within a social context was high- lighted by Senge (1990) in the following remark: “Organizations learn through individuals who learn. Individual learning does not guarantee organizational learning. But without it no organizational learning occurs” (p. 139). It is clear from these re- marks that the learning and change of teachers must always be a consideration when changes in teaching are required within a system. In making this point it also is acknowledged that change occurs within a culture, and to understand the dynamics of change it is necessary to consider all participants in a social setting and the forces that give shape to the actions and interactions within that community (Milne & Taylor, 1995; Taylor, in press; Tobin & McRobbie, in press).

There is a notion that changes will proceed from what presently is happening in schools toward a new vision, in part through the agency of teacher education. Thus, an important aspect of the reform movement is the learning of teachers and subsequent application of what has been learned to enact and sustain changes in the teaching and learning of science. Inevitably, efforts to understand the processes of conceptual change, and the enactment and maintenance of change will involve an ex- amination of individual learning and social mediation of what is learned and valued as viable knowledge.

OUR THEORETICAL FRAME FOR TEACHING, LEARNING, AND CHANGE

If teachers are considered as belonging to communities of practice, each characterized by a discourse, then it can be argued that teachers bring to a classroom multiple discourses reflecting the communities in which they live their lives. In a similar manner a classroom can be considered a community of practice consisting of multiple discourses associated with the teacher and students who participate in that commu-


nity (Fairclough, 1992; van Dijk, 1993). A goal of the curriculum then, can be to create a shared language that permits those within a classroom community to copartic- ipate in activities. Coparticipation implies that each of the participants shares a language and can understand what is happening to the extent that there is freedom to participate and learn with understanding (Schon, 1985). Students can access the language of the teacher and there is a free flow of ideas. It might be anticipated that in a community in which coparticipation is occurring there are interactions among participants in which negotiation and consensus building are apparent and learners are em- powered to participate and learn because of their ability to use a shared language. The implication for change, from the perspective of discourse communities, is that if changes are to be successfully initiated and sustained, the teacher and students ought to understand their new roles and agree that changes will be beneficial. Furthermore, when introduced, the changes should be such that coparticipation is established and maintained.

The rationale of discourse communities was applied to classrooms, however, the same frame also applies to the learning of teachers in contexts of programs for prospective and practicing science teachers. Here teacher-learners must establish and maintain a community in which coparticipation occurs in the presence of science teacher educators and other resources to support learning. In this case, teacher-learners must share a language with teacher educators and have full access to that language as they seek to attain their learning goals. The autonomy to learn within the community is constituted in the discourse and it is imperative that within the ideal of coparticipatory learning environments the mediational roles of the teacher educators are such as to preserve meaningful learning of the teacher-learners via the route of reflective actions and interactions. In such environments, it is crucial that teacher educators and teacher-learners are explicit about the extent to which constructed knowledge is viable in the contexts in which it is to be used.

PURPOSE

This article examines research that has been undertaken on the use of metaphors by teachers, exploring the extent to which a program of research can inform practice in a context of a reform agenda that highlights the significance of students learning science with understanding and using what they learn in their lives outside of school. The specific focus of this review and synthesis is on the role of metaphor in making sense of teaching and learning and the manner in which metaphors constrain the actions of teachers and students when a science curriculum is enacted. Throughout this study, we have endeavored to highlight implications of what we have learned for the education of practicing and prospective science teachers, and the extent to which reform might be enhanced.

ANALOGIES AND METAPHORS

For a number of years researchers have examined the role of analogies in the construction of understandings and misunderstandings about science (Glynn, 1991; Harrison & Treagust, 1994). For example, in an address to the American


Psychological Association, the eminent nuclear physicist Robert Oppenheimer noted that “. . . analogy is inevitable in human thought because we come to new things in science with what equipment we have, which is how we have learned to think, and above all how we have learned to think about the relatedness of things” (Oppenheimer, 1956, p. 129). Oppenheimer’s comments draw attention to the significance of analogy in making sense of science, a premise that underpins a voluminous literature on the relationships between the use of analogies and learning science (e.g., Glynn, Duit, & Thiele, 1995). The use of analogies in making sense is not restricted only to the domain of science. Humans engage in analogical reasoning when they use knowledge of the concepts and relationships of one discipline to think about or solve problems in another.

Stimulated by the writing of Lakoff and Johnson (1975) a considerable amount of research also has been directed at metaphors and leaming, most of it focusing on teaching. Thus, one issue that arises is the difference between analogy and metaphor. Zook (199 1) described analogies as nonliteral comparisons between superficially dis- similar knowledge domains. Duit (1991) noted that “A metaphor compares without doing so explicitly. It appears to be the very essence of a metaphor that the grounds of comparison are hidden. Metaphors always have some element of surprise. They provoke anomaly” (p. 650). Duit commented that metaphors may invite new perspectives and assist us to see the familiar in totally new ways. Also, because of the generative characteristics of metaphors they can stimulate the construction of analogical relationships and facilitate conceptual change.

There are many scenarios for considering metaphors in relation to teacher education. For example, when a person is wanting to make sense of a new experience, what is known is linked to what is not known. That is, a new experience is initially conceptualized in terms of something that is known (i.e., a seed concept). The initial link is metaphorical and as a person has subsequent experiences with the new concept it be- comes differentiated from the seed concept. Depending on the mode in which the knowledge is re-presented at the time the link is made, a metaphor might consist of, for example, an image associated with teaching, and a verbal string. Thus, a metaphor provides links of two types. First, it is a link between new and extant knowledge. Second, it is a link between language and images. Each of these connections may have significance to the potential application of metaphors to build knowledge of teaching, and consequently, to improve the quality of instruction. One possibility is that the availability of an image component of a metaphor might, in practice, make it easier to build an action and eventually to hone a routine from that action.

IMPLICIT REFERENTS

A referent is a belief that acts as a guide to the actions of an individual. For example, a metaphor can act as a referent for given actions of a teacher. In earlier examples, metaphors, such as transmitter and receiver, were used as bases for deciding whether or not given actions were appropriate in a particular setting. If contemplated actions are coherent with the metaphor then an individual might enact those actions but, if the contemplated actions did not cohere with the referent, then the actions


would not be enacted. In this way a referent constrains the actions of an individual. Another example of a referent is beliefs about the nature of knowledge. An individual might decide to enact roles in such a way that hisher actions were consistent with hisher beliefs about constructivism (Tobin, 1993), that is, to use constructivism as a referent for teaching. Ritchie (1994) described how a teacher used a metaphor of teacher as travel agent to transform her teaching to better accord with constructivism. She used the metaphor as a basis for reflecting on her teaching practices. After a pe- riod of time the teacher taught in a more routine manner and was less reliant on the need to use the metaphor to guide her teaching practices. Use of the metaphor allowed the teacher to focus on the facilitation of student learning and to use strategies that minimized the disadvantages of a lack of content knowledge.

Explicit referents, such as metaphors, can have embedded within them assumptions about which an individual is not consciously aware. In the following sections we consider power, gender, and culture as belief sets that can be embedded within metaphors and act as implicit referents to constrain actions.

Power

Gurney (1995) reported that 130 metaphors were volunteered by prospective high school science teachers in response to a survey item that asked respondents to “Give your own metaphor for the teachingflearning process.” What is interesting about this study is that the data were collected at the beginning of a teacher education program when prospective teachers had only limited opportunities to test their metaphors or for their metaphors to be molded by courses in the teacher education program. The metaphors were categorized into four emergent themes: delivery (< 15%); change (21%); enlightenment (21%); and humanic ( > 30%). These themes are analogous to implicit referents. Delivery metaphors assumed knowledge to be a commodity and viewed teaching and learning in terms of delivering or receiving knowledge. Change metaphors focused on growth or transformation of the learner as a result of learning. Enlightenment metaphors were associated with the notion of journey toward valued learning or insights. The metaphors in the humanic category were associated with the idea that teaching and learning are human and personal activities, often described as collaborative. The diversity among the different types of metaphor suggests that a discussion of the relative merits of the various metaphors might be productive in making explicit some of the referents, such as knowledge being considered a commodity, that frame given metaphors. An activity such as that undertaken by Gurney can be used to draw attention to the implicit theories embedded within metaphors. For example, each metaphor could be examined in terms of its assumptions about knowledge, the extent to which the roles of teachers and learners would lead to coparticipation, and the distribution of power in the classroom.

In terms of the distribution of power between the teacher and students implied in the metaphors Gurney reported that 56 metaphors were consistent with the teacher having control, 13 with the student having control, 27 having shared control and the remainder being unspecific with respect to control. Because analogical relationships are only implied in a metaphor discussions on the relative distribution of power and


control implied by given metaphors c&ld be related to the evolution of a shared discourse in a classroom community and the associated roles of the teacher and students. Discussion can highlight the contexts in which given metaphors are and are not applicable.

Gender

Dramatic switches in the classroom environment have been associated with changes in the metaphors used by teachers to conceptualize their roles as science teachers (Kahle, 1990; Tobin, 1990). For example, significantly different actions of teachers and students were noticed when a teacher switched metaphors from the teacher as captain of the ship to the teacher as an entertainer.

When the teacher conceptualized his teaching roles in terms of the captain of the ship metaphor his actions were constrained by the metaphor and so were the student actions. In comparison to when he framed his actions with the entertainer metaphor, interactions were more formal and the teacher adopted a sterner approach to managing the class. If students were inattentive or, if their answers did not measure up to the teacher’s expectations, the teacher frequently showed his disapproval. Accord- ingly, it was as if there were two quite discrete classroom environments, one when the environment was framed by the captain of the ship metaphor, and one when the teacher made sense of teaching and learning in terms of the entertainer metaphor. In both instances, the teacher had control over what was happening, although when teaching and learning were framed by the captain of the ship metaphor the teacher had more control relative to students than when the entertainer metaphor was a referent for teaching and learning.

When teaching was conceptualized in terms of an entertainer metaphor the teacher was friendly and interacted with students in ways that encouraged them to be less formal. It was not unusual to see students off task to a greater extent and it was al- most as if the teacher decided it was time for the students to relax and enjoy their work a little more. The teacher also seemed more intent on presenting himself to students as a personality, appeared to foreground his masculinity, and the gender of his students became a factor that influenced the nature of the teacher-student interactions. Gender equity issues were pervasive, the teacher was serious with some female students, appeared to flirt with others, and ignored some completely. Specifically, when teaching was framed by the teacher as entertainer metaphor, some females appeared to be advantaged and others appeared to be disadvantaged.

The females who appeared to be advantaged by the teacher’s entertainer style of teaching included a diligent learner who sat at the front and had numerous serious discussions with the teacher about the science subject matter. The disadvantaged females were those whom the teacher considered to be unattractive (e.g., one who was overweight) and those with whom he appeared to flirt. The former group did not have as many opportunities to interact with the teacher about learning science, and females in the latter group tended to have interactions characterized by humor, sarcasm, sex- ual innuendo, and light-hearted banter. Students in this category, often were caught in


a transition when the teacher switched from being an entertainer, with its associated rule structure, to being captain of the ship, with a more authoritarian, teacher-cen- tered rule structure. In such a climate, coparticipation did not occur for many of the female students in the class, and their learning opportunities were less than those available to some other students.

Because many of our metaphors develop from images associated with life outside of teaching, strategies can be framed in terms of metaphors that, prior to their use as referents for teaching, had little or nothing to do with teaching and learning science. These metaphors, such as teacher as entertainer, could be based on images of popular television shows and inadvertently might carry embedded connotations of females as sex objects. An image that seems to fit, in the sense that a teacher feels right when he projects that image, might carry with it actions that demean female students and result in them being disadvantaged in the science classroom. Thus, becoming aware of the major referents that frame teaching is an important recommendation for all teachers. As a starting point, teachers might endeavor to identify the most salient images of self and non-self that characterize the classroom, identify metaphors and images used to frame roles for the teacher and learners, and examine the involvement of all students with respect to the teacher’s personal theories of learning. Our research suggests that several sets of beliefs are most salient in determining what happens in science classrooms. These include beliefs about learners, learning, self, teaching, control, knowledge, and restraints (e.g., McRobbie & Tobin, 1995). Discussion of what happens in the classroom in relation to beliefs about factors mentioned above might lead to the creation of an environment that is conducive to the framing of new problems and the development of a commitment to personal change regarding gender equity.

Culture

The metaphors used by an individual to make sense of a particular teaching role have meanings that are saturated with the semantic networks associated with the communities in which the teacher has participated. Accoidingly, the images and stories associated with a given metaphor might differ significantly from one individual to another. The passage that follows shows how a Navajo science teacher used the metaphor of teacher as gardener to focus her teaching roles on the learning of her students:

The teacher as gardener best describes how I look at myself as a teacher. The teacher as a gardener knows what she will plant. First of all she has to clear the soil-she has to prepare Mother Earth to receive the seeds. The seeds are young minds ready to be planted in an appropriate environment. From time to time the young seeds will sprout and grow with nourishment from Shondiin (the sunshine) and rain. The teacher as gardener uses her tools to help the young minds grow into beautiful corn. From the beautiful golden corn pollen is created to be given back to the people to use in ceremonies. Like pollen given back to the people, the young minds grow into


adults who will learn all they can and go back to their people as resources. The gardener has done well, and the long hours of labor have been rewarding.

The salient feature of this metaphor is that a label is associated with dynamic images and narratives from which propositional knowledge can be derived. These propositions, narratives, and images are grounded in a context of gardening but are easily translated into propositions about teaching and learning roles in a classroom, narratives about what might be expected in a classroom, and images of teachers and students interacting in the process of learning science. There are many ways of describing what the teacher and students can and cannot do within the constraints of this metaphor. Any of the propositions included in the sentences of the above narrative can be isolated and used as a basis for further discussion (e.g., the teacher as gardener uses her tools to help the young minds grow into beautiful corn). As such, the propositions become launch pads for the generation of additional narratives, images, and associated propositions. That is, metaphors can be regarded as foci for reflection, as seeds for the germination of new knowledge.

As an example of the potential use of metaphorical narratives as foci for reflection and generation of knowledge of teaching and learning we derived the following propositions from an analysis of the above metaphorical account:

The teacher has goals. The teacher has responsibility to provide a context to support learning. The teacher should consider the learning environment in relation to the minds of learners. Learning occurs with appropriate input from the teacher and other resources. The teacher employs strategies to promote learning. The learning of students can benefit communities outside of the school. Learning is an on-going process. Teaching is a rewarding profession.

In the context of a teacher education activity each of the above propositions can be foci for discussions. The cultural embeddedness of the metaphor might, in this case, be explained in terms of discussions about:

Learners should use their knowledge to benefit the communities in which they have lived their lives. Learners should return to their “home” communities and endeavor to improve them by applying their knowledge.

Questions such as the following might allow prospective and practicing teachers to explore some of the implications of the cultural saturation of referents: What evidence from the narrative supports the above-listed beliefs? How might the actions and interactions of students and the teacher be constrained by these beliefs when a science curriculum is enacted? How is this teacher’s approach to teaching and learning likely to be received by students from different ethnic groups?


METAPHORS AS GENERATIVE TOOLS

Beyond the Labels of Metaphors

Bullough (1991) explored the use of metaphors by three prospective teachers as they moved through a teacher education program. He concluded that the use of metaphors as foci for reflection was not always useful because, in some instances, the construction of new metaphors did not represent a thoughtful reexamination of teaching and learning. The metaphors that emerged ranged from teacher as husband, teacher as butterfly, and teacher as policewoman to complex metaphors such as teacher as chameleon (“always changing and trying to find a spot where I am most comfortable,” p. 49). The label (i.e., husband, chameleon) was not the characteristic that made the metaphor simple or complex, but rather the explanation of how teaching was related to being a husband or chameleon.

Bullough’s study highlights the significant points that metaphor is just one tool for thinking about teaching and that metaphors can link images to narratives. However, what is apparent in the study is that the prospective teachers did not employ metaphors as objects for reflection and for generating knowledge of teaching and learning. If metaphors are regarded as tools it is important that their utility is demon- strated such that prospective teachers can learn to use them to meet their goals. Fur- thermore, teacher educators might take the time to assist prospective teachers to examine the surprise element of given metaphors (e.g., in what ways is a teacher like a butterfly?) and to examine familiar classroom events through novel frames. To max- imize the benefits from an activity in which metaphors, such as those listed earlier (e.g., teacher as chameleon), are volunteered by students it is desirable to use them as foci for discussions of science teaching and learning and for framing alternative descriptions of what happens in classrooms. Within the frames of different metaphors it might be that given problems have different solutions, that some problems are no longer visible, and that alternative problems emerge. If prospective and practicing teachers are to use metaphors to conceptualize teacher and learner roles and to ana- lyze enacted curricula it is important that they learn how to use metaphors in such ways. Although some teachers will intuitively use metaphors to guide their teaching and describe those metaphors in their descriptions of their practice we expect that most will not. The following example provides a description of one experienced middle school teacher who, initially unable to describe teaching and learning in terms of metaphors, learned how to do so, thereby building a conceptual tool that became an object for reflection on practice.

The Teacher as Gardener

Tobin, Tippins, and Hook (1994) provide an example of classroom practices and narratives of teaching being used by a middle school science teacher as generative tools for building a metaphor. The teacher’s journal entries, writing samples, and transcriptions of in-depth interviews, middle school team meetings, and his classroom teaching offered no evidence to suggest that he had developed metaphor and imagery as reflective tools. However, the teacher constructed a metaphor based on his


classroom practices and his narrative accounts of those practices. The following excerpt from an interview with the teacher describes the metaphor and provides insights into the associated images and narratives. Although this teacher also uses the teacher as gardener as the label for his metaphor, it is apparent that his images and associated narratives are different than those described previously for the Navajo science teacher. The following example also highlights the potential of metaphor for develop- ing propositional and procedural knowledge of teaching and learning and providing a context for challenging some of those propositions in terms of, for example, constructivist semantics:

I see teacher as gardener . . . the students are plants and some of them are tender and some of them are well developed. But they all start out as seeds, so it’s the teacher’s role to start all these ideas as seeds, and have them germinate and grow. And sometimes plants need watering and care. And sometimes they need to be just left alone to grow and sometimes they need support. Sometimes they need different things.

I actually see myself there. And instead of tying up the plants I substitute that for the image of the kids or something that needs support, or kids not having a good day and in need of support. Or somebody to talk to, to support. . . . And the weeds are things that are totally off the wall. And you have to pull those out one at a time. And sometimes they grow back because you don’t get the root of the problem. But you keep working, and get rid of the weeds. Fertilizer is like helping a kid to find things out. And the watering. My image is like taking the cap off the head and pouring the water in. Fill the empty vessels. So I do that every now and then.

An analysis of the narrative for the gardener metaphor suggests that the main referent for the teacher’s role was control and the epistemology embedded within the narrative varied from objectivism to constructivism. Encapsulated in the gardener metaphor was the teacher’s emerging view of learning in terms of knowledge construction and his traditional view of teaching by transmission. As a gardener, the teacher seemed to place value on mediating student learning by focusing on the things that a teacher can do (e.g., weed, water, support), leaving the plants to do the things that they must do (e.g., grow). Within the narrative it appeared as if the teacher was using the gardener metaphor to generate possible teaching roles. Thus, discussion of the teacher’s role in relation to weeds and the reemergence of weeds into the garden would make an ideal focus for discussion, allowing the teacher to reflect on the meanings he ascribed to the gardener and weeds and how those meanings relate to teaching and learning science. The teacher’s beliefs also might be discussed in terms of learning being analogous to growth in the early part of the metaphor and subsequent use of the metaphor of knowledge as water, the teacher lifting the caps of students to reveal empty minds into which knowledge was poured. In the narrative the teacher explained that knowledge was only regarded as a fluid entity in the context of the students falling behind, a caveat that can be used to draw attention to the context dependence of belief. The entire metaphor was crafted by the teacher to fit with his perception of the way he taught. He regarded the metaphor as authentic because of its fit with the way he taught science. A discussion of coherence in terms of the theories embedded in the metaphor appeals as potentially


productive in that there are numerous inconsistencies that might be changed to build a metaphor that is theoretically coherent, thereby building a rationale for changing what happens in the classroom.

The two gardener metaphors focus on different issues; that is, the analogical relationships between being a gardener and being a teacher were constructed differently in each narrative. Those differences reflect the experiences of the teachers with gardening, their beliefs about teaching and learning science, differences in the communities in which they have participated, and the contexts that applied at the time they constructed the narratives provided in this article. If either teacher was to access the narratives of the other a basis might exist for a rich conversation during which each teacher could elaborate and adapt the knowledge associated with the gardener metaphor.

The Teacher as Provocateur

Metaphors are organizers of knowledge and a decision to adopt a given metaphor as a way of thinking about teaching, for example, can carry with it associated referents and linkages. For example, we suggest that, in many contexts, the metaphor of provocateur is an appropriate way to think about teaching. The principal referents on which the metaphor is built are social constructivism, equitable distribution of power between the teacher and students, and an ethic of care. In addition to the label of provocateur the metaphor consists of vivid and dynamic images of a fencing master engaging a duel with an apprentice fencer. The encounter is interactive with the master and apprentice both taking turns to attack and defend. There is a high degree of coparticipation, neither participant is harmed in the duel, and both are extended to the limit. The apprentice is able to demonstrate her knowledge of fencing throughout the duel and the master is able to show even more advanced levels of skill. Thus, the apprentice learns by coparticipating with the master, and the master also learns from the encounter. The duel always ends with a warm affective response between master and apprentice that reflects friendship and mutual respect.

There are many narratives woven into the fabric of the metaphor of master fencer and his apprentice, each being coherent with the metaphor of provocateur and the associated referents. The images are generative in that narratives can be constructed to cohere with them. Similarly, propositional knowledge can be generated from the label of provocateur and the narratives. For example, by considering the meanings associated with the label we claim that the provocateur asks questions and asserts in such a way as to generate a state of perplexity among the learners, not leaving them to flounder, but stretching them to their cognitive limits. Similarly, by accessing a narrative and the associated images we assert that the fencing skills of the master are implemented such that the apprentice is never overwhelmed but always is extended. A duel is not an opportunity for the master to demonstrate what he knows and can do but an event during which the apprentice learns through coparticipation where it be- comes clear how knowledge needs to be adapted to better function within a community of fencers. It also is significant that the master is a colearner in this activity as well as being a participant in the learning of the apprentice. An interesting discussion can address the potential goals of the master for his own learning and for the learning of the apprentice.


LINKING NARRATIVES TO IMAGES

Over a career a teacher accumulates an extensive reservoir of practical knowledge that is accessible mainly through images and associated narratives that describe life in classrooms. What teachers often have difficulty in doing is describing what happens in their classroom in terms of propositional knowledge. This trend was evident in a study conducted by McRobbie and Tobin (1995) involving a veteran teacher with 20 years of experience in the teaching of chemistry. When asked about learning, for example, the teacher had virtually no language to describe what he did or why he taught as he did. Yet it was apparent that he had built a highly coherent approach to teaching, an approach that was consistent with a transmission-absorption metaphor for teaching and learning. The teacher appeared to have had little experience in talking about his teaching and justifying how he approached his roles and governed the practices of students. Invariably his responses to questions about learning caused some discomfort as he struggled through his vocabulary to find words to describe what he did and believed. However, after 5 weeks, the teacher had learned to describe and justify teaching and learning in his classroom in terms of narratives, sketches, and metaphors. These re-presentations provided a context for building propositional knowledge and for testing the viability of theoretical frameworks. The following excerpt is from an interview in which the teacher used a sketch and a narrative to clarify his beliefs about teaching and learning. After sketching a swimming pool he gave an oral presentation of the following narrative. As he presented the narrative he embell- ished the sketch and continually referred to it:

We are all in a swimming pool. The swimming pool is full of knowledge. It’s the body of knowledge. And we are talking about perhaps the knowledge of the subject- the total knowledge of chemistry in this case. I’m the teacher. I’m in the pool, the students are in the pool, and in the situation I’ve got here we have the students with a bucket and the teacher with a hose. And this hose is connected to a pump. . . . I’m in control of the hose. So I am hosing knowledge toward the students. As far as I am concerned the student has a pretty reasonable opportunity to catch that stream. The stream may be diverse, it may not be a narrow stream which could be quite easy to catch. It might be a little diverse, it may not be a narrow stream which could be quite easy to catch. It might be a little diverse, but the student has a reasonable chance. But obviously some of the knowledge is going to be spilled-it is just going to miss. The way I see it is that the student has the opportunity, or the autonomy, to just simply use the bucket to scoop water from the pool at any time so that depends on their commitment.

Anyway, I just felt that [my previous sketch] was too simplistic a picture and that it didn’t involve the volition of the student which I felt made it more accurate. I felt that the idea of giving the students something broad with which to catch the knowledge was an important part of the model. . . . Understanding fits into my model for learning after the acquisition of knowledge. Once you have some facts, then you can gain understanding by linking the facts. . . . it might well be connections between different buckets. I don’t know maybe this bucket was filled up with some information on electrochemical cells, maybe this bucket is going to be filled up with some information on electrolytic cells, two separate buckets but I believe that


understanding-the process of understanding might relate those two buckets with a link of some sort.

The swimming pool sketch, initially oversimplified, became a heuristic for thinking about teaching and learning. The above excerpt describes an elaboration of the sketch and also the association of additional narratives and propositions about teaching and learning. The holistic representation of knowledge of teaching, in this instance as a sketch to depict an image associated with a metaphor, provided a context for testing the viability and coherence of knowledge and for additional learning. In the presence of a supportive colleague it is possible that, in a reflective process, reconceptualizations could occur, new metaphors could be constructed, and a context could be built to support learning and the enactment of change (Ellis, 1993). Some assertions that are encapsulated in the metaphor are: knowledge is a fluid entity; the teacher has control of the knowledge flow; students can catch some knowledge but cannot catch other knowledge; and knowledge can be linked from one bucket to another to build understandings. The primary way to learn in this metaphor is for individuals to make necessary efforts to catch knowledge. There seems to be one primary source of knowledge and no obvious way for students to facilitate one another’s learning. Nor is it obvious that students can initiate learning within the confines of this metaphor.

Since this metaphor was built as a means of fitting with the teacher’s extant approaches to teaching it is not surprising that it fits so well with what was observed to be happening in his classroom and oral assertions he had made in other contexts. However, the generative aspects of the metaphor are immediately visible when we examine the questions that can be asked in conversations about teaching and learning. For example, one might ask how is it possible to adapt the pool metaphor to allow students to initiate learning and assist one another to learn? How can a teacher or students facilitate the building of relational knowledge of other students?

CONCEPTUAL CHANGE

A study undertaken by Tobin and LaMaster (1995) examined the manner in which metaphors were associated with the conceptualizations of roles and the manner in which the curriculum was enacted. The teacher thought about teaching in terms of three roles: facilitating learning; management; and assessment of performance. For each role she used one or more metaphors to make sense of teaching and learning. Because her students were extremely disruptive she regarded management as her most critical role. One way in which she re-presented her role as manager was in terms of a metaphor of teacher as comedian. The teacher believed that if she used humor students would like her and they would be cooperative and less difficult to manage. The teacher realized that her metaphor for managing the class was contributing to the difficulties she was experiencing in the class. However, she was unsure of what to do differently to gain control of a class that had become dysfunctional.

What is most salient about this research is that, in one instance, the teacher, without much assistance from others, constructed her own metaphor to cohere with her visions of appropriate practice. In the other instance, her own prior

726 TOBlN AND TIPPINS

knowledge and imagination were limited to the extent that she could not construct a suitable metaphor to reconceptualize assessment. On this occasion she requested assistance and, from given metaphors, was able to select one that could be adapted to cohere with the referents she valued most and her visions of appropriate practice.

Constructing a Metaphor That Fits Valued Referents

The research team collaborating with the teacher preferred the teacher to work out what to do for herself, encouraging her to build a metaphor rather than select from a set of given alternative metaphors. In the process of building a new metaphor the teacher used her beliefs about constructivism as a key referent to focus on the potential roles of the teacher and students. She believed that knowledge could not be separated from knowers, that knowledge was socially mediated but was constructed by individuals, and that individuals could never know God’s reality. As she considered metaphors with the capacity to improve her teaching the teacher generated narratives associated with each metaphor and identified propositions and underpinning beliefs. Unless the metaphor and associated knowledge re-presentations were consistent with constructivism, the metaphor was considered unsuitable. These tests of coherence, which continued for several weeks, resulted in the selection of a metaphor for management that the teacher described as the teacher as social director. Significantly, the metaphor was consistent with the referents considered to have greatest salience to her beliefs as a human being and teacher.

The teacher argued that a social director can only invite guests to a party. If the invitation is declined then the hostess can only make the invitation more attractive. However, if guests choose to come, they should come to have fun [i.e., learn] and ought not to disrupt the fun [i.e., learning] of others. In addition, guests [i.e., students] should be courteous to the hostess [i.e., the teacher] and other guests. The teacher readily related the metaphor to her role as a manager of students and used the metaphor to guide the implementation of new teaching strategies. By so doing many teaching strategies changed and student roles were constrained by the different roles of the teacher.

A significant feature of this example is that prior to the building of a new metaphor the teacher had a very limited array of propositional and procedural knowledge about management. From her perspective everything she knew had been tried and had failed. The new metaphor became a tool to allow her to be reflective about management and to create scenarios, in the form of stories, of how the teacher and students ought to perform within the boundaries of the new metaphor. She could also develop a rule structure to deal with guests who violated the norms of reasonable guest behavior. In essence, consistent with Duit’s (1991) research on learning science, the teacher was able to use the metaphor as a generative device to build knowledge in the form of images of the classroom, narratives about teacher and student roles and interactions, a rule structure, and propositions about many different aspects of teaching and learning.


Adapting a Given Metaphor to Fit Experience

The teacher conceptualized many of her teaching roles, such as her role as an as- sessor of student learning, in terms of metaphors (e.g., the teacher as a fair judge). As she reflected on her teaching she began to examine the coherence of her metaphors in terms of constructivist semantics and her social director metaphor. With the goal of establishing a coherent approach to teaching she resolved to change her metaphor for assessment, which placed the teacher in the role of making judgments about the quality of student learning. As a judge, the teacher had considerable power over her students. The scales of justice were the teacher’s tools for making decisions. Specific student knowledge measured up, in which case a student passed, or it did not measure up, in which case the student failed. On this occasion, when the teacher was unable to identify a suitable alternative, she asked the research team to provide suggestions of alternative metaphors for her to consider. Alternatives were reviewed in relation to constructivism and possible classroom actions and, finally, the teacher declared that assessment was like a window into the minds of students, an opportunity for them to display their knowledge. This metaphor was consistent with constructivist semantics, the social director metaphor for management, and the teacher’s emerging beliefs that students ought to have greater autonomy in her classroom. Use of this metaphor provided students with autonomy to show the teacher what they knew, to decide what was evidence of learning, and to select the best time and place to demonstrate learning.

CONCLUSIONS

Initially at least, some teachers may have difficulty in re-presenting what they know in terms of metaphor. For these teachers it might be easier to re-present their knowledge as narratives or as assertions, either of which can become generative tools for testing the viability of classroom practices and for additional learning. By focusing this study on metaphor we are not implying that the re-presentation of knowledge as metaphor is more than a promising starting point for conceptual change and a fer- tile area for additional research. Bullough and colleagues (Bullough, 199 1 ; Bullough, Goldstein & Holt, 1984; Bullough & Stokes, 1994) indicated that metaphors proba- bly are not used by all teachers as they teach or reflect on their professional actions. We have found this to be the case in our research as well. They go further, however, and caution that it is likely that certain teachers will not find metaphor to be a useful way to think about teaching and learning. We agree with this position only in part. Some teachers will not be conscious of their use of metaphor and when they become aware of relationships between metaphors, teaching, and learning they might not see the potential of using metaphors as tools to effect conceptual change. The generative capacity of metaphors provides a means of integrating fragments of poorly connected knowledge (Wong, 1993). That is, a metaphor can be used as an anchor around which seemingly disparate knowledge can be organized as understandings are constructed. A metaphor, which consists of images, narratives, and propositional knowledge, can then serve as an object for analysis and as a referent for examining the coherence of


actions and interactions. Thus, a metaphor can become a focus for reflection and a way of re-presenting alternative classroom environments.

Metaphor holds the appeal of assisting teachers to become reflective practitioners and to adapt science curricula to better fit the visions of reform and the needs of learners. Since teachers often have limited language to describe teaching and learning, metaphors can be used to facilitate the development of an explicit language that connects images, narratives and propositional knowledge. As such, metaphors appeal as ways of beginning conversations about teaching and learning science and making it easier to be reflective on and in practice. In addition, teaching and learning can be described in terms of metaphors which then can be foci for analyses. Identification of the referents that appear to underlie given metaphors can provide bases for rich conversations about teaching and learning. In this way assumptions that often remain tacit can be brought forward for discussion among the stakeholder groups associated with a given educational setting.

The use of metaphors to change teaching needs to be considered from actor and structure oriented perspectives (Galtung, 1980). The actor-oriented perspective views learning and change from the frame of the individual actor and does not take account of the interactive dimensions of the settings in which professional practice occurs (i.e., the structure-oriented perspective). Metaphor is a holistic way of thinking about teaching and learning. When an alternative metaphor is used as a referent the learning environments that comprise a classroom can change significantly and be characterized by very different discursive characteristics. Whether or not those changes can be sustained is a challenge for all participants of the community, not just for the teacher or the students. Accordingly, plans to enact reform need to extend beyond efforts of individuals to make sense of their roles and then to enact them without considering the contexts in which those roles are to be implemented. The examples of metaphor examined in this article all are ideal for exploring associated roles of teachers and students and the nature of knowledge that is implied by acceptance of the metaphor. Also, in a given professional setting, one might explore the extent to which adoption of a metaphor would lead to changes in the interactions of the individuals with stakeholders and social institutions such as school and district policy regarding science curricula. Considerations of this type can identify potential difficulties that might be anticipated if changes are to be enacted to the curriculum. Plans to address the education of stakeholder groups (e.g., business people, parents, administrators, other teachers, administrators) might emanate from such considerations. Whereas this study has focused on the role of metaphor in teacher learning and change it is also important to examine the extent to which other stakeholder groups will accept changes introduced by a teacher and cooperate to enhance the curriculum. What is increasingly apparent is that the reform of classrooms cannot succeed on the basis of the actions of individuals acting alone, but rather must involve the coordinated actions of all participants in the community in which reform is to occur.

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. D. & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.


Bullough, R. V., Jr. (1991). Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42,43-5 1.

Bullough, R. V., Jr., Goldstein, S., & Holt, L. (1984). Human interests in the curriculum: Teaching and learning in a technological society. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bullough, R. V., Jr. & Stokes, D. K. (1994). Analyzing personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education as a means for encouraging professional development. American Ed- ucational Research Journal, 31, 197-224.

Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Educa- tion, 75,649-672.

Ellis, N. E. (1993). Collegiality from the teacher’s perspective: Social contexts for professional development. Action in Teacher Education, 15, 42-47.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. London: Polity Press. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: The

Falmer Press. Galtung, J. (1980). The true worlds: A transnational perspective. New York: The Free

Press. Glynn, S. M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In S. M.

Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 219-240.

Glynn, S. M., Duit, R., & Thiele, R. B. (1995). Teaching science with analogies: A strategy for constructing knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 247 -273.

Gurney, B. F. (1995). Tugboats and tennis games: Preservice conceptions of teaching and learning revealed through metaphors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32,

Harrison, A. G. & Treagust, D. F. (1994). Science analogies. The Science Teacher, 61,40-43. Hurd, P. D. (1994). New minds for a new age: Prologue to modernizing the science curricu-

Hurd, P. D. (1993). Comment on science education research: A crisis of confidence. Journal of

Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kahle, J. B. (1990). Real students take chemistry and physics: Gender issues. In K. Tobin,

J. B. Kahle, & B. J. Fraser, Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning. London: Falmer Press.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1975). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McRobbie, C. J. & Tobin, K. (1995). Restraints to reform: The congruence of teacher and student actions in a chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32,

Milne, C. & Taylor, P. C. (1995, October). Practical activities don’t talk to students: Decon- structing a mythology of school science. Paper presented at the Third International Confer- ence on the History and Philosophy of Science and Science Teaching, Minneapolis, MN.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Oppenheimer, R. (1956). Analogy in science. American Psychologist, 11, 127- 135. Palmer, T. (1995). The Comprehensive Plan and other educational reform efforts: Are they

meeting the needs of Florida’s high school science teachers? Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.

Ritchie, S. M. (1994). Metaphor as a tool for constructivist science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 16,293 - 303.

569-583.

lum. Science Education, 78, 103- 116.

Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1009 - 10 1 1.

373 -385.


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

Sarason, S . B. (1991). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course

Schon, D. (1985). The design studio. London: RIBA Publication Ltd. Senge, P. M. (1990). Thefifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New

York: Doubleday. Taylor, P. C. (in press). Mythmaking and mythbreaking in the mathematics classroom. Educa-

tional Studies in Mathematics. Tobin, K. (1993). Constructivist perspectives on teacher learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The prac-

tice of constructivism in science education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 213-226. Tobin, K. (1990). Teacher mind frames and science learning. In K. Tobin, J. B. Kahle, & B. J.

Fraser, Windows into Science Classrooms: Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning. London: Falmer Press.

Tobin, K. (1985). Teaching strategy analysis models in middle school science education courses. Science Education, 69,69- 82.

Tobin, K. & LaMaster, S. (1995). Relationships between metaphors, beliefs and actions in a context of science curriculum change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32,

Tobin, K. & McRobbie, C. (in press). Beliefs about the nature of science and the enacted science curriculum. Science & Education.

Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Hook, K. S. (1994). Referents for changing a science curriculum: A case study of one teacher's change in beliefs. Science & Education, 3,245-264.

van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4,249-283. Wong, E. D. (1993). Understanding the generative capacity of analogies as a tool for explana-

Zook, K. B. (1991). Effects of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentation. Educa-

sity Press.

before it's too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

225 -242.

tion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1259- 1272.

tional Psychology Review, 3,41-72.

Accepted for publication 22 January 1996

Documents

Metaphors as seeds for conceptual change and the improvement of science teaching