This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 10 November 2014, At: 07:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal ofScience EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Transforming scienceand learning concepts ofphysics teachersFernando Flores , Angel Lopez , LeticiaGallegos & Jorge BarojasPublished online: 20 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Fernando Flores , Angel Lopez , Leticia Gallegos &Jorge Barojas (2000) Transforming science and learning concepts of physicsteachers, International Journal of Science Education, 22:2, 197-208, DOI:10.1080/095006900289958

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095006900289958

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the useof the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

47 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 2000, VOL. 22, NO. 2, 197-208

RESEARCH REPORT

Transforming science and learning concepts ofphysics teachers

Fernando Flores*, Angel Lo pez**, Leticia Gallegos* and Jorge Barojas*,*Departamento de EnsenÄ anza Experimental de la Ciencia del Centro deInstrumentos de la Universidad Nacional Auto noma de Me xico; **Posgradoen Educacio n de la Universidad Iberoamericana, Me xico

Averymuchdebatedissue relatedto the in-servicetrainingcourses for physicsteachers is the influencethat scienceandlearningconceptsmighthave onthem. That is, if thoseconceptsaffect thewayteachersthink how scientific concepts originate and evolve and howthey implement learning in the classroom.This studyaddresses the influence that those concepts have when teachers are submitted toassessmentinanacademic programme. The authors report changes shownby teachers in their epistemological andlearning conceptions during a process of instruction. The results allow the possibility not only ofdemonstrating teachers’ transformations of conceptions, but also the implications that these mighthave on the practice of teaching.

Introduction

Teaching physics at preparatory school level in Me xico, as in many other coun-tries, can be typified as traditional. This means that the teaching is focused on thetransmission of content and it supposes the comprehensionof physics concepts bythe students; a supposition based primarily on the logic of the content included incurricular programmes. This formof teaching is widely pervadive, in spite of thedeclared intentions by teachers to promote other views of learning. Gallagher(1991) points out that there is a large difference between the declared intentionsof teachers about teaching and what really happens in the classroom. Informally,researchers and administrators recognize this situation in Mexico and are makingsome effort to change it. Among these efforts we can mention the adoption ofconstructivism as a guide for teacher training and practice in science educationinMexico(Leo net al. 1995). Of theactions taken, courses intendedto improvethecomprehension of physics concepts and the pedagogy of teaching themstand out.On the other hand, there is almost a complete lack of courses dealing with episte-mological issues about science and the formation and development of physicalconcepts.

It seems that thenumberof courses takenbyphysics teachers isnot important,their practice in teaching does not change. This is also clear when teachers takecourses about the philosophy and history of science (Lederman 1992), perhapsrefusing the hypothesis that teachers who take this kind of course have a wider

International Journal of ScienceEducationISSN0950-0693print/ISSN1464-5289online# 2000Taylor&FrancisLtdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tf/09500693.html

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

47 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

view of science and, therefore, adopt a less traditional practice in teaching.Diploma courses offered in Mexico, on philosophy and history of physics issues,have not been successful in transforming teaching practice within the classrooms;it returns to normality, that is to traditional practice, in an amazingly short time.Thispossiblymeans that, inspiteof the theoretical elementsgiveninthosecourseswiththe purposeof improving teaching, theyhave been ineffective suchthat a lackof integration of disciplinary and epistemological issues has not facilitated themodification of teaching practice. What could be the reason of such a lack ofintegration and difficulty in the transformation of teachers’ views?

One possible answer might be, as Duschl and Wright (1989) say, that othercurricular and school factors - traditional forms of evaluating courses or inap-propriate inspections of science courses, for instance - are more important indetermining teaching practice than teachers’ conceptions about science and itslearning. Another answer could be the lack of a systematic and integrated visionabout science and learning issues in the teaching of physics concepts.

We adopted the second possibility and assume it as a possible explanation ofthe difficulty of transforming teachers’ views in learning and science and, in theend, changingtheir teachingpractice. Thishypothesis, wethink, has repercussionsin the way they teach as well as in the expectations that they have about students’achievements concerning the nature of science and what learning physics means.

There are nodefinite conclusions onthe influence of suchepistemological andlearning issues on teacher’s practice (Lederman 1992). More recent research worksupports the idea of teaching practice being influenced by developing a sense ofwhat the realm of scientific endeavour and the learning of science is and means,particularlyonthe issue of what images of science students acquire (Koulaidis andOgborn 1995, Hashweh 1996, Porla n et al. 1998).

This workanalyses the changes inphysics teachers’ epistemological and learn-ing conceptions shown after a Specialization Programme in Teaching Physics(SPTP). The design of SPTP (specialization: post-graduate degree) consists ofepistemological, historic and pedagogic issues and their repercussions on teachingphysics, through the development of pedagogic models and their implementationin class.

Epistemological conceptions: categories of analysis

Todetermine possible changes in teachers’ conceptions, it is necessarytoestablishcriteria and categories that permit the identification of teachers’ epistemologicaland learning preferences. For this reason we considered two dimensions:Epistemological Conceptions (EC) and Learning Conceptions (LC).

The EC dimension refers to teachers’ ideas about scientific knowledge issuessuchas: demarcationcriteria, validity, evolutionandstructure. TheLCdimensionis intended to capture teachers’ ideas related to ways of learning physics: conceptdevelopment, the role of previous ideas and of experimental activities in the for-mation and transformation of physics concepts, relevance of the context, and theway teachers implement assessment. Porla n et al. (1998) use the term‘epistemol-ogy of school processes’, but we think our two dimensions include this term.

It is a common understanding in Me xico that theory and practice of scienceare two different processes and are held in separated spaces; less time is assignedfor practice in the laboratory. Furthermore, it is noticeable that the best efforts to

198 F. FLORES ET AL.D

ownl

oade

d by

[M

cGill

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:47

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

bring these twoprocesses togetherhavebeeninsufficient andexperimental activityremains a second-hand process. Teachers reflect this in the way that they assess.Havingthis situationinmindandtaking intoaccount Hodson’s (1985)observationon the variety of analytical categories about science conceptions and experimenta-tion, we decided to implement two aspects for each dimension (EC and LC): (a)Epistemological Conceptions at the level of Concepts (ECC) and EpistemologicalConceptions at the Experimental level (ECE) for science issues; (b) LearningConceptions at the level of Concepts (LCC) and Learning Conceptions atExperimental level (LCE) for learning issues.

Koulaidis and Ogborn (1989) suggest that four themes at least are convenientfor analysing teachers’ conceptions about science: the existence and nature ofscientific method, demarcation criteria, the status of scientific knowledge andnature of growth of scientific knowledge. These themes are taken on board inconstructing and interpreting our questionnaires. To do so, we grouped themesas follows. What we name the relationship ‘knowledge-reality’ relates to demarca-tioncriteria andto the status of scientific knowledge; ‘processes of scientific inves-tigation’ to the existence and nature of scientific method; and ‘development ofscientific theories’ to the nature of growth of scientific knowledge. These themesandtheir relationshipwith theepistemological dimensionsof analysis are shownintable 1. Similarly, we list themes for the learning dimensions in the same table.

Categories used for classifying teachers’ conceptions

Lederman (1992) and Koulaidis and Ogborn (1995) suggest the inadvisability ofassuming an absolute internal consistency among teachers’ epistemological con-ceptions. Considerations of such conceptions depend on the particular elementsanalysed (scientific methodology, demarcation criteria, the relationship betweenknowledge and reality, etc.), but not on a wide and coherent conception about the

SCIENCE ANDLEARNINGCONCEPTS 199

Table 1. Epistemological and learning dimensions and the themes forinstrument construction.

Dimensions

Epistemological conceptions Learning conceptions

Aspect: conceptual Aspect: experimental Aspect: conceptual Aspect: ExperimentalECC ECE LCC LCE

1. Knowledge-reality 1. Observation- 1. Role of previous 1. Experimentalrelationship knowledge knowledge activity-physics

2. Scientific research relationship 2. Learning processes conceptsprocesses 2. Knowledge-reality 3. Level of relationship

3. Development of relationship explanation- 2. Experimentalscientific theories 3. Knowledge-physics learning activity and

concepts relationship scientific method-relationship ology in the

classroom3. Experimental

activity-learningrelationship

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

47 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

nature of scientific knowledge. This leads to a certain level of eclecticism, aboveall, if we want to draw a precise distinction between the different philosophicalpositions related to the nature of science. We bring the same arguments on thedetermination of the diverse positions about the nature of learning, although thedegree of eclecticism could be less, in agreement with the position of Hashweh(1996) and Porla n et al. (1998). Taking these points into account, we decided toclassify teachers’ conceptions by using epistemological and learning positions in ageneral way, that is by making no distinctions among very close positions such asradical constructivism or moderate constructivism, contextualism or relativism.Koulaidis and Ogborn (1989) used philosophical trends based on processes foracquiring knowledge (inductivism, hypothetic inductivism, contextualism andrelativism) as aids for classifying teachers’ conceptions with a certain precision.With the aimof reducing the reported eclecticismwe decided on a different clas-sification system, more general and centred on trends and positions that takeaccount of the nature of the interaction between knowledge and knower. Theepistemological categories we used are: empiricism, logical positivism and con-structivism. For the learning dimension the categories are: behaviourism, cogni-tivismand constructivism. We describe these categories as follows.

Epistemological categories:

(a) Empiricism(EMP): it assumes that knowledge starts fromexperience andthat at the same time it has its truthfulness in respect of such experience.This category includes realism- in the sense that the acquired knowledgecorresponds to reality and for this very reason is obtained and proved byempirical testing - and inductivism in the sense that theoretical laws areinduced fromexperience.

(b) Logical Positivism(LPOS): it considers the rational necessity of elaborat-ing a logical and mathematical model that allows for the assignment ofmeaning to scientific concepts obtained by scientific methodology withinthe structure of a theoretical system. It also implies the correspondencebetween phenomena and the constructs validated within the theory.Theories are cumulative in this position and positivism, rationalism - inthe sense of the construction of axiomatic theories - and hypothetico-deductivism - that take into account the postulation of abstract entitiesand mathematical deductive processes for establishing laws and principles- are included.

(c) Constructivism(CNS): it expresses knowledge as constructed by individ-uals, basedona representational schemethat canbemodifiedsubstantiallybya transformation, bothconceptual andstructural. It considersphenom-enaas somethingtobe interpretedandtheprocessofvalidationasgivenbythe scientific community. It includes relativismandcontextualismintheirrationalistic and relativistic versions.

Learning categories:

(a) Behaviourism (BEH): it regards learning as a stimulus-response process,wherememory, previousorganizationof content, repeatingandexercising,

200 F. FLORES ET AL.D

ownl

oade

d by

[M

cGill

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:47

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

are the key elements for achieving knowledge. It considers learners as a‘tabula rasa’ in which one can ‘write’ information that can be changed byexperience.

(b) Cognitivism(CGS): learning is explainedbythe mental activity (cognitiveprocesses) of the learner. It shows a certain tendency towards the use ofsyllogisms and inductive and/or deductive relationships with the partici-pation of previous knowledge that allows the assignment of meaning. Itincludes meaningful learning and associationism.

(c) Constructivism (CNS): it establishes that subjects construct knowledgebased on their interaction with context and assumes a genesis in the con-struction of knowledge. It implies a process of mental representation thatis transformed by the action of subjects.

These general categories allowed us the classification of teachers’ responses foreachdimension. Forexample, inthecaseofECC, responses relatedtotherelation-ships betweenknowledge andrealitywereclassifiedasempiricist, logical-positivistor constructivist.

Structure and characteristics of the academic programme

We designed SPTP as an in-service teacher course. It had four curricular axes:epistemology and history of physics, theories of learning and intuitive models,experimenting and computing, and problem solving and assessment. We set uptwo modules with five courses each. The first one took on board aspects of con-struction of knowledge related to philosophical and cognitive issues in physics, aswell as to learning problems. The second treated pedagogical problems, integrat-ing them with the problems of constructing and learning physics concepts. Wescheduled working sessions for a year and a half and teachers participated byreading, discussing, and analysing their teaching practice in the classroom.

It is worth mentioning that during the development of the working sessionsthe group of instructors and teachers took on board a process of analysing par-ticular conceptual transformations in scientific knowledge and the learning ofphysics. The intention was to allow teachers to detect their students’ needs andproblems, as well as the possibilityof developingconceptual changes among them.This was true particularly during the second module. As a final task, teachersdesigned and implemented a pedagogical strategy for teaching a physics theme,assuming a constructivistic approach.

Population

The population included 12 preparatory school physics teachers in a state institu-tion. The institution selected teachers according to their academic success. Allwere full time teachers and had taken an average of four courses during the lastfew years in areas such as pedagogy of physics and physics content - at bothconceptual and experimental levels. Teachers were alumni of applied physicalsciences (civil engineering, mechanical andelectrical engineering, chemical engin-eering, industrial engineering), withonegeologist andonlyonephysicist. Onlyoneof themhad taken graduate studies in education.

SCIENCE ANDLEARNINGCONCEPTS 201D

ownl

oade

d by

[M

cGill

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:47

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Instruments

We designed ten questionnaires for determining teachers’ conceptions to episte-mological and learning issues, based on the dimensions already mentioned (ECC,ECE, LCCandLCE). The first five were appliedduring module 1andthe rest inmodule 2. We used questionnaires during all courses to have a better representa-tion of conceptual transformations rather than using questionnaires only at thebeginning and the end of the SPTP. Each questionnaire had on average sevenquestions. We developed each question by taking into account the aim of theparticular course, which was about to start; according to the dimensions alreadymentioned. Every question had two sections: firstly, students had to choose oneoption among several possibilities and, secondly, they had to justify their option(see Appendix). We organized data in six categories: three for epistemologicalissues about science (EMP, LPOS, CNS) and three for learning issues (BEH,CGN, CNS).

We analysed the final assessment the teachers took at the end of the SPTP,reviewed their reports under the same dimensions mentioned earlier (ECC, ECE,LCCandLCE) andconsideredthe six categories namedabove. Thematerial usedto perform this analysis was mostly instruments and pedagogical strategies fordifferent teaching and assessment purposes.

Results

Classification system

Each questionnaire contained items oneach dimension. Options for each questionwere plausible and corresponded to different epistemological and learning posi-tions, according to the categories already mentioned. Justification for selectedoptions were categorized with the same criteria as the selected options. Both,options and justifications, reflect teachers’ views about science and learning. Forexample, question4 (seeappendix) correspondedtothe epistemological dimension(ECC), with its options (a) representing logicalÐ positivism, (b) constructivismand (c) empiricism. We developed a grading systemto assign points to each selectoption and justification given by teachers.

We organized the results into five tables and one figure. The first three tablesdeal with data coming from the questionnaires and the other two and the figuredeal with data resulting from the analysis of the final work. Table 2 shows data,previously normalized (not all questionnaires have the same number of items) foreach of the modules. These normalized averages reveal teachers’ preferences ineach module.

Tables 3 and 4 (quotient ˆ module 2/module 1) are constructed with the datapresent intable 2. These tables expose teachers’ conceptual transformationsoccur-ringbetweenmodules 1and2. We basedour analysis oncomparingquotients andconsidered that:

(a) If À µ 0:90 then, teachers tend to reduce their initial position (¡ ).(b) If 0:95 µ À µ 1:05, teachers show no significant variation in their prefer-

ences (0).(c) If À ¶ 1:10, teachers tend to change their current position (‡).

202 F. FLORES ET AL.D

ownl

oade

d by

[M

cGill

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:47

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Analysis of data

If we judge changes in teachers’ positions by how large the difference is betweenmodules, due to the SPTP, we can say that their conceptions of science andlearning have changed (see tables 3 and 4). This is so, because in a strict sensethere wouldbe 0s inthe diagonal of the table ifno significant change were present.More noticeable changes are present in dimensions ECC, ECEand LCE, but notin LCC.

Dimensions ECC and ECE, related to the nature of science, seem to show asignificant change in their conceptions by passing from empiricism (15.13 in theECE) and logical positivismto constructivism. Furthermore, constructivismposi-tions increase, judging by the appearance of (+) in the cell corresponding to con-structivism- indimensionECE; although, inthe samecell but indimensionECC,no change appears. On the other hand, we point out that in these dimensionsempiricismloses positionagainst itself andagainst constructivismand, that logicalpositivism(6.41 in the ECE) gains position relative to empiricism.

In the case of dimensions connected with learning issues, the change seemsclear, for instance, in LCE, but is not as extended as in ECCand ECE. Teachers,here, passedfrombehaviourist andcognitivistic (17.55) toconstructivist positions,although those who were already constructivists remained the same. For LCCthechange towards constructivism comes from cognitivism; it seems there is nochange frombehaviourismto constructivism.

SCIENCE ANDLEARNINGCONCEPTS 203

Table 2. Teachers’ epistemological and learning conceptions(normalized averages per module).

Epistemological conceptions Learning conceptions

ECC ECE LCC LCE

Module EMP LPOS CNS EMP LPOS CNS BEH CGN CNS BEH CGN CNS

I 28.36 29.41 42.23 4.5 57.57 37.87 37.29 32.56 30.15 35.8 3.7 60.49II 8.15 50.54 41.3 2.19 29.12 68.62 30.16 30.26 39.68 26.80 8.258 64.95Tot 36.51 79.95 83.53 6.34 86.69 106.5 67.45 62.72 69.83 62.6 11.95 66.98

Table 3. Teachers’ tendency to change epistemological conceptions(quotient ˆ module II/module I).

Module II

Epistemological conceptions: Epistemological conceptions:conceptual experimental

ECC ECE

EMP LPOS CNS EMP LPOS CNS

EMP 0.28 …¡ † 0.28 …¡ † 0.19 …¡ † 0.48 …¡ † 0.04 …¡ † 0.06 …¡ †LPOS 1.78 …‡ † 1.72 …‡† 1.19 …‡ † 6.41 …‡ † 0.51 …¡ † 0.77 …¡ †CNS 1.45 …‡ † 1.40 …‡† 0.98 (0) 15.13 …‡ † 1.19 …‡ † 1.81 …‡ †

ModuleI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

47 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Tables 3 and 4 suggest that in ECC and ECE, teachers modify their initialconceptions about science. This seems clear by the change from empiricist orlogical positivistic science conceptions to positions closer to constructivism;both, in the dimensionof discourse andthat of action. Fromthese results, a changein discourse looks simpler than in action judging by the number of (¡ ) signs foundin table 3. In return, teachers’ conceptions about learning seemto show less cleartendencies towards constructivism; both, in discourse and in action. Moreover,judging from the number of (¡ ) signs in tables 3 and 4, conceptual change inthe discourse looks easier than change in action in both cases in the conceptionsabout science and in the learning of science.

We examinedmaterials corresponding to the teachers’ final work, by identify-ing their conceptual preferences for science and learning. We analysed the type ofinstruments (questionnaires, assessment tasks) and pedagogic strategies (experi-mental activities) in the four dimensions (ECC, ECE, LCC and LCE) anddomains (science: EMP, LPOS, CNS; learning: BEH, CGN, CNS). We scruti-nizedfivedifferentproducts for eachteacher: three instruments andtwopedagogicstrategies. The percentages corresponding to these allocations are shown in tables5 and 6.

Weanalyseddata fromtables 5and6usingcluster analysis (see figure 1). Thisseemed to show that teachers with a constructivist position are consistent acrossboth epistemological and learning issues; others cluster in logical positivistic andbehavioural positionsandfinally, othersgroupinempiricist andcognitivistic ones.This distribution appears to manifest a very well defined group of teachers withinconstructivism, without combination with other positions. Other positions (EMP,LPOS; BEH, CGS)shownoclear-cut assertionsandindicatecombinationsamongthem. Combinations formed by empiricism-cognitivistic and logical positivism-

204 F. FLORES ET AL.

Table 4. Teachers’ tendency to change learning conceptions(quotient ˆ module II/module I).

Module II

Learning conceptions: Learning conceptions:conceptual experimental

LCC LCE

BEH CGN CNS BEH CGN CNS

BEH 0.81 …¡ † 0.93 …0† 1.00 …0† 0.75 …¡ † 7.24 …‡ † 0.44 …¡ †CGN 0.81 …¡ † 0.93 …0† 1.00 …0† 0.23 …‡ † 2.23 …‡ † 0.14 …¡ †CNS 1.07 …0† 1.22 …‡ † 1.32 (+) 1.81 …‡ † 17.55 …‡ † 1.07 …0†

ModuleI

Table 5. Teachers’ epistemological conceptions by averages (teachers’final work).

EMP LPOS CONS

ECC 20 (44.4%) 13 (28.8%) 12 (26.6%)ECE 16 (35.5%) 18 (40.0%) 11 (24.4%)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

47 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

behaviourism confirms what we found in tables 3 and 4; apparently they show atransition between each of these categories.

SCIENCE ANDLEARNINGCONCEPTS 205

Table 6. Teachers’ learning conceptions by averages (teachers’ finalwork).

BEH CGN CNS

LCC 18 (40.0%) 15 (33.3%) 11 24.4%)LCE 19 (42.2%) 19 (42.2%) 7 (15.5%)

Figure 1. Teachers’ epistemological and learning conceptions clusters(ecc1: epistemological conceptions (conceptual), empiricism; ecc2:epistemological conceptions (conceptual), logical positivism;ecc3: epistemological conceptions (conceptual), constructivism;ece1: epistemological conceptions (experimental), empiricism;ece2: epistemological conceptions (experimental), logical positiv-ism; ece3: epistemological conceptions (experimental), constructiv-ism; lcc1: learning conceptions (conceptual), behaviourism; Icc2:learning conceptions (conceptual), cognitivism; lcc3: learning con-ceptions (conceptual), constructivism; lce1: learning conceptions(experimental), behaviourism; lce2: learning conceptions (experi-mental), cognitivism; lce3: learning conceptions (experimental),constructivism).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

07:

47 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Final considerations

Starting fromthe results alreadydescribed and the observations made by instruc-tors during the academic programme, it is possible to arrive at these conclusions:

. It is possible to perceive a consistent transformation of teachers’ views,fromempiricismand behaviourismtowards intermediate positions (logicalpositivismandcognitivism). Our questionnaires seemto reveal this, as wellas our analysis of final materials produced by teachers.

. Onehypothesis is suggested. Passingfromempiricist andbehaviouristposi-tions towards constructivism implies a difficult and complex transforma-tion: It possibly demands a gradual modification (between close positions)and not a radical one. Going fromempiricismto logical positivismimpliesrecognizing the thinking process beyond induction as well as the role ofabstract concepts and the structure of physics theories. In the case of be-haviourism to cognitivism, it requires passing from memorizing contentstowards meaningful learning and the importance of cognitive processes inthe learningof concepts. Nevertheless, going through intermediate concep-tions to constructivismis not so evident. It seems as if a new intermediateposition is required, because constructivism does not share positions withother conceptions.

It is important topoint out that the analysingof transitions betweenpositions, notonly characterizing them, seems to be a promising strategy. It might help theinfluence that epistemological and learningconceptions have on teaching practice.

Results onactual transformations within the classroomteachingare uncertain,as we don’t know what will actually have happened in this context. We haveindirect evidence that seems to showthat teachers’ views about science and learn-ing have changed and seemto be permanent today, by comments made by otherteachers and school administrators. However, follow up on the transformation ofteaching practice is a task that has to be undertaken.

Finally, it is possible to make some suggestions that could derive fromstudy-ing teachers’ training programmes:

. It is convenient to design courses in such a way that disciplinary, episte-mological andcognitive aspects integrate effectively; this is, not just a sepa-rated set of courses.

. It is important to moderate expectations from academic programmesintended to change radically teachers’ conceptions about science and learn-ing; although they are as long as a year and a half.

. It is helpful to look for progressive transitions between teachers’ concep-tions about science and learning and their teaching practice within theclassroom.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the support given by Eduardo Vega and He ctor Covarrubias inthe application of the questionnaires, the technical support offered by TeresaGarcõ a and Martõ n Rosas and, the valuable comments of Dr Neil Bruce.

206 F. FLORES ET AL.D

ownl

oade

d by

[M

cGill

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:47

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ReferencesDUSCHL, R. and WRIGHT, E. (1989) A case study of high school teachers’ decision making

models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,26,467-501.

GALLAGHER, J. J. (1991) Prospective and practising secondary school science teachers’knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75, 121-133.

HASHWEH, M. Z. (1996) Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 47-63.

HODSON, D. (1985) Philosophy of science, science and science education. Studies in ScienceEducation, 12, 24-57.

LEDERMAN, N. G. (1992) Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: areview of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.

LEO N, A. , GONÄ I, H., DOMI NGUEZ, A. , FLORES, F., GALLEGOS, L., GONZA LEZ, J., LO PEZ, A. andROJANO, R. (1995) Ciencias naturales y technologõ a. In G. Waldegg (ed.) Procesos deEnsenÄ anza y Aprendizaje II: La Investigacio n Educativa en los Ochenta, Perspectivaspara los Noventa. (Consejo Mexicano de Investigacio n Educativa), 21-118.

KOULAIDIS, V. and OGBORN, J. (1989) Philosophy of science: anempirical study of teachers’views. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 173-184.

KOULAIDIS, V. and OGBORN, J. (1995) Science teachers’ philosophical assumptions: howwelldo we understand them? International Journal of Science Education, 17, 273-283.

PORLAÂ N, R., RIVERO, A. and MARTIÂ N DEL POZO, R. (1998)Conocimientoprofesional yepistemologõÂ adelos profesores II: Estudios empõÂ ricos y conclusiones. EnsenÄ anza de las Ciencias, 16,271-288.

AppendixSample items used in the questionnaires.This sample contains items fromevery questionnaire applied. All items have two sections:inthe first one, teachers had toselect one of three options and, in the second, theyare askedto justify their selection. In what follows we just include the first section of each item.

(1) School assessment should serve, primarily, as a resource for obtaining evidence aboutthose students who:

(a) Know howto apply procedural rules to distinctive thematic content;(b) Change their ideas and the way that they proceed;(c) Know principal theories and facts established by science.

(2) What would be the main factor to have in mind in analysing the procedure of solvingphysics’ problems?

(a) To verify that the students learnt the concepts well;(b) To define the extent of students’ conceptual change;(c) To determine howstudents represent concepts and their relationships.

(3) When researchers do a scientific experiment, the expected result is:

(a) The discovery of a newphenomenon;(b) The verification of a theory;(c) The confrontation of the theory with the results of an experiment.

(4) History of physics offers situations that would help to understand physics conceptsbecause it:

(a) Points out crucial experiments that determined physics concept;(b) Suggests experiments that support the development of students’ ideas;(c) Represents a set of demonstrations about physical reality.

(5) Which would be the better of two theories? The one which is:

SCIENCE ANDLEARNINGCONCEPTS 207D

ownl

oade

d by

[M

cGill

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:47

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(a) Closer to the truth;(b) Shows useful results;(c) Obtains agreement among researchers?

(6) The most important thing inlearningscience wouldbe toknowif students learnhowto:

(a) Use scientific method;(b) Apply scientific concepts in written problems;(c) Utilize concepts and develop scientific skills.

(7) When one intends students to learn something new, what is the first element to beconsidered?

(a) Physics concepts already learnt;(b) Nothing, is it enough to showthe phenomenon experimentally;(c) Predictive power of concepts already learnt.

(8) Constructivistic point of view about learning might be a useful factor to analyse cur-riculumdevelopment projects for:

(a) Determining the possible causes that produce meaningful learning;(b) Specifying more efficient procedures of pedagogical practice;(c) Pointing out factors that provoke conceptual change.

(9) When students describe phenomena in a wrong way, it is due to:

(a) A wrong observation of what happened;(b) An interpretation made within their own frame of reference;(c) A difficulty in verbal expression.

(10) When students learn, they:

(a) Take information and retain it in memory;(b) Interrelate information and retain it in memory;(c) Interpret information and assign it meanings.

208 SCIENCE ANDLEARNINGCONCEPTSD

ownl

oade

d by

[M

cGill

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:47

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14