Minority Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions of TeachingScience: Sources of Science Teaching Strategies

Karthigeyan Subramaniam

Published online: 23 March 2012# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This study explores five minority preservice teachers’ conceptions of teachingscience and identifies the sources of their strategies for helping students learn science. Perspec-tives from the literature on conceptions of teaching science and on the role constructs used todescribe and distinguish minority preservice teachers from their mainstreamWhite peers servedas the framework to identify minority preservice teachers’ instructional ideas, meanings, andactions for teaching science. Data included drawings, narratives, observations and self-reviewreports of microteaching, and interviews. A thematic analysis of data revealed that the minoritypreservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching science were a specific set of beliefs-driveninstructional ideas about how science content is linked to home experiences, students’ ideas,hands-on activities, about how science teaching must include group work and not be basedsolely on textbooks, and about how learning science involves the concept of all students canlearn science, and acknowledging and respecting students’ ideas about science. Implications forteacher educators include the need to establish supportive environments within methods coursesfor minority preservice teachers to express their K-12 experiences and acknowledge andexamine how these experiences shape their conceptions of teaching science, and to recognizethat minority preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching science reveal the multiple waysthrough which they see and envision science instruction.

Keywords Minority preservice teachers . Conceptions of teaching . Role constructs . K-12experiences

The aim of this study was to explore minority preservice teachers’ conceptions of teachingscience and thus, identify the sources of their science teaching practices and their strategiesfor helping students learn science. This study is framed by the overall perception thatminority preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching science are a specific set of instruc-tional ideas about the nature of the science content to be taught, about how to teach the

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709DOI 10.1007/s11165-012-9284-3

K. Subramaniam (*)Teacher Education and Administration, College of Education, University of North Texas, Denton, TX,USAe-mail: Karthigeyan.Subramaniam@unt.edu

science content to students and about how students learn the science content. The study isalso framed by the perspective that minority preservice teachers’ instructional ideas forteaching science are underscored by specific meanings and actions. Additionally, the studyalso includes the pespective that minority preservice teachers’ articulation of their specificmeanings and actions for their instructional ideas are characteristic of the qualities inherentwithin three role constructs used to describe and distinguish minority preservice teachersfrom their mainstream White peers: the role model construct, the cultural mediator construct,and the social transformer construct.

The study of minority preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching science is importantbecause there is a limited knowledge base on minority preservice teachers’ conceptions ofteaching science and how their conceptions of teaching science influence how they learn toteach science. In addition, the study may help mainstream teachers to reconsider theirclassroom teaching approaches, especially in multicultural classrooms. A review of theliterature indicated that most of the findings of prospective teachers’ conceptions of teachingscience were derived from investigations conducted within Western cultural contexts with anoverwhelmingly White preservice teacher participant population (Koballa et al. 2000;Koballa et al. 2005; Skamp and Mueller 2001), or from investigations in non-westerncultural contexts with the predominant local population (Gao and Watkins 2001, 2002;Yung et al. 2007). While these areas of research provide the needed knowledge base on therole of conceptions in teaching science, there exists a gap in the knowledge base on minoritypreservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching science. This is an area of concern as theliterature has continuously emphasized how minority preservice teachers’ diverse K-12experiences and their cultural and linguistic resources result in conceptions of teachingmarkedly different from the mainstream and predominantly White preservice teachers’conceptions of teaching (Cochran-Smith et al. 2004; Sleeter 2001; Tellez 1999).

It must be mentioned that findings of this study are a subset of findings from a larger,ongoing study aimed at exploring elementary preservice teachers’ conceptions of teachingscience and how these conceptions of teaching science influence their learning to teachscience philosophies. The specific research question addressed was:

& What are minority preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching science?

Next, the terms conceptions of teaching and minority preservice teacher as used in thisstudy are explained. This is important because of the broad usage of the term conceptions ofteaching and the not so easily defined and described term minority preservice teacher inteacher education literature. Moreover, perspectives gathered from the literature about thesetwo terms guided the selection of methods and analysis of data and provided the frameworkfor answering the proposed research question.

Previous Research on Conceptions of Teaching

Studies of preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching present an important area of inves-tigation in teacher learning in both teacher education literature (Chan and Elliott 2004;Cheng et al. 2009; Salisbury-Glennon and Stevens 1999) and in science teacher educationliterature (Ahtee and Johnson 2006; Hewson and Hewson 1989; Koballa et al. 2000; Koballaet al. 2005; Wang et al. 2009). The importance of conceptions of teaching is evident from thecommon and shared perspectives about conceptions of teaching discussed in relation to thecurrent theories, and to the implicit theories informing preservice teachers’ learning to teachphilosophies (Koballa et al. 2005).

688 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709

One common and shared perspective in both the teacher education literature (Cheng et al.2009) and science teacher education literature (Da-Silva et al. 2006; Hewson and Hewson1989; Koballa et al. 2000; Lee and Krapfl 2002) is the acknowledgement that preserviceteachers’ conceptions of teaching are developed during their K-12 learning experiences.Apart from the K-12 learning experiences, both the teacher education literature (Cheng et al.2009) and science teacher education literature (Da-Silva et al. 2006; Hewson and Hewson1989) contend that preservice teachers’ life experiences and their social and cultural back-grounds also influence the development of their conceptions of teaching. Based on thisperspective, others add that preservice teachers’s conceptions of teaching are also reflectiveof their life experiences (Hewson and Hewson 1989).

A second shared perspective subscribes to the view that preservice teacher’s conceptionsof teaching affects their learning of pedagogy (Chan and Elliott 2004; Cheng et al. 2009;Salisbury-Glennon and Stevens 1999). For example, aspects like preservice teachers’ atti-tudes towards teaching science in terms of their confidence and comfort levels, desires, andabilities and their lack of attention to the current theories of teaching based on theory-to-practice research are said to be dependent and influenced by their conceptions of teachingscience (Bryan, and Abell 1999). In addition, others contend that preservice teachers’conceptions of teaching science are carried over into teacher education programs and actas decision-making platforms for prospective teaching actions like what is effective elemen-tary science teaching (Ahtee and Johnson 2006; Skamp and Mueller 2001). Others contendthat preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching science also act as mirrors that reflect theirteaching practices and their strategies for helping students learn science (Lee and Krapfl2002; Skamp and Mueller 2001; Yung et al. 2007).

A third shared perspective is the view that preservice teachers’ conceptions of teachingare highly context dependent, whereby expressed and enacted conceptions of teaching areconsistent across similar contexts (Gao and Watkins 2001, 2002). However, literature doespoint out that in some aspects preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching science may beconsistent across contexts, past educational experiences, social and cultural backgrounds andlife experiences (Hewson and Hewson 1989).

Although the previous perspectives provide answers to questions like “How do concep-tions of teaching science evolve?” and “How do conceptions of teaching science affectteaching and learning?”, the answer to the question “What is the nature of conceptions ofteaching science?” presents a conundrum to researchers reviewing the teacher education andscience teacher education literature on conceptions of teaching. The conundrum is inreference to the multiple definitions and multiple views of conceptions of teaching prevalentin the literature.

Defining and Conceptualizing Conceptions of Teaching

A review of both teacher education literature (Gao and Watkins 2001, 2002) and scienceteacher education literature (Hewson and Hewson 1989; Koballa et al. 2000; Koballa et al.2005) revealed that two definitions of conceptions were often used to frame studies aboutconceptions of teaching. Some of these studies (Gao and Watkins 2001, 2002) utilizedPratt’s (1992) definition of conceptions as “specific meanings attached to phenomena whichthen mediate responses to situations involving those phenomena” (p. 204). Others (Koballaet al. 2000, 2005) utilized the following definition of conceptions put forth by Hewson andHewson (1989) “the set of ideas, understandings, and interpretations of experienceconcerning the teacher and teaching, the nature and content of science, and the learner andlearning which the teacher uses in making decisions about teaching” (p. 194).

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709 689

Other than the multiple definitions and descriptions of conceptions of teaching, there alsoexist the multiple views of conceptions of teaching. These views include conceptions ofteaching as beliefs, conceptions of teaching as beliefs-driven, and conceptions of teaching asdifferent models of learning. The first view, conceptions of teaching as beliefs is included instudies that use the term conceptions of teaching interchangeably with the term beliefs (Ahteeand Johnson 2006; Salisbury-Glennon and Stevens 1999; Wang et al. 2009; Younger et al.2004). In this strain of educational research, conceptions of teaching are viewed as being similarto beliefs (Pajares 1992) and thus, are conceptualized as being the filters through which newknowledge about teaching and learning are screened for viable teaching actions.

The second view, conceptions of teaching as beliefs-driven is included in studies thatdepict beliefs as influencing and interacting with conceptions of teaching and in doing so,determine what conceptions of teaching are to be selected, stored or discarded (Chan andElliott 2004; Cheng et al. 2009; Da-Silva et al. 2006). Beliefs, within this area of research,are seen as deep rooted personal histories about the nature of knowledge and knowledgeacquisition acquired through the preservice teacher’s own K-12 and higher educationlearning experiences (Holt-Reynolds 1992; Salisbury-Glennon and Stevens 1999), whileconceptions of teaching are viewed as instructional ideas about the nature of the content tobe taught, about how to teach the content to students and about how students learn thecontent (Da-Silva et al. 2006). Thus, in this area of research, beliefs act as the “conditioningelements” (Da-Silva et al. 2006, p. 463) validating or rejecting conceptions of teaching andthus, determining the viability of teaching actions.

The third view of conceptions of teaching as models of learning is included in studies thatclassify conceptions of teaching as dimensions, orientations and complex sets of propositions(Koballa et al. 2005). As dimensions, conceptions of teaching are conceptualized and inter-preted in terms of traditional and constructivist models of learning respectively (Chan andElliott 2004). Conceptions belonging to the traditional model of learning exhibit the followingcharacteristics: teachers as the source of content knowledge (Gao and Watkins 2001, 2002;Kember 1997; Lam and Kember 2006), teachers hold “naïve epistemologies associated withomniscient authority and certain knowledge” (Chan and Elliott 2004, p. 819), students as therecipients of the teacher’s content knowledge (Gao andWatkins 2002; Lam and Kember 2006),students as the recipients of textbook knowledge (Gao and Watkins 2002; Kember 1997; Lamand Kember 2006), and student learning as the acceptance and acknowledgement of well-defined concepts gained from the teacher and/or textbook (Chan and Elliott 2004; Gao andWatkins 2002; Lam and Kember 2006). Conceptions belonging to the constructivist model oflearning subscribe to the following characteristics: teachers create active learning environmentsthat permit students to critically think, discover, and collaborate (Entwistle et al. 2000; Gao andWatkins 2001, 2002), teachers having “sophisticated epistemologies” (Chan and Elliott 2004, p.819), and students as the creators of their own content knowledge (Chan and Elliott 2004;Entwistle et al. 2000; Gao and Watkins 2001; 2002; Lam and Kember 2006).

As orientations, conceptions of teaching are conceptualized and interpreted as models oflearning that include two opposite orientations, a teacher-centered/content-orientation and astudent-centered/learning orientation and with a student teacher interaction/apprenticeshiporientation as an in-between conception between the two opposite orientations (Gao andWatkins 2002). Conceptions belonging to the teacher-centered/content-oriented model oflearning are focused upon the communication of defined bodies of content or knowledge andteachers who transmit the defined bodies of content or knowledge. Conceptions belonging tothe student-centered/learning oriented model of learning are focused on students’ learning, adevelopmental approach towards students and their conceptions of content knowledge, andstudents’ knowledge.

690 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709

As complex sets (Koballa et al. 2005), conceptions of teaching are conceptualized as modelsof learning composed of multiple propositions. For example, Koballa et al.’s (2005) study ofpreservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching science (chemistry) provides an example ofconceptions of teaching science as models of learning composed of multiple propositions. Inthe Koballa et al. (2005) study, a set of propositions adapted from Samuelowicz and Bain(1992) were used to interpret and categorize preservice teachers’ conceptions of teachingscience and the various associated elements of conceptions of teaching science. These propo-sitions included control of science content, directionality of science teaching, students’ existingscience conceptions, expected outcomes of science teaching, and students’ utilization of scienceknowledge (Koballa et al. 2005, p. 290).

Thus, within the third view of conceptions as dimensions, orientations and complex setsof propositions, the perspective of conceptions as dimensions and orientations provide amore enunciated view of conceptions of teaching as either being identified with thecharacteristics of a constructivist model of learning or with the characteristics of thetraditional model of learning. The key descriptors in differentiating conceptions of teachingas constructivist or traditional include the role of teacher, the teacher’s knowledge of thecontent, the teacher’s aims and outcomes of teaching the content, the teacher’s strategies forteaching the content, and the teacher’s knowledge of students’ learning.

In summary, preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching science used in this study referto the specific set of instructional ideas that collectively function as an organizing frameworkby which preservice teachers communicate their knowledge of science teaching. Theseinstructional ideas, derived from K-12 experiences, life experiences, social, cultural andlinguistic backgrounds, include actions like decision-making, lesson planning, and teaching,that are focused on control of science content, directionality of science teaching, students’existing science conceptions, expected outcomes of science teaching, and students’ utiliza-tion of science knowledge. Moreover, the actions collectively function to express thecomplex sets of propositions that in turn indicate the different orientations or dimensionsto which the conceptions of teaching science belong to.

Research on Minority Preservice Teachers

A review of the literature on minority preservice teachers revealed four constructs that werecommonly used to describe and distinguish minority preservice teachers from their main-stream White peers: identity construct (Gay and Kirkland 2003; Gordon 1997; Quicho andRios 2000), role model construct (Basit and McNamara 2004; Lee and Krapfl 2002; Lovingand Marshall 1997; Montecinos 2004; Quicho and Rios 2000), social transformer construct(Au and Blake 2003; Basit et al. 2007; Montecinos 2004; Quicho and Rios 2000), andcultural mediator construct (Basit et al. 2007; Milner 2003; Montecinos 2004; Quicho andRios 2000; Robinson et al. 2003; Tellez 1999). The most common of these constructs is theidentity construct that takes into account attributes like ethnicity, race, gender, and socialclass to distinguish preservice minority teachers from their mainstream White peers. In termsof ethnicity and race, most literature categorize minority preservice teachers as belonging tominority groups like African American, Asian American, Native American and HispanicAmerican (Gordon 1997) while their mainstream White peers are categorized as EuropeanAmerican (Gay and Kirkland 2003). Although this categorization seems to be the norm,Quicho and Rios (2000) contend that the term minority preservice teacher is not exclusive toone specific ethnicity and race, but may include minority preservice teachers with a “varietyof ethnic backgrounds” (p. 493).

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709 691

The role model construct describes minority preservice teachers as the future designatesand mentors who will raise learning outcomes and aspirations of minority students in diverseclassrooms (Basit and McNamara 2004; Lee and Krapfl 2002; Montecinos 2004; Quichoand Rios 2000). This conceptualization of minority preservice teachers as future role modelsis based on two factors. First, the “changing demographic attributes, dramatic differentialpopulation growth forecasts and population projection views” (Tellez 1999, p. 556) calls formore minorities to join the teaching force to remedy the existing imbalances in the teachingforce (Montecinos 2004; Quicho and Rios 2000). Second, this conceptualization banks onthe notion that minority teachers and minority students share common cultural and linguisticbackgrounds and ethnic similarities and thus, this leads to productive classroom learninginteractions (Loving and Marshall 1997).

The social transformer construct describes minority preservice teachers as catalysts(Quicho and Rios 2000) or as activists (Montecinos 2004) who will challenge the pre-established curricula, integrate culturally relevant knowledge and construct equitable andjust classroom environments underscored by relevant issues of diversity, cultural knowledge,and cultural identities pertinent to today’s diverse student population. Literature states thatpreservice minority teachers’ own awareness of their negative experiences in K-12 class-rooms/schools with conditions of inequity are major factors preservice minority teachersconsider in making decisions to bring about the aforementioned transformations in curricula,pedagogy, and learning (Au and Blake 2003; Basit et al. 2007).

The cultural mediator construct describes minority preservice teachers as having culturalcomprehensive knowledge (Milner 2003), that is, knowledge comprising of experiencesunderstandings and beliefs constructed and accumulated when their cultural heritage, cul-tural knowledge, cultural perspectives, and linguistic resources are expressed and enactedwithin K-12 classrooms and schools, homes, and communities and within the largermajority–dominant culture. And according to this construct, minority preservice teachers’reflection on these experiences, understandings and beliefs contributes to the development oftheir cultural mediation abilities. These abilities include the negotiation and construction ofculturally relevant pedagogical practices to enact a socially just agenda in classrooms(Robinson et al. 2003; Tellez 1999) and utilizing negotiations and decisions for planningculturally relevant pedagogical practices that cohere with their students’ backgrounds andlearning needs (Basit et al. 2007; Milner 2003; Montecinos 2004; Quicho and Rios 2000).

In summary, the four constructs not only provide multiplicity in valuing and seeing thepertinent need for the recruitment and preparation of minority preservice teachers (Dillard1994) but also help to conceptualize the characteristics of a minority preservice teacher andto conceptualize the characteristics of mainstream teachers who taught these minoritypreservice teachers. Thus, the minority preservice teacher is assumed to express a teachingrole that encompasses the role model construct, a cultural mediator construct, and/or thesocial transformer construct. Assuming these roles, the minority preservice teacher then usescultural comprehensive knowledge and the associated mediation abilities to negotiate anddevelop culturally relevant pedagogical practices for all students.

Methodology

Central to this study were the exploration and identification of minority preservice teachers’conceptions of teaching science and to see these conceptions of teaching science expressed andenacted during teaching. The latter was necessary and was in response to the contention in theliterature about seeking consistency and congruency between conceptions of teaching and the

692 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709

corresponding expressed and enacted teaching actions (Brown et al. 1999; McRobbie and Tobin1995). A review of the literature revealed that a number of research methods and frameworkswere used in a number of studies to seek consistency and congruency between conceptions ofteaching and the corresponding expressed and enacted teaching actions. Research methodsincluded a wide array of qualitative methods like interviews (Skamp and Mueller 2001), andmetaphors, observations or drawings (Sack 1997; Swennen et al. 2004; Van Zee and Roberts2001). Frameworks on the other hand included the use of phenomenography (Gao and Watkins2001, 2002), conceptual change theory (Yung et al. 2007), or unified frameworks consisting ofphenomenography and conceptual change theory (Koballa et al. 2000, 2005).

Although, the task of establishing comparisons between the studies that used the differentresearch methods and/or frameworks is difficult due to the use of different methodologicalapproaches (Mellado 1998), two common perceptions derived from the literature providedperspectives for designing and selecting appropriate data collection methods for studyingconceptions of teaching. First, the literature revealed that using multi-methods to studypreservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching augmented the status of knowledgeable claimsby providing evidence from different data sources. For example, some studies had useddrawings in combination with other qualitative methods for data collection like writtenresponses (Van Zee and Roberts 2001), card sorting and interviews (Swennen et al. 2004),interviews (Sack 1997) and journaling (Weber and Mitchell 1996). Second, the literaturerevealed that the validity of conceptions of teaching sought through multi-methods ispertinent, but providing this kind of evidence could not just be substantiated by qualitativemethods like written responses, interviews, card-sorting or drawings alone. Others (Brown etal. 1999; McRobbie and Tobin 1995) have suggested that since conceptions of teachingdemarcate, delimit and guide pedagogical actions, consistency and congruency betweenconceptions of teaching and classroom teaching actions need to be achieved and accountedfor to validate teachers’ conceptions of teaching.

Thus, the review of the literature mooted to the use of qualitativemethods to study preserviceteachers’ expressed and enacted conceptions of teaching for depth and detail (Swennen et al.2004; Sack 1997; Van Zee and Roberts 2001; Weber and Mitchell 1996). Therefore, aqualitative methodology with its emphasis on the holistic descriptions of intentions, meaningsand observations (Patton 2002), guided the researcher in exploring and disclosing the voicesand perspectives behind minority preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching science.

Context

The study was conducted in two sections of an elementary teacher education program(grades 1–6) situated within a University located in north east United States of America.The elementary science education methods course met weekly for 15 weeks and was taughtby the author. The curriculum for this science methods course included science standards(national and state), benchmarks for science literacy, nature of science, lesson and unitplanning, inquiry-based science teaching, educational technology in science teaching, andsafety issues in the elementary science classroom. In addition, the curriculum was framed bythe National Science Teacher Association position statements for qualities and standards forgood science education (National Science Teachers’ Association 2011).

Participants

A total of 32 elementary preservice teacher candidates from both sections, took part in the study.Elementary preservice teacher candidates in these two sections were in their third year of a four-

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709 693

year teacher preparation program. All of these candidates are required to take and pass 6 creditseach of Science and Mathematics courses at the college level prior to entry into the elementaryeducation program. Out of the 32 candidates, 27 candidates wereWhite and five candidates, theparticipants of this study, were minority candidates. The five participants included Nancy andSarah who are African-American, Raya and Sally who are Hispanic, and San who identifiedherself as Asian-American. All names are pseudonyms. The five participants were in their 20’sand spoke English. Raya’s and San’s K-12 schooling was in a suburban setting while Nancy,Sally and Sarah had their K-12 schooling in urban settings. This small sample of participantswas reflective of the overall enrolment in elementary teacher preparation of minority teachercandidates at this university. All five participants were given consent forms approved by theUniversity’s Institutional Review Board that explained the purpose of the study and providedinformation that the participation in the study was voluntary.

Data Sources and Collection

Data were collected during the first 4 weeks of the 15 week elementary sciencemethods course. This was done to prevent the influence of the methods course onparticipants and thus influence the data collected from participants. The first datacollected were the participants’ drawings of science instruction and the accompanyingwritten narratives during the first week of class. This was followed, in the next class,by individual microteaching sessions where each participant taught a 15 min lesson,using a self-developed science lesson plan. The author, who was also the courseinstructor, made observation notes of participants’ teaching actions during microteach-ing. Participants’ self-review essays of their microteaching sessions were collected inthe third week of the course. Lastly, semi-structured interviews were planned andconducted in the fourth week.

Drawings The purpose of using drawings in this study was to collect and investigate partic-ipants’ conceptions of teaching science. As a qualitative method, drawings have been usedwidely in education research to illuminate teachers’ and students’ K-12 experiences and theunderlying perspectives of these experiences. Teacher education literature describes drawingsas a qualitative tool in a number of ways: as a projective research technique (Quita 2003), aspictorial forms (Black and Halliwell 2000), as symbols (Shepardson et al. 2007), as a form oftext (Weber and Mitchell 1996), as markers and mirrors (Weber and Mitchell 1995, 1996), asplatforms to elicit discussions (Haney et al. 2004; Swennen et al. 2004) and/or as conceptualvisualizations (Shepardson et al. 2007).

Collectively, no matter the various descriptions, the main purpose for using drawings, asillustrated by teacher education literature, is underscored by the potential of drawings asinstruments for reflecting, communicating and embodying meanings that illuminate partic-ipants’ experiences that are not easily expressed through text or narratives (Black andHalliwell 2000; Haney et al. 2004; Shepardson et al. 2007; Weber and Mitchell 1995,1996; Swennen et al. 2004) and as instruments that focus on specific experiences, andreveal tacit intuitive, practical and subjective knowledge that influence or ground teachingactions, decision making, and teaching roles (Brown and Schwartz 2009). Thus, drawings asa method of data collection are expressive of practical and subjective knowledge which arenot easily made explicit with traditional methods that rely only on oral or written formats orquestionnaires (Haney et al. 2004).

In this study, a modified version of Haney et al.’s (2004) “Using drawings to documenteducational phenomena” (p. 251) was used to study participants’ conceptions of teaching

694 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709

science. This convention uses prompts and a process of identifying patterns in the drawingsusing three analytic approaches (holistic coding, emergent analytic coding, and trait coding).In lines with the adopted convention for using drawings as a method for data collection, allparticipants were given the written prompt “Think about yourself as a teacher teachingscience in an elementary classroom and then, draw a picture of yourself as a teacher teachingscience in an elementary classroom”. This prompt was administered to all participants on thefirst day of class during their regularly scheduled methods course time slot.

Narratives The use of narratives as a data source was in response to the caveat thatdrawings might be envisioned as precision instruments depicting experiences and thus,succumbing to what Eisner (1997) refers to as the Roscharch syndrome. To alleviate thissyndrome an image/text balance approach (Radnofsky 1996) was adopted, hence, in thisstudy, narratives served as the text to illuminate participants’ drawings. As qualitativedata, narratives are referred to as data that reflect participants’ accounts of phenomenacollected in the participants’ natural speech (Connelly and Clandinin 1986). In this study,the question “Describe, in your own words what is depicted in your drawing” was aprompt provided by the author and used by participants as a guiding question to providethe narratives of their drawings.

Observations and Self-Reviews Another set of data collected were observations of partic-ipants’microteaching sessions and their self–reviews of their microteaching sessions. Micro-teaching is a training technique used in teacher education/preparation programs to enableprospective candidates to practice teaching prior to teaching in field experiences and/orstudent teaching in K-12 schools (Benton-Kupper 2001; Subramaniam 2006). Microteach-ing has been described as a beneficial and accepted element of preservice teacher education(Subramaniam 2006). This popular and well-established teacher education technique pro-vides teacher educators with preservice teachers’ conceptions of the realities of teaching(role planning, decision making, instruction, teaching skills) through the observation ofpreservice teachers’ teaching a short/brief (15 min) in-class lesson (Benton-Kupper 2001;Subramaniam 2006). In addition, the observation process also allows for evaluation ofmicroteaching for feedback purposes on present or future microteaching sessions (Benton-Kupper 2001). Furthermore, the written self-review reports of microteaching sessionsinculcates the value of reflective practice by making preservice teachers receptive to theirown self-evaluation of teaching behaviors and/or observation feedback from course instruc-tors or peers (Subramaniam 2006). The observation of the 15 min in-class lesson enabled theauthor to identify the consistency and congruency between the expressed and enactedteaching actions observed in the 15 min in-class lesson and participants’ conceptions ofteaching identified in other data (Brown et al. 1999; McRobbie and Tobin 1995).

The goals for the microteaching sessions were presented to participants by the courseinstructor prior to the microteaching sessions; the course instructor instructed participants topresent a 15 min lesson, derived from a 45 min lesson plan. During each microteachingsession, one participant taught a science lesson, while the rest of participants and the courseinstructor observed the microteaching episode and took observation notes. No grades wereawarded for the science lesson plan, microteaching or self-reviews.

After the microteaching sessions, each participant collected observation notes from thecourse instructor and her peers, (a total of four microteaching observations), and used theobservations and her own self-reflection of her microteaching episode to write a self-reviewabout her microteaching performance. The self-review contained the following threesections: an introductory paragraph, teaching strengths, and teaching weaknesses

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709 695

(Subramaniam 2006). At the end of this data collection process, two types of data werecollected: observations of participants’ teaching actions (microteaching), and participants’written self-reviews of their microteaching sessions.

Semi-Structured Interviews All five participants participated in the semi-structured inter-view. These interviews were conducted after preliminary analysis of the other data (draw-ings, narratives, observations, and self-reviews). The interviews served to clarify insightsgathered from the preliminary analysis and also to gain deeper insights into participants’drawings, self-reviews and observations of microteaching sessions. Questions for the inter-view included: “Describe your drawing” and “Tell me what is going on in the drawing.”These two questions were to perform two functions: First, to prompt participants to describeand explain the process happening in their drawings to the author and thus, provide validitychecks to see if participants’ descriptions cohere with the processes in the drawings. Second,to provide validity checks by allowing participants to describe, explain, and interpret theirdrawings to the author, and help to alleviate the dependence on the author’s sole interpre-tation of participants’ drawings (Brown and Schwartz 2009). Other interview questions weredirected towards participants’ microteaching sessions and these included “Tell me aboutyour microteaching experience” and “Why are the teaching actions you chose to use in yourmicroteaching important to you?” At the end of this data collection process, two types ofdata were collected: further insights into observations of participants’ teaching actions(microteaching), and participants’ conceptions of teaching science.

Data Analysis

A thematic analysis approach was adopted in analyzing the observations, narratives, self-review reports, and interview data. The aim of thematic analysis is to offer interpretationsinto how participants understand significant experiences and focus on identifiable themesand patterns of intentions and behaviors that underscore the experiential perspectives ofparticipants (Boyatzis 1998). For the purpose of this study, thematic analysis approach wasused to look for common themes in the language used by participants in describing theirconceptions of teaching science. Common themes were identified by examining partici-pants’ narratives, self-review reports and interview transcripts simultaneously with obser-vation data of microteaching sessions. In-depth examination involved the reading and re-reading of narratives, self-reports and interview transcripts to identify major recurrentthemes (Boyatzis 1998; Braun and Clarke 2006) which were then posted next to drawingsand observation data for credibility (Denzin and Lincoln 1998). For example, on reading andre-reading narratives, self-reports and interview transcripts, a common theme that emergedwas participants’ emphasis on the use of group work as a teaching strategy. Participants’descriptions of the nature of group work and the perspectives for emphasizing groupwork as a teaching strategy were identified and coded in narratives. These codesincluded “physical makeup”, “little scientists”, and “access”. These codes were thenapplied to self-reports and interview transcripts to track for the existence or nonexis-tence of descriptions of the nature of group work and the perspectives for emphasizinggroup work as a teaching strategy.

Analysis of Drawings As mentioned data for this study was a subset of data from a larger,ongoing study aimed at exploring elementary preservice teachers’ conceptions of teachingscience and how these conceptions of teaching science influence their learning to teachscience philosophies. Thus, the analysis of drawings included the analysis of participants’

696 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709

drawings and the rest of the participants’ drawings from the larger study: a total of 32drawings. All drawings were analyzed using holistic coding, emergent analytic coding, andtrait coding (Haney et al. 2004). In the holistic analysis process, 10 drawings were scannedand various features present in the drawings were recorded. These features were then givenpreliminary codes like “blackboard”, “teacher”, “students”, “resources”, “textbooks”,“ta-bles”, “chairs” etc. and then a coding sheet developed. The coding sheet was then applied tothe rest of the 22 drawings to holistically code features such as “blackboard”, “teacher”,“students”, “resources”, “textbooks”,“tables”, “chairs” etc., that were either present orabsent in the 22 drawings. In addition, features present in the drawings but absent fromthe coding sheet were also noted. Following this, formal descriptions were developed ofcoded features that had high levels of agreement. For example, the code “textbooks” wasdescribed as “physically drawn closed textbook” and/or “physically drawn open textbook”.Other examples included the codes “teachers” which was described as depicted in drawingsor absent from drawings, and “students” also described as depicted in drawings or absentfrom drawings but distinguished in size and physical appearance.

After holistic coding, emergent analytic coding and trait coding were utilized to furtheranalyze the drawings. Emergent coding involved the process of identifying specific featurespresent within the drawings and in doing so, helped to distinguish drawings based on thepresence or absence of these specific features. For this analysis drawings coded as “teachers”depicted in drawings were identified and categorized separately from drawings that werecoded “teachers absent” from drawings. Within these categories further codes, “blackboard”,“resources”, “textbooks”,“tables”, “chairs” were applied and the drawings with specificfeatures that distinguished them from the rest of the drawings were identified and selectedfor trait coding. This coding involved the analysis of the selected drawings at a higher levelof abstraction to identify unique traits and rate them with regard to the extent to which thatunique trait was represented. The higher level of abstraction included two steps: First,drawings categorized as “teachers absent” from drawings were scanned for the presence of“blackboard”, “students”, “resources”, “textbooks”,“tables”, “chairs” etc., and this wasrepeated for the drawings categorized as “teachers” depicted in drawings. Second, catego-rized drawings were then cross-referenced with participants’ narratives to develop codingschemes and themes. For example, drawings identified as “teachers absent” from drawingswere further identified and described as drawings with chairs and “tables” arranged forgroup work and were corroborated with the participants’ descriptions of group work intheir written narratives. The resulting themes included Teacher Engaged in Group Work,Teacher Using Teaching Resources During Group Work, Students Engaged in GroupWork, etc. (Table 1)

Findings

As mentioned the findings presented next are the common themes identified by examiningparticipants’ narratives, self-review reports and interview transcripts simultaneously withobservation data of microteaching sessions which were then posted next to drawings andobservation data for credibility. The first set of findings is the qualitative content of participants’drawings derived from the holistic coding, emergent analytic coding, and trait coding ofparticipants’ drawings. Table 1 details the trait coding findings and the differences betweenparticipants and their mainstream White peers. The second set of findings are the participants’conceptions of the nature of science content, conceptions of teaching the science content, andconceptions of how students learn the science content derived from the thematic analysis of

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709 697

observations, narratives, self-review reports, and interviews. Table 2 shows the categorizationof participants’ conceptions of science based on association with role constructs and associatedpropositions (Koballa et al. 2005; Samuelowicz and Bain 1992).

Drawings

The purpose of using drawings in this study was to collect and investigate participants’conceptions of teaching science through its potential as instruments for reflecting, communi-cating and embodying meanings that illuminate participants’ K-12 experiences and as instru-ments that reveal their practical and subjective knowledge of teaching as experienced in K-12classrooms. Based on holistic coding, emergent analytic coding and trait coding respectively, itwas revealed that the five participants’ drawings showed markedly unique traits in comparisonto the rest of the peers. Emergent coding showed that the specific features were evident inparticipants’ depictions of the “Teacher”, “Teacher Using Teaching Resources During GroupWork”, “Students”, “GroupWork”, “Teaching Resources:Written Instructions on Blackboard”,“Teaching Resources: Textbooks” and “Learning Resources: Textbooks”. It must be mentionedthat just like their mainstream White peers, participants also depicted the following in theirdrawing: “Teacher’s Table”, “Students’ Tables and Chairs”, “Blackboard”, “Apparatus forDemonstrations”, and “Apparatus for Investigations”.

Table 1 Trait coding findings: differences between participants and peers

Trait coding characteristics Participants Peers

Teacher

Teacher engaged in group work Teacher is not evident indrawings

Teacher is prominent in the drawings

Teacher is engaged in activities

Teacher using teachingresources during group work

Blackboard, and other resourcesare evident in the drawing

Teachers is using textbooks, theblackboard, and other resources toteach

Students

Students engaged in group work Students are not evident in thedrawings

Students talking and working withone another

Students using learning resources Students are not evident in thedrawings

Students engaged in using textbooksand other resources

Group work

Teacher and students discussing Both the teacher and studentsare not evident in drawings

Teacher and student engagementindicated by conversation bubbles

Teacher and student engagementindicated by teachers and studentsworking together

Students and students discussing Students are not evident indrawings

Discussion between students indicatedby conversation bubbles

Teacher monitoring studentdiscussion

Both the teacher and studentsare not evident in drawings

Teacher’s monitoring of students’discussion indicated by teacher’spointing to written instructions onblackboard and/or textbook

Teaching Resources

Textbooks Textbooks are not evidentin the drawings

Textbooks are evident as drawingsof a book on the teacher’s table andon individual student’s desks

698 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709

Table 1 details the unique traits evident within the aforementioned specific featuresthat indicated the distinctions between participants’ and their mainstream White peers’drawings and thus illustrates that participants’ conceptions of teaching were markedlydifferent from their mainstream White peers’ conceptions of teaching. A common traitevident in participants’ drawings was the lack of depiction of themselves as teachersand also the lack of depiction of any students. This was in sharp contrast toparticipants’ mainstream White peers’ drawings which clearly depicted processes liketeachers engaged in activities, interactions between teacher and students and/or be-tween students using conversation bubbles, and teachers pointing at the blackboard,textbooks, and apparatus (Table 1). In contrast, participants’ narratives and self-reviews contained descriptions of the processes of teaching and learning not evidentwithin their drawings. For example, consider the representative descriptions of theprocesses within drawings from the following interview excerpt.

Author: Describe your drawing.Nancy: Okay, the drawing is my format for how I will teach science, you can see thereis no teacher table at the front, I want the table in the middle or closer to my students. Ifyou put it there, you can’t be close to your students, and you will forget about the kidsat the back, also you want naughty ones closer to you to keep eye on them. Wait, youalso want those quiet ones to be closer too. In my science classes my teachers alwaystalked to the kids in the front and ignored those at the back, I remember sitting at theback and not getting the worksheets or playthings she passed out for the scienceactivities they planned for us. I forgot to draw the things you need for science in mydrawing, I think you need a lot of resources for doing science also.Author: Why are the teaching actions you chose to use in your microteachingimportant to you?Nancy: Like I mentioned before, I chose to use group work in my teaching because Ican situate myself equally with all my students. Well, I can be closer to their learning

Table 2 Categorization of participants’ conceptions of teaching science

Conceptions Associated role constructs Associated propositions

Conceptualizing How to Teach the Science Content

Linked to home experiences Role Model Directionality of science teaching

Involves students’ ideas about thescience content

Role Model Directionality of science teaching

Linked to the hands-on activities Role Model Directionality of science teaching

Not solely found in textbooks Cultural Mediator Control of science content

Teaching the Science Content

Make group work an important componentof their science instruction

Social Transformer Control of science content

Do not use the science textbook as an onlyresource to teach science content to theirstudents

Cultural Mediator Control of science content

Learning the Science Content

Students learn the science content when theyare assigned the role of “little scientist”

Social Transformer Directionality of science teaching

Students’ contributions have to be respectedand are important in the process of learningthe science content

Role Model Students’ existing scienceconceptions

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709 699

and also helping them learn the science concepts they need to know. Well, students atthe front seats always had to pass down the worksheets or any other resources theteachers gave us for science lessons to the students who sat at the back. And Iremember when she would not allow us to see or touch some of the models like thesolar system models or the posters she brought to class. Only the students at the frontgot to see them and I always felt cheated that she did not see me at the back or justignored me, it was kind of being disrespectful to me.

Conceptions of Teaching Science

Conceptualizing How to Teach the Science Content Participants in this study conceptualizedteaching the science content to their students in the following ways: science content is linkedto home experiences, science content involves students’ ideas about the science content,science content is linked to the hands-on activities, and science content is not solely found intextbooks. For this group of participants the science content was conceptualized as beingrelated to students’ home experiences and ideas and present within hands-on activities butnot confined to the textbook. Two interrelated perceptions in the data revealed why partic-ipants held these instructional ideas about the nature of the science content. First, partic-ipants claimed that learning science was important to their students “as it relates toeverything in our lives” (San, Interview) and by linking and relating the content to students’home experiences, ideas and classroom hands-on activities, participants felt that they wereshowing their students the importance of science and the necessity to learn it. Second,participants expressed that in their K-12 school experiences, their science teachers often didnot make any links between the science content and home experiences or their own ideasabout science.

Well my teacher used only the textbook and did not take into account theexperiences of my peers or my own experiences in the classroom. It was alwaysthe content in the science textbook, always. Sometimes some of the ideas we hadabout the content were misconceptions but she insisted that the content in thetextbook was enough. Making links to home was always done when things (grades)went bad (Raya, Interview).

Participants’ perceptions of this conception of teaching science contained aspects likewanting to raise their aspirations for learning science which were characteristic of the rolemodel construct.

Teaching the Science Content For this group of participants, science content is best taughtby making group work an important component of their science instruction, and not usingthe science textbook as the only resource to teach science content to their students.

Group Work as a Conception of Teaching Science The inclusion of group work as a strategyfor student learning was a recurring conception of teaching science that participants oftenmentioned and described in the data. Participants described group work as an active socialinteraction in which all their students were working together on the science content in groupsof “little scientists”. Accordingly, participants’ drawings showed the physical makeup of theclassroom for science instruction constructed of tables and chairs arranged in a circular wayto promote group work and for active social interaction among their students. This themewas evident throughout other data like narratives and also in observations of microteaching

700 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709

sessions for all five participants. In addition, participants claimed that the group workprovided their students equal access to the science content and helped them as teachers tointeract with students in a closer proximity instead of having the teacher stand in the front ofthe room and teach to the whole class. For example, the following excerpt from the semi-structured interview revealed and exemplified why participants made group work an impor-tant component of their science instruction

Well, I don’t like to draw myself, no, I think I have never drawn myself even as a stickfigure. Okay, I did arrange the chairs for group work, like in the drawing and got myclassmates to move about and do the activity on density, I brought enough plasticboats, and the marbles for the groups to share and do the experiment. They had a lot offun doing the activity. Okay, in my drawing I kind of have the same format for thegroup work I used for my microteaching, if you look at the tables and chairs,something like that. I kept the groups close to me, the teacher’s table is in the middle,I was standing in the middle during microteaching closely watching my classmatescarry out the density experiment and then moving about the groups to help. I want tobe near and help them with their questions and guide them with the hands-on activity,like in a real classroom. (Sally, Interview).

Analysis of data further revealed that participants’meanings in support of making groupworkan important component of their science instruction contained aspects of the social transformerconstruct. That is, participants perceived group work as a solution to K-12 discriminatoryexperiences that they had witnessed or were victim of and assumed that group work deterredprejudice or biasness from occurring in their classroom. The following quotes exemplify theperceptions that underscored the conception of including group work into teaching:

Tables and chairs have to be rearranged for group work, students must work in groups.When I was in science class, I was a spectator not a participant, well the other kids, theWhite kids were always participants. I just sat there in my seat, my row, my teachernever included me, and maybe she thought that some kids, the White kids, weresmarter than me. With group work I can include everybody in the learning, not likehow my teacher taught me (Raya, Narrative).I know all students learn differently, but group work is effective and helps me withgood classroom control. But group work helps my little scientists to experience thedifferent experiences and ideas of their peers as they work together on their scienceactivities, they will share their experiences and talk about them. I always wanted to tellmy classmates about my little science discoveries in school but we always sat in neatlittle rows and she never allowed us to move around during science, anyway shealways used the textbook and nothing else (Nancy, Interview).

For this group of participants, making group work an important component of theirscience instruction was backed by their emphasis on constructing equitable and just class-room environments underscored by the need to get all their students from being spectators toparticipants. And as the quotes above suggest, participants’ own awareness of their K-12science classrooms backed their decision to use group work to bring about transformationsin teaching and learning.

Not Using the Science Textbook as a Conception of Teaching Science For this group ofparticipants teaching with a textbook was an instructional idea that carried with it the notionof teachers just wanting quietness in class and for managing and preventing disruption inclass. In addition, this conception was coupled with the understanding that teachers who

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709 701

preferred teaching with only the textbook and who don’t want to involve students in hands-on science activities, were “going through the motion” (Sally, Self-Review), “don’t careabout teaching science” (Raya, Interview), and wanted students to be spectators.

Data further revealed that participants’ meanings in support of not using the sciencetextbook for science instruction contained aspects of the cultural mediator construct. Forexample, participants’ reluctance to use the science textbook reflected a cultural mediatorrole of wanting to use their students’ home experiences to be part of their science instructionand make science learning relevant to their students: “Science relates to everything in ourlives and is important to learn. We have to be sensitive to different cultures and values ofstudents and it is important to respect all students” (Raya, Self-Review).

Coupled with this meaning were participants’ K-12 science learning experiences whereintheir science teachers often perceived the science textbook as the only resource for learningscience and did not ask them to share their home science experiences. San shared anexperience that exemplified this perspective, she said:

I told my second grade science teacher that I did not know what a Lima bean was and didnot know how they grow or germinate. In my house we ate rice and never Lima beans.Mymother told me rice was a seed and I asked my second grade teacher if I can germinate arice seed and she said she did not know how to and told me to follow the textbook. I keptasking her but the only response I got from her was to follow the textbook, maybe she onlybought Lima beans for the class but she did not give me a chance to use my own ideas.Anyway the textbook we used had no pictures of rice and I really wanted to share my ideasabout rice and see a rice seed germinate and grow (San, Interview).

Accordingly, observations of microteaching sessions and self-reviews of microteachingrevealed that participants did not use textbooks for their microteaching sessions and therewas constant reference to using textbooks as a sign of weakness as expressed in their self-reviews of their microteaching sessions. For example:

Being that this microteaching was my first in-class experience of teaching a sciencelesson, I was somewhat apprehensive. But I feel that I performed to the best of myability and exemplified some admirable teaching qualities. I must also say that thereare teaching qualities and strategies which I have not yet mastered and could haveworked on to make my teaching better. This is why I didn’t automatically place theaim on the board or depend on the science textbook but rather let the students tell mewhat they know about seed germination. I integrated or incorporated language arts,like poems in my lesson and have the students react to the poem by acting out thegrowth process of a seed to a plant. I also thought it was necessary to bring in a visualdisplay of what different seeds look like, especially for a second grade class. This willalso cater to the visual learners in the classroom (Sarah, Self-Review).

Learning the Science Content Participants’ conceptions of how students learn the sciencecontent included the following: all students can learn science, and students’ contributions(ideas, responses, reactions unique experiences and resources) have to be respected and areimportant in the process of learning the science content.

All Students Can Learn Science Participants claimed that all their students will have oppor-tunities to take part in the planned activities and collectively contribute their ideas to the plannedactivities. For this group of participants the conception that all students can learn science isbacked by participants own awareness of their experiences with conditions of inequity in their

702 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709

K-12 science classrooms. Participants also claimed that giving all their students a chance toparticipate in the planned activities portrayed participants as teachers who were not biased,prejudiced, or sexist. For example: “Some of my science teachers acted as if boys are better atscience than girls” (Raya, Interview); and “They (referring to minority students) won’t get it, nomatter what!” (Sally, Interview). Also, participants’ instructional idea of giving all their studentsa chance to participate in the planned activities cohered with the characteristics of the socialtransformer construct. In this case, participants’ perception that all students can learn sciencewas related to the need to construct equitable and just classroom environments which in turnwas underscored by their own awareness of their K-12 experiences.

Respecting Students’ Contributions The conception of respecting students’ contributionsand learning the science content was coupled with participants’ ideas about effective scienceteaching, and ineffective science teaching. Participants perceived that it is important torespect all students, and that each student brings unique experiences and resources to theclassroom which is important to science instruction. By doing so, participants perceived thatthey exhibited the signs of an effective teacher who was caring, fair, positive, patient,respectful, sensitive, and understanding. In contrast participants claimed that science teach-ers who did not respect students’ contribution to the process of learning science wereineffective science teachers who were demanding, disrespectful, lazy, negative, not creative,irresponsible, self-absorbed, and unfair.

Representative quotes included:

Effective science teachers are aware that all students learn differently and are sensitive todifferent cultures and values of their students. Respecting these cultures and values isimportant as science relates to everything in our lives, culture and values. My scienceteachers were not fair most of the time, they did not allow students to get involved andthey did not believe that all students have something to offer (Nancy, Interview).Well, I think science teachers need to adjust their teaching to fit all students’ needs andall children can learn if teachers realize that all students’ ideas are connected to thescience topic being taught. But some science teachers in my school had negativeattitudes about certain kids and they were the ones who had that feeling that some kidswill not understand no matter what or how you teach them science. These were theunfair, lazy and prejudiced ones. They need to make connections between students’ideas and the content and also show that they care about forming connections betweenschool, home and science (San, Interview).

Participants’ conceptualization of learning science in this way was also based on theirawareness of their experiences with conditions of inequity in their K-12 science classroomsand the need to raise students’ aspirations for science learning, and, thus, reflected character-istics of the role model construct.

Discussion

Conceptions of Teaching Science

Analysis of data revealed that for this group of participants their conceptions of teachingscience were developed during their K-12 experiences (Da-Silva et al. 2006; Hewson andHewson 1989; Koballa et al. 2000; Lee, and Krapfl 2002; Mellado 1998) and the consis-tency in the nature of participants’ conceptions was characteristic of their similar past

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709 703

educational contexts and the experiences set within these contexts (Hewson and Hewson1989). In addition, participants’ constant reference to these experiences, as described in theirnarratives, self-reviews, and interviews indicated that these experiences were functioning asdecision-making platforms for their teaching actions (Ahtee and Johnson 2006; Skamp andMueller 2001).

In reference to the literature on the relationship between conceptions of teaching scienceas beliefs (Ahtee and Johnson 2006; Mellado 1998; Salisbury-Glennon and Stevens 1999;Wang et al. 2009; Younger et al. 2004) and as beliefs-driven (Chan and Elliott 2004; Chenget al. 2009; Da-Silva et al. 2006; Pajares 1992) findings of this study revealed thatparticipants’ conceptions of teaching science were beliefs-driven and were influencing andinteracting with conceptions of teaching science (Da-Silva et al. 2006). That is, participants’deep-rooted personal histories about the nature of knowledge and knowledge acquisitionacquired through their own K-12 experiences (Holt-Reynolds 1992; Salisbury-Glennon andStevens 1999) were acting as beliefs to validate conceptions of teaching science. Thedistinguishing feature was the contrasting nature between participants’ conceptions ofteaching science expressed as instructional ideas and their beliefs as personal histories ofK-12 experiences.

Drawings

Findings revealed that drawings did not help in unraveling teaching identities, cultural andlinguistic resources, and past experiences associated with participants’ conceptions ofteaching science. Participants’ drawings were limited to products of teaching and learningrather than the processes of teaching and learning (Table 1). That is, participants’ drawingsserved as pictorial forms (Black and Halliwell 2000), as symbols (Shepardson et al. 2007),and as conceptual visualizations (Shepardson et al. 2007) communicating the products ofteaching and learning. Although participants’ drawings communicated things and places(Eisner 1997) that embodied participants’ practical and subjective knowledge of the productsof teaching and learning (Brown and Schwartz 2009; Haney et al. 2004), drawings did notilluminate participants’ experiences or focus on specific experiences, and revealed tacitintuitive, practical and subjective knowledge that influenced or grounded teaching actions,decision making, and teaching roles (Brown and Schwartz 2009).

On the contrary, the image/text balance (Radnofsky 1996) provided by using narratives,interviews, and observations of participants’ microteaching sessions and participants’ self-reviews of their microteaching sessions in conjunction with drawings augmented the statusof knowledgeable claims from using drawings as a qualitative method to illuminate partic-ipants’ K-12 experiences and the underlying perspectives of these experiences. This coheredwith the literature that advocates for using drawings in combination with other qualitativemethods for data collection (Sack 1997; Swennen et al. 2004; Van Zee and Roberts 2001;Weber and Mitchell 1996). Moreover, the validity of participants’ conceptions of teachingscience sought through multi-methods was also substantiated by observations of teachingactions for congruency and consistency (Brown et al. 1999; McRobbie and Tobin 1995).

Conceptions of Teaching Science as Orientations/Dimensions/Complex Sets

This study showed that categorizing participants’ conceptions of teaching science as prop-ositions provided an informative way to characterize, distinguish, and interpret participants’conceptions of teaching science (Koballa et al. 2005; Samuelowicz and Bain 1992). In thisstudy, participants’ conceptions of teaching science showed greater affinity towards their

704 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709

directionality of science teaching, their control of science teaching and how they incorporatetheir students’ existing science conceptions into science instruction, but there were noconceptions of teaching science showing affinity towards expected outcomes of scienceteaching and/or students’ utilization of science content.

In addition, looking at participants’ conceptions of teaching science as dimensions andconceptualized and interpreted in terms of traditional and constructivist models of learningrespectively (Chan and Elliott 2004), it is obvious that all of the participants’ conceptions ofteaching science pointed to the constructivist model of learning. Also, looking at partic-ipants’ conceptions of teaching science as orientations indicated that participants’ concep-tions of teaching science were student-centered/learning orientated (Gao and Watkins 2002).The directionality of science teaching conceptualized by participants as linking the sciencecontent to students’ home experiences, involving students’ ideas about the science content,linking the teaching of science content to hands-on activities, and the conception that allstudents can learn science supported the dimension towards the constructivist model oflearning and the orientation towards student-centered/learning. That is, participants’ con-ceptions of teaching science were characteristic of teachers creating active learning environ-ments that allow for students to be creators of their own content knowledge (Chan and Elliott2004; Entwistle et al. 2000; Gao and Watkins 2001, 2002; Lam and Kember 2006) andfocused on students’ developmental approach towards content knowledge (Gao and Watkins2002). But it was also obvious from the findings that this group of participants did not have“sophisticated epistemologies” (Chan and Elliott 2004, p. 819) that reflected current trendsin adopting a constructivist model of teaching. Instead their epistemologies, as seen fromtheir conceptions of teaching science, were shaped and influenced by their K-12experiences.

Thus, categorizing participants’ conceptions of teaching science as propositions provideda lens to interpret participants’ conceptions of teaching science as orientations and/ordimensions. For this group of participants, science content is best taught by making groupwork an important component of their science instruction, and not using the sciencetextbook as the only resource to teach science content to their students. Conceptions ofteaching science associated with directionality of science teaching and associated withstudents’ existing science conceptions showed affinity for the orientation of learning asstudent-centered (Gao and Watkins 2002). Conceptions of teaching science associated withcontrol of science content showed affinity for the dimension of progressive/constructivistmode of learning. (Chan and Elliott 2004).

Role Constructs and Conceptions of Teaching Science

Analyzing participants’ conceptions of teaching science from the perspectives of role modelconstruct, social transformer construct and cultural mediator construct provided lenses to viewthe specific meanings that underscored participants’ conceptions of teaching science. Forexample, analyzing participants’ conceptions of teaching science from the perspective of rolemodel construct suggests that participants’ conceptions were a result of their own awareness oftheir negative experiences in K-12 and of experiences with conditions of inequity in school (Auand Blake 2003; Basit et al. 2007) while the analysis of participants’ conceptions of teachingscience from the perspective of social transformer construct revealed that participants’ con-ceptions were underscored by their need to construct equitable classroom environments(Quicho and Rios 2000; Montecinos 2004). Also, participants’ conceptions of teaching scienceframed by the cultural mediator role revealed that participants’ conceptions were underscoredby their decisions to include their students’ backgrounds and learning needs (Basit et al. 2007;

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709 705

Milner 2003; Montecinos 2004; Quicho and Rios 2000) to enact a socially just agenda in theirclassrooms (Robinson et al. 2003; Tellez 1999).

On the contrary, framing participants’ conceptions of teaching science on the three con-structs did reveal that their conceptions of teaching were limited to only some aspects of theserole constructs. That is, participants’ conceptions of teaching science did not contain partic-ipants’ considerations of any shared cultural and/or linguistic backgrounds and ethnic similar-ities with their students to construct instructional ideas for productive classroom learninginteractions (Basit et al. 2007; Loving and Marshall 1997; Milner 2003; Montecinos 2004;Quicho and Rios 2000). In addition, participants’ conceptions of teaching science did notcontain participants’ transformations of curricula, pedagogy, and learning (Au and Blake 2003;Basit et al. 2007; Montecinos 2004); instead these conceptions were mainly instructional ideasabout constructing equitable and just classroom environments through group work, assigningtheir students as little scientists, and respecting students’ ideas about the science content.

The study may also help mainstream teachers to reconsider their classroom teachingapproaches, especially in multicultural classrooms because the conceptions of teachingscience held by participants of this study were a result of their experiences with teachingand learning actions created and practiced by mainstream teachers. It is evident that for thisgroup of participants the role constructs that they were conceptualizing were a result of theirnegative experiences in these mainstream teachers’ classrooms. Although a number ofscholars (Cochran-Smith et al. 2004; Sleeter 2001; Tellez 1999) have continuously empha-sized how minority preservice teachers’ diverse K-12 experiences and their cultural andlinguistic resources result in conceptions of teaching markedly different from the mainstreamWhite peers. The findings from this study indicate that negative experiences in K-12 class-rooms seem to play an important role in shaping and influencing conceptions of teachingscience.

Conclusion & Implications

The purpose of this study was to explore minority preservice teachers’ conceptions ofteaching science and thus, identify the sources of their science teaching practices and theirstrategies for helping students learn science. Findings showed that the minority preserviceteachers participants’ conceptions of teaching science were a specific set of beliefs-driveninstructional ideas about the nature of the science content to be taught, about how to teachthe science content to students and about how students learn the science content. Mostimportantly, framing the specific meanings actions, orientations, dimensions, and associatedpropositions using the three role constructs, role model construct, the cultural mediatorconstruct, and the social transformer construct, provided a complex lens from which to studyand understand minority preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching science.

The findings of this study are specific to the five participants of the study and notgeneralizable to other populations of minority preservice teachers. That is, participants werenot selected for the study because of their backgrounds, characteristics, ethnicity, social class,community affiliations, linguistic abilities and shared interests. Moreover, these findings,specific to the five participants, were a subset of findings which were markedly different fromthe rest of the participants in the larger study. Also using multiple data sources, drawings,narratives, observations of microteaching sessions and self-reviews, afforded the author to lookat the phenomenon from three vantage–points: author, participants, and author and participantas a team. Each vantage point stands in a unique epistemological position with respect to thephenomenon studied. The author’s analysis and interpretations of data was compared to

706 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709

participants’ own analysis and interpretations of their drawings, and self-reviews of micro-teaching and to the author and participant’s insights into the phenomenon and data throughinterviews and joint analysis of participants’ drawings.

Implications include the following: Teacher educators need to establish supportiveenvironments within methods courses for minority preservice teachers to express their K-12 experiences and acknowledge how these experiences shape their conceptions of teachingscience. These supportive environments need to be placed at the beginning of the methodscourses and may include the use of drawings, narratives, and self-reviews of microteachingto help minority preservice teachers to explore, self-analyze, and reflect on experiences thatinfluence their conceptions of teaching science. Teacher educators need to recognize thatminority preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching science reveal the multiple ways (roleconstructs, propositions, orientations, and dimensions) through which they see and envisionscience instruction. The inherent value of these multiple ways should be reflected andintegrated into methods courses as an organizing framework for the preparation of minoritypreservice teachers and all preservice teachers.

References

Ahtee, M., & Johnson, J. (2006). Primary student teachers’ ideas about teaching a physics topic. ScandinavianJournal of Educational Research, 50(2), 207–219.

Au, K. H., & Blake, K. M. (2003). Cultural identity and learning to teach in a diverse community: findingsfrom a collective case study. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 192–205.

Basit, T. N., & McNamara, O. (2004). Equal opportunities or affirmative action? The induction of minorityethnic teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 30(2), 97–115.

Basit, T. N., McNamara, O., Roberts, L., Carrington, B., Maguire, M., & Woodrow, D. (2007). “The bar isslightly higher”: the perception of racism in teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(2),279–298.

Benton-Kupper, J. (2001). The microteaching experience: student perspectives. Education, 12(4), 830–835.Black, A. L., & Halliwell, G. (2000). Accessing practical knowledge: how? why? Teaching and Teacher

Education, 16, 103–115.Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3,

77–101.Brown, M. H., & Schwartz, R. S. (2009). Connecting photosynthesis and cellular respiration: preservice

teachers’ conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(7), 791–812.Brown, T., McNamara, O., Hanley, U., & Jones, L. (1999). Primary student teachers’ understanding of

mathematics and its teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 25(3), 299–322.Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary

science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 121–139.Chan, K.-W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about

teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 817–831.Cheng, M. M. H., Chan, K.-W., Tang, S. Y. F., & Cheng, A. Y. N. (2009). Preservice teacher education

students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 319–327.

Cochran-Smith, M., Davis, D., & Fries, K. (2004). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice andpolicy. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), International handbook of science education (2nd ed., pp.931–975). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1986). On narrative method, personal philosophy, and narrative unities inthe story of teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(4), 293–310.

Da-Silva, C., Mellado, V., Ruiz, C., & Porlan, R. (2006). Evolution of the conceptions of a secondaryeducation biology teacher: longitudinal analysis using cognitive maps. Science Education, 91, 461–491.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709 707

Dillard, C. (1994). Beyond supply and demand: critical pedagogy, ethnicity, and empowerment in recruitingteachers of color. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 9–17.

Eisner, E. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational Researcher,26(6), 4–10.

Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about ‘good teaching’: anintegration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(1), 5–26.

Gao, L., & Watkins, D. A. (2001). Identifying and assessing the conceptions of teaching of secondary schoolphysics teachers in China. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 443–469.

Gao, L., & Watkins, D. A. (2002). Conceptions of teaching held by school science teachers in P.R. China:identification and cross-cultural comparisons. International Journal of Science Education, 24(1), 61–79.

Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in preserviceteacher education. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 181–187.

Gordon, J. A. (1997). Teachers of color speak to issues of respect and image. The Urban Review, 29(1), 41–66.Haney, W., Russell, M., & Bebell, D. (2004). Drawing on education: using drawings to document schooling

and support change. Harvard Educational Review, 74(3), 241–271.Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1989). Analysis and use of a task for identifying conceptions of teaching

science. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 191–209.Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in course work.

American Educational Research Journal, 29, 325–349.Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualization of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching.

Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275.Koballa, T., Jr., Graber, W., Coleman, D., & Kemp, A. (2000). Prospective gymnasium teachers' conceptions

of chemistry learning and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 209–224.Koballa, T., Glynn, S., Upson, L., & Coleman, D. (2005). Conceptions of teaching science held by novice

teachers in an alternative certification program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(4), 287–308.Lam, B.-H., & Kember, D. (2006). The relationship between conceptions of teaching and approaches to

teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(6), 693–713.Lee, C., & Krapfl, L. (2002). Teaching as you would have them teach: an effective elementary science teacher

preparation program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 247–265.Loving, C. C., & Marshall, J. E. (1997). Increasing the pool of ethnically diverse science teachers: a mid-

project evaluation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(3), 205–217.McRobbie, C., & Tobin, K. (1995). Restraints to reform: the congruence of teacher and student actions in a

chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 373–385.Mellado, V. (1998). The classroom practice of preservice teachers and their conceptions of teaching and

learning science. Science Education, 82, 197–214.Milner, H. R. (2003). A case study of an African American English teacher’s cultural comprehensive

knowledge and self-reflective planning. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(2), 175–196.Montecinos, C. (2004). Paradoxes in multicultural teacher education research: students of color positioned as

objects while ignored as subjects. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(2), 167–181.

National Science Teachers’ Association (NSTA) (2011). NSTA position statements. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions.aspx.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review ofEducational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(2), 203–330.Quicho, A., & Rios, F. (2000). The power of their presence: minority group teachers and schooling. Review of

Educational Research, 70(4), 485–528.Quita, I. (2003). What is a scientist? Perspectives of teachers of color. Multicultural Education, 11(1), 29–31.Radnofsky, M. L. (1996). Qualitative models: visually representing complex data in a image/text balance.

Qualitative Inquiry, 2(4), 385–410.Robinson, J. J., Paccione, A., & Rodriquez, F. (2003). A place where people care: a case study of recruitment

and retention of minority-group teachers. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36, 202–212.Sack, T. (1997). Using drawings and interviews to promote reflection on student teaching. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.Salisbury-Glennon, J. D., & Stevens, R. J. (1999). Addressing preservice teachers’ conceptions of motivation.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 741–752.Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching and learning held by academic teachers.

Higher Education, 24, 93–111.

708 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709

Shepardson, D. P., Wee, B., Priddy, M., Schellenberger, L., & Harbor, J. (2007). What is a watershed?Implications of student conceptions for environmental science education and the national scienceeducation standards. Science Education, 91, 554–578.

Skamp, K., & Mueller, A. (2001). Student teachers’ conceptions about effective primary science teaching: alongitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 331–351.

Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: research and the overwhelmedpresence of whiteness. The Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106.

Subramaniam, K. (2006). Creating a microteaching evaluation form: the needed evaluation criteria. Educa-tion, 126(4), 666–677.

Swennen, A., Jorg, T., & Korthagen, F. (2004). Studying student teachers’ concerns, combining image-basedand more traditional research techniques. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(3), 265–283.

Tellez, K. (1999). Mexican-American preservice teachers and the intransigency of the elementary schoolcurriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 555–570.

Van Zee, E. H., & Roberts, D. (2001). Using pedagogical inquiries as a basis for learning to teach: prospectiveteachers’ reflections upon positive science learning experiences. Science Education, 85(6), 733–757.

Wang, J.-R., Kao, H.-L., & Lin, S.-W. (2009). Preservice teachers initial conceptions about assessment ofscience learning: the coherence with their views of learning science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 522–529.

Weber, S., & Mitchell, C. (1995). That’s funny you don’t look like a teacher. Washington: Falmer.Weber, S., & Mitchell, C. (1996). Drawing ourselves into teaching: studying the images that shape and distort

teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 12(3), 303–313.Younger, M., Brindley, S., Pedder, D., & Hagger, H. (2004). Starting points: student teachers’ reasons for

becoming teachers and their conceptions of what this will mean. European Journal of Teacher Education,27(3), 245–264.

Yung, B. H. W., Wong, S. L., Cheng, M. W., Hui, C. S., & Hodson, D. (2007). Tracking pre-service teachers’changing conceptions of good science teaching: the role of progressive reflection with the same video.Research in Science Education, 37, 239–259.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:687–709 709