Download pdf - Learning to teach science: Personal epistemologies, teaching goals, and practices of teaching

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.ta

$Earlier ver

annual meeting

tion, Montreal,�Tel.: +1 54

E-mail addr

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 478–498

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Learning to teach science: Personal epistemologies, teachinggoals, and practices of teaching$

Nam-Hwa Kang�

Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Oregon State University, 239 Weniger Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-6508, USA

Received 18 April 2006; received in revised form 10 January 2007; accepted 15 January 2007

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to understand what personal epistemologies and science teaching goals preservice

secondary science teachers of a teacher education program in the USA bring with them to their learning to teach and how

they translate such beliefs into actions. A set of essay questions, developed through a pilot study, was used to identify

preservice teachers’ personal epistemologies and teaching goals at the beginning of science methods instruction. Classroom

observation reports, video recorded teaching episodes, lesson plans and self-video reflections were collected to identify

connections between their epistemologies, teaching goals, and practice of teaching. Relational and ontological dimensions

of epistemological beliefs were found to be useful for understanding preservice teachers’ personal epistemologies and

teaching practices. The data suggests that the participants’ espoused teaching goals were relevant to their personal

epistemologies when differentiating naı̈ve personal epistemologies from the sophisticated, and their emerging teaching

practices demonstrated shifts in personal epistemologies and potential for further development in teaching practices.

Findings indicate sources of how teaching practices are shaped. Implications for teacher education include needs for

addressing ways to deal with teaching constraints for constructivist teaching approaches, collaboration with content course

instructors, critical reflection on field experience, and developing induction programs that support continuing development

of emerging teaching practices.

Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Science; Science teacher education; Preservice teacher; Epistemology; Beliefs; Teaching goal

1. Introduction

Many nations around the world have called forreform in science education for more than a decade,sharing some common reform ideals (van Driel,Beijaard, & Verloop, 2001). In particular, the

ee front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

te.2007.01.002

sion of this paper was presented at the 2005

of the American Educational Research Associa-

Canada.

1 737 9891; fax: +1 541 737 1817.

ess: [email protected].

reform emphasizes teacher education by promotingsocial constructivist teaching approaches (Garm &Karlsen, 2004; Tobin, 1993). In the USA, nationalstandards for science teaching have been promotedfor successful reform (National Research Council[NRC], 1996). Traditionally, science has beenpresented as a rigid body of facts to be memorized,which consequently provides students with a dis-torted view of science and less opportunities toexperience science as inquiry (Gallagher, 1991).Hence, the current teaching standards in the USAcall for teachers to embrace a social constructivist

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.002

mailto:[email protected]

ARTICLE IN PRESSN.-H. Kang / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 478–498 479

view of learning and teaching in which science isdescribed as a way of knowing about naturalphenomena and science teaching as facilitation ofstudent learning through science inquiry (NRC,1996).

Learning about the current views of science andscience learning and being able to meet the currentteaching standards are challenging projects forpreservice teachers. Preservice teachers themselvesare the products of traditional science education(Lortie, 1975; Wilson & Ball, 1996) that has failed toadequately describe the epistemic base and thenature of knowledge in science (e.g., Tobin &McRobbie, 1996). Research studies in the USAreport preservice science teachers’ epistemologicalbeliefs and beliefs about teaching (Lemberger,Hewson, & Park, 1999; Palmquist & Finley, 1997).According to these studies, preservice secondaryscience teachers begin their teacher educationprograms with a traditional view of science andscience learning and rarely come out of the initialteacher education program with the knowledge andbeliefs that reflect the current views of science andscience learning promoted in recent science educa-tion reform.

The term ‘epistemological beliefs’ has been usedwidely to refer to personal beliefs about the natureof knowledge and how humans develop knowledge(Hofer & Pintrich, 2002). Although numerous termshave been used in research on epistemologicalbeliefs, the term ‘personal epistemology’ is usedthroughout this paper to refer to individual’s beliefsabout the nature of knowledge and knowing (seeSchraw and Olafson (2002) for further discussion onvarying terms and their meanings).

Much has been studied about epistemologicalbeliefs in education to examine the assumption thatepistemological beliefs are closely related to howstudents learn. A body of research has accumu-lated evidence of numerous links between episte-mological beliefs and student learning in thatstudents’ epistemological beliefs are connected tolearning approaches and outcomes (Hammer, 1994;Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Songer & Linn, 1991;Windschitl & Andre, 1998). On the other hand,teachers’ epistemological beliefs and their connec-tion to teaching practices are understudied (Hofer,2001; Schraw & Olafson, 2002). Given the connec-tions between epistemological beliefs and learningoutcomes, and the current reform emphasis onsocial constructivist teaching approaches, it isessential to understand how teachers’ epistemologi-

cal beliefs are related to various aspects of teachingpractices.

Research on teachers’ epistemological beliefs hascompared the epistemological perspectives con-veyed in traditional teaching approaches with thosein constructivist approaches (Hashweh, 1996;Schoenfeld, 1998; Tobin & McRobbie, 1996). Thesestudies present possible connections between tea-chers’ personal epistemologies and teaching prac-tices. In particular, a few studies demonstrate thatteachers’ epistemological beliefs are related to theirteaching goals in that the goal of preparing studentsfor tests or mastery of factual knowledge convey tostudents epistemological beliefs that could impedemeaningful learning and gaining adequate views ofscience (Kang & Wallace, 2005; Schoenfeld, 1988).Findings indicate that teachers’ different goals forteaching orient their thinking about teaching andinstructional actions (Grossman, 1990; Kang &Wallace, 2005). In particular, Kang and Wallace(2005) found that teachers’ epistemological beliefswere closely connected to their pedagogical ap-proaches to achieve different teaching goals. Giventhe initial findings about connections betweenteachers’ epistemological beliefs and teaching goalsand practices, it is essential to understand howteachers develop personal epistemologies through-out their professional development from initialtraining in the university to continuing professionaldevelopment on the job.

This study, therefore, focused on identifyingpossible connections among teaching goals, episte-mological beliefs, and teaching actions during theinitial teacher training. The purpose of this studywas to understand what personal epistemologiesand science teaching goals preservice secondaryscience teachers of a teacher education program inthe USA bring with them to their learning to teachand how they translate such beliefs into actions.Results of this study would offer ways to assistpreservice teachers in developing reform-based ideasabout science teaching and learning as well asteaching practices.

2. Personal epistemology

Perry’s (1970/1998) seminal work on collegestudents’ epistemic development introduces a seriesof different epistemological perspectives. His re-search team interviewed students of Harvard Uni-versity throughout their college years and identifiedthat the college students moved through some

ARTICLE IN PRESSN.-H. Kang / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 478–498480

sequences in their ideas about knowledge andknowing. Perry’s initial work identified nine posi-tions of epistemic development that were subse-quently categorized into four major perspectives:dualism, multiplism, relativism, and commitmentwithin relativism (Moore, 2002). A dualist has themost naı̈ve beliefs seeing knowledge as right orwrong and truth as knowable. Dualists in Perry’sstudy eventually modified their beliefs into multip-lism, as they went through college education, byacknowledging possibilities of uncertainty andmultiple perspectives or truths. Relativists, on theother hand, not only recognized multiple viewpoints, but also saw conflicting views as equallyvalid, and the concept of truth became meaningless.Some students developed further from relativism bycommitting themselves to a certain viewpoint asthey recognized some views were better than othersin context.

Perry’s scheme is in alignment with the discussionin the philosophy of science that addresses theepistemology of science. Modern philosophers ofscience challenge the traditional view of science, i.e.,science is based on facts that are directly establishedby unprejudiced use of senses rather than opinions(Chalmers, 1999; Kuhn, 1996; Lakatos &Musgrave,1970; Losee, 1972). The traditional view of sciencepromotes dualism in Perry’s scheme in that scienceis depicted as a body of knowledge that reflects thenature as it is and hence, is accepted as truth.Through careful examinations of scientists at work,modern philosophers of science provide evidencethat scientific observations are theory dependent.Therefore, ‘‘facts’’ are fallible and science is notnecessarily right or wrong. Two observers do nothave the same perceptual experiences; rather, theirperceptions depend on their past experience, knowl-edge and expectations. Therefore, philosophers ofscience have refuted dualism in the view of scienceand have promoted more sophisticated epistemolo-gical perspectives. People with more sophisticatedepistemological beliefs about science reject theobjective truth, recognize multiple realities andconsider science knowledge as human construction.These sophisticated epistemological perspectives arepromoted in the US science education reformdocuments as both learning goals and teachingapproaches (NRC, 1996).

Whereas Perry’s scheme describes developmentalchanges in epistemological beliefs in one dimension,recent research in educational psychology suggestsdimensionality in epistemological beliefs (Hofer,

2000; Schommer, 1990). Research evidence illus-trates beliefs as a system of several dimensions, andhence, it is expected that individuals can hold sets ofindependent beliefs that do not necessarily developin synchrony (Pajares, 1992). Based on the literaturein both educational psychology (Hofer, 2004;Schommer, Calvert, Gariglietti, & Bajaj, 1997)and science education (Bartholomew, Osborne, &Patcliffe, 2004; Kang & Wallace, 2005; Kirschner,1992), this study adopted a view of multipledimensions of epistemological beliefs to understandpreservice science teachers’ personal epistemologiesand their learning to teach. In particular, thedimensions of certainty and simplicity of knowl-edge, drawn from Perry’s scheme (Schommer,1990), were focused in this study because they areclosely related to the current view of sciencepromoted in the US reform documents. On thecertainty dimension, a learner may take a positionon a continuum between two extremes: scientificknowledge is a certain and fixed entity or a tentativeand evolving construct. On the simplicity dimen-sion, on the other hand, a learner may take aposition on a continuum between two extremes:science as a collection of pieces of information orscience as a network of concepts.

In addition to the two dimensions, relationaldimension is also included in this study. WhereasPerry’s work was limited to males from an eliteinstitution, Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, andTarule (1986) focused on females from diversebackgrounds. By focusing on how women gainknowledge in various social positions, these re-searchers broadened the scope of personal episte-mology to sociocultural aspects of knowing. Theyidentified various perceptions of the role of theknower in knowledge construction and hence,added a new dimension to the personal epistemol-ogy—relationship between the knower and theknown. In their study, women moved from a viewthat knowledge resides in external authority, i.e.,outside the self to a view that knowledge is activelyconstructed by the knower through interactionswith the environment or reciprocal understandingwith others. Therefore, the role of the knowerchanges from passive listener or spectator (receivedknowing) to an active constructor of meaning(connected knowing). The inclusion of this rela-tional aspect of personal epistemology is directlyconnected to the current promotion of socialconstructivist teaching approaches that preservicescience teachers are required to learn.


The literature alludes that teachers’ personalepistemologies are relevant to teaching actions. Ina survey study, Hashweh (1996) found that teachers’professed epistemological beliefs were consistentwith their preferred teaching strategies. In aninterview study, Yerrick, Parke, and Nugent(1997) also found that the teachers’ views of sciencewere consistent with their instructional choices interms of content, instructional strategies, andassessment methods. Given these findings aboutthe possible connection between personal epistemol-ogies and teaching actions, further research on howteachers translate their personal epistemologies intoteaching actions will provide a deeper understand-ing of classroom teaching actions and guidance toteacher education programs.

3. Goals in science education

Developing scientific literacy for all students isthe primary goal for science education in the currentscience education reform in many countries (Millar& Osborne, 1998; NRC, 1996; van Driel et al.,2001). The US National Science Education Stan-dards (NRC, 1996) identify that ‘‘scientific literacyenables people to use scientific principles andprocesses in making personal decisions and toparticipate in discussions of scientific issues thataffect society’’ (p. ix). In achieving this goal, the USstandards call for significant changes in teachers’knowledge and beliefs and instructional goals andpractices. Teachers are asked to teach contemporaryviews of science and help students develop deeperunderstanding of concepts and scientific inquiryskills that foster critical thinking skills. For thosechanges, teachers should have sophisticated episte-mological beliefs about science and adopt socialconstructivist teaching approaches (NRC, 1996).

In order to support teachers to teach to thereform goals, the US researchers have examinedteachers’ existing teaching practices and theirchanges when reform efforts are promoted inschools (Davis, 2002; Lynch, 1997). In examiningteachers’ teaching practices, understanding teachers’teaching goals is essential because teaching goals arebelieved to serve as a conceptual framework forteachers to understand the curriculum and makedecisions on instructional and assessment methods(Friedrichsen & Dana, 2005; Grossman, 1990).Therefore, identifying teaching goals provides aclearer understanding of teachers’ actions in theclassroom. For instance, Kang and Wallace (2005)

found that teachers’ primary teaching goals influ-enced their ways of using laboratory activities inscience instruction. When one of the teachers intheir study intended to help students pass a state-mandated test the teacher used structured labs tohelp students remember factual knowledge; on theother hand, the same teacher used problem-solvingtype lab when he was to engage students in scientificinquiry and constructing their own knowledge.

Understanding teachers’ teaching actions throughtheir instructional goals can also serve as a criticalwindow into teachers’ epistemological beliefs andwhat epistemological perspectives are conveyed tostudents in the classroom. Schoenfeld (1988) re-ported that teachers’ instructional approaches con-veyed epistemological beliefs whether intended ornot. In his study, the teacher’s traditional goal ofenhancing computational accuracy unintentionallydiminished student understanding of concepts andthinking skills and consequently, carried a distortedview of the subject matter. Tobin and McRobbie’s(1996) study also illustrates that teachers live in‘‘cultural myths’’ that promote the traditionalteaching approaches to achieve traditional teachinggoals, such as transmission of factual knowledge,embedded in naı̈ve epistemological beliefs andhence, convey distorted views of science to students.They recommend that teachers should becomeaware of their cultural myths to learn and imple-ment alternatives promoted in the current scienceeducation reform. Teacher education, therefore,should support teachers’ becoming aware of theirown epistemological beliefs and learning how theirepistemological beliefs and teaching goals impacttheir teaching approaches and the images of scienceconveyed to their students.

Anderson and Helms (2001) claim that researchon science education reform efforts does not yetprovide teachers with a clear view of how to gainprofessional competencies to realize the reformideals. In order to gain insights into ways to assistscience teachers in developing reform-based ideasabout science teaching and learning as well asteaching practices, this study focused on identifyingpossible connections among teaching goals, episte-mological beliefs and teaching actions during theinitial teacher training.

4. Methods

The research problem requires an in-depthstudy of teacher thinking in action. Therefore, an


interpretive research methodology was employed(Merriam, 1998). The literature on personal epis-temologies in educational psychology (Hofer, 2004;Schommer, 1990) and science education (Hashweh,1996; Kang & Wallace, 2005) served as a frameworkfor data collection and analysis as described in thesubsequent sections.

4.1. Participants

Participants were recruited from three sections ofa secondary science methods course taught by theresearcher at a state university in the USA. Of the23 preservice secondary science teachers whoparticipated in this study, there were nine malesand 14 females. All but two students (one African-American and one Asian-American) were white.Eight of them enrolled in the course with aBachelor’s degree in a science-related field whilethe others were seniors in undergraduate programs.Participants’ science backgrounds included engi-neering (1), general science (2), earth science (4) andbiology (16). All the participants came to themethods course with one general teacher educationcourse that included 20 h of school classroomobservation. The science methods course wasaccompanied by a field experience in which theparticipants went to assigned secondary schools for6 h a week to observe and teach science lessons. Thepreservice teachers were taking science contentcourses in addition to those two 6 credit hourscience education courses. The following semesterthey were expected to complete student teaching.

4.2. Data collection

The data sources include participants’ essays ontheir past science learning histories (LH), classroomobservation (CO) report, lesson plans (LP), videorecorded teaching (VT), and self-video reflection(VR). All the data were parts of course assignments,and no special incentive for participation was given.This study is not a design experiment in which anintervention is designed and implemented for aneffect to inform refinement of its design and theory(Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004). Rather, thestudy is about identifying preservice teachers’personal epistemologies at the beginning of learningto teach and exploring how they enact their personalepistemologies as they form their own ways ofteaching through initial field experiences. Therefore,none of the activities the preservice teachers

completed in this study were specially designed forthe study; rather, the activities were parts of aregular science methods course that aimed to helppreservice teachers become reflective professionals(Abell & Bryan, 1997).

4.2.1. Science LH

This data source was used for identifyingpreservice teachers’ personal epistemologies. It iswidely accepted that preservice teachers’ prior ideasabout teaching and learning originate from theirlong-term experiences as students of science (Lortie,1975; van Zee & Roberts, 2001). Previous studiesutilized interviews about LH to identify personalepistemologies (Belenky et al., 1986; Perry, 1998/1970). Therefore, reflection on past science learningexperience was assumed to be a valid tool to probepersonal epistemologies. In the course, this assign-ment served as a starting point for the preserviceteachers to discuss the science education reformideals compared with their own experience.

A pilot study was conducted, in which interviewsabout preservice teachers’ science LH were used(Kang & Oldfather, 2002). Based on the findings ofthe pilot study, a set of guiding questions for LHwas developed so that the participants wrote essaysin place of interviews (Appendix A). The partici-pants were familiar with writing a reflection paperthrough their previous general education course.The guiding questions focused on personal epis-temologies in the context of science teaching andlearning. On the first day of the course, I presentedthe purpose of LH and discussed what eachquestion was meant to ask. The purpose waspresented as two folds: one purpose was for theinstructor to understand students’ prior ideas totailor the course curriculum, and the other was forthe preservice teachers to reflect upon their pastexperience to learn how it impacted their currentideas about science teaching and learning. Thepreservice teachers were encouraged to detail theirpast learning experiences, and reiteration of eventsor thoughts in answering different questions wasstrongly recommended as it normally happensduring interviews. The preservice teachers turnedin their LH before the second meeting of the course.Upon analysis, one major difference was foundbetween LH and interview responses. In the essayresponse, the preservice teachers reiterated pastevents or their thoughts less frequently while inter-view responses tended to repeat the same descrip-tions of events or statements. In both cases,


however, I was able to construct consistent themesin personal epistemologies for each participant withno difficulty.

4.2.2. CO report

During the study, the participants had fieldexperiences in which they observed and taughtscience lessons in secondary schools. For this study,each participant was asked to complete one formalCO report. For the report, the participants wereasked to observe a science lesson while writing downfield notes. They were asked to record (a) back-ground information (grade, subject, number ofstudents—gender, ethnicity, students of specialneeds, and etc.), (b) teacher comments, questions,or descriptions of tasks, (c) student responses and(d) teacher responses to student responses. Usingthe field notes, the participants wrote an essay paperon how the interactions between the teacher andstudents or among students were related to studentlearning and implications for teaching. The fieldnotes served as a tool for the preservice teachers toreflect on their view of learning and teaching inactual classroom teaching contexts. The partici-pants submitted both field notes and reflectionpapers. The purpose of this activity was presented assuch so that the preservice teachers were asked tocompare their idea of science teaching and learning,what they observed happening in another teacher’sclassroom, and what had been discussed in theirprevious education course and the methods course.This assignment was completed during the earlyphase of the course and used several times as aresource for course discussions when the preserviceteachers felt it was relevant to the discussion.

4.2.3. LP, VT, and VR

The field experience required the participants toplan and teach at least five lessons. The participantswere asked to video record themselves teaching onescience lesson and reflect upon it. Due to the variousschool conditions for field experiences, there was nospecific instruction for video recording. The parti-cipants were informed of this activity early in thecourse so that they could have enough time to planrecording. The preservice teachers were able tocheck out a camcorder from the college technicalsupport office or from me. The instruction was assimple as ‘‘video record your lesson to reflect onyour teaching actions’’, and I related the purpose ofthe activity to that of the CO activity. Without aspecific format, the LP included the following

components: lesson objectives, lesson materials,descriptions of procedures, and assessment meth-ods. Guiding questions for the VR were provided tofocus their reflection on science learning andteaching (Appendix B). In particular, the questionsencouraged the participants to focus on theirinteractions with students and decisions madeduring the lesson to find out how participantsconnect their role to student learning. In addition,the guiding questions reflect some of the sciencemethods course content. For example, terms such as‘‘meaningful learning’’ and ‘‘higher level thinking’’were discussed in relation to inquiry-based teaching(Chiappetta & Koballa, 2002) before the assign-ment.

4.3. Data analysis

The content analysis method (Miles & Huber-man, 1994) was used. Data analysis started as soonas LH reports were collected. Initially, as I read theLH reports, I divided texts into minimum meaningunits and attached a code to each separated unit.For example, codes for participants’ LH included‘lab for understanding’, ‘understanding students’cognitive levels’, ‘providing information beforepractice’, ‘receiving base knowledge’, ‘teacher en-thusiasm’, ‘too much content’, ‘grade emphasisculture’, ‘learning by experience’ and ‘problemsolving practice/skills’.

When the initial coding of the data from LH wascompleted, I grouped all the codes into twocategories, i.e., teaching goals and personal epis-temologies and then identified themes within thecategory. For example, the initial code, ‘providinginformation before practice’ was assigned to ‘perso-nal epistemologies’, and then its content wasreviewed again to construct themes within thecategory. The themes in each category were devel-oped for each individual participant resulting inindividual belief profiles.

Using the initial belief profile as an analysisframework I analyzed subsequent data to identifyconsistency and inconsistency between the initialprofile and data from the other sources such as CO,LP, VT and VR (data triangulation). As shown inthe findings section, both the common themes andinconsistency in the different types of data werefocused in data analysis for further understandingof the data (Mathison, 1988; Schuh, 2004).

In addition to the data triangulation, researchertriangulation was used (Patton, 1990). Two or three


participants’ personal epistemology profiles fromeach section (total of 8 participants) were shown tothe professor who taught them a general educationcourse in the previous semester. During the course,the participants completed 15-min microteachinglessons and reflected on their teaching styles incomparison with various teaching styles including asocial constructivist approach. Therefore, the pro-fessor had an understanding of the participants’personal epistemologies to some degree. She pro-vided feedback on the data analysis comparingher understanding of the participants’ personalepistemologies with the data analysis. We agreedupon dividing students into two groups—traditionaland constructivist, and then I completed furtheranalysis.

There was no formal individual member check inthis study. However, throughout the course meet-ings, informal member checks were conducted whendiscussions on relevant topics occurred. For exam-ple, all the tasks used as data sources in this studywere shared in class. Therefore, the data codesconstructed immediately after data collection wasincluded in the discussion. The participants wereaware of the research and hence, occasionally theauthor presented on-going construction of researchfindings to gain feedback from the participantswithin the limitation of making the discussionrelevant to the course. Moreover, during the finalcourse meeting, a discussion on personal epistemol-ogies and teaching practices was held in order toshare differences and similarities among the parti-cipants and served as the final informal membercheck.

5. Findings

In this section, the participants’ initial personalepistemologies are presented first. Then, theirespoused teaching goals are presented followed byconnections among the epistemologies, goals, andteaching actions.

5.1. Personal epistemologies

The US reform standards ask teachers to presentthe nature of science and to provide learningopportunities through sense-making activities inwhich students are responsible for their ownlearning (NRC, 1996). Therefore, teachers areexpected to present scientific knowledge not as theabsolute truth to be received but as meanings to be

constructed and to connect students with scientificknowledge that they construct. These two taskswere promoted during the methods course in whichthe participants enrolled. However, it was notexpected that the participants change their episte-mological beliefs during the relatively short-term(15 weeks) methods course compared with theirlong-term experience as science learners. Rather, theparticipants were expected to become aware of theirpersonal epistemologies through the course tasksused as data sources for this study. I concur withHammer and Elby (2002) that personal epistemol-ogies are activated by contexts. Therefore, thefindings reported in this section are the preserviceteachers’ personal epistemologies activated by thecourse tasks, and hence may be showing parts oftheir belief sets. The participants’ personal epis-temologies reported in this section are drawn fromtheir LH and CO reports.

Although three dimensions of personal epistemol-ogies guided data analysis, the dimensions ofsimplicity and certainty were collapsed into onebecause of the lack of data to distinguish partici-pants’ beliefs in the two dimensions. This combineddimension of personal epistemologies is calledontological dimension because it relates to the viewof truth and reality—whether to see knowledge asone true certain representation of the reality orknowledge as multiple interpretations of reality withmore or less uncertainty. Therefore, two maindimensions of epistemological beliefs emerged fromthe data: ontological and relational dimensions. Theontological dimension addresses the preserviceteachers’ view of scientific knowledge as representa-tions of reality. The participants took a position inthis dimension on a spectrum of two extremes:science as a fixed body of knowledge with certainty(T1) and science as an evolving body of knowledgeand inquiry (T2). The relational dimension repre-sents participants’ beliefs about knowing—how theparticipants related themselves or their students toscience. The two extremes in this dimension includelearning as receiving school subject knowledge (R1)and learning as answering one’s own questions (R2).

Although categorization is susceptible to over-simplification of complex phenomena, it is useful forunderstanding of data and a clear data representa-tion. Direct quoting of data is used to maintain apathway back to the full data set. Depending ontheir positions on the two dimensions, participantswere grouped into four: (T1, R1), (T1, R2), (T2,R1), and (T2, R2) (Fig. 1). Although common

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Participants’ personal epistemologies in two dimensions (pseudonyms).

N.-H. Kang / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 478–498 485

salient characteristics of the participants’ personalepistemologies guided the grouping, individuals ineach group had variations along the continuum ofeach dimension to some degree. Furthermore, themembership in each group presented in this sectionneeds to be considered in flux as it is the result ofthe activation caused by the two tasks. Therefore,I exercised caution in using these cells as indicatinga static grouping.

5.1.1. (T1, R1) group: received facts

Nine participants demonstrated the most naı̈vepersonal epistemologies in which they viewedscience as a body of objective knowledge to bereceived. When the preservice teachers in this groupdescribed their science LH they portrayed science asfull of information that was given by the teachersand left out the process of knowing. For instance,Kayla stated, ‘‘I was always particularly interestedin breaking down facts to their most finite points formore complete understanding’’ indicating science asa body of knowledge that can be divided into smallpieces of information to be delivered to the learner.

Similarly, Ryan stated, ‘‘Science is a subjectcontaining an incredible amount of information’’and claimed that teachers should organize theinformation in a systematic way to make itintelligible to students (Ryan, LH). All the membersin this group depicted science as a collection ofinformation that they were interested in, andsometimes they were overwhelmed by. In the meantime, they never mentioned the process of inquiry inscience and/or science learning.

By excluding the process of knowing in thedescription of their views of science and sciencelearning, the members in this group separatedthemselves and students from science. For them,science was a separate body of knowledge to beobtained from the knowledge sources such as theteacher or the textbook. For instance, Marvindescribed why he wanted to be a teacher stating,‘‘I like [teaching] when [students] come up to me andask great questions, and I can fill their heads withvast amount of information’’ (LH). In his case, hisLH was full of description of scientific informationthat he obtained from teachers during his past


experience. Consistent with this, Marvin’s COreport also demonstrated his view of knowing asreceiving knowledge from the knowledge sources:

[The teacher] started to work on the TissueReview for Thursday’s testy. She would gothrough the page from top to bottom reading thequestions as the students responded to thequestionsy. I felt that this is a great way tointeract with the students. First with the ques-tion/response type of review if the students haveany misconceptions or just plainly do not knowthe answer it can be addressed at that timey.Fourth are those straightforward answers tostudents’ questions make for student knowledge[sic].

For Marvin, science was a body of knowledge to bereceived from knowledge sources, mostly theteacher. How he or his students processed theinformation to gain a deeper understanding wasbeyond his perspective. Similarly, the members inhis group disconnected the learner from science, andassisting students’ knowledge construction was notevident in their responses.

5.1.2. (T1, R2) group: constructed facts

One participant, Olivia, was distinguished fromthe previous group members in the relationaldimension of epistemological beliefs resulting inthe group (T1, R2). She also believed that sciencewas a body of information. However, she includedherself in the picture of science by believing that shecould be a little scientist who could ‘discover’ pre-existing knowledge on her own. Olivia described herexperience of ‘‘moon watch’’ assignment andrevealed her personal epistemologies:

I absolutely loved this assignment and was proudof my research after having recorded every dayfor 9 months this informationy. To this day thatexperience has sparked an amateur astronomerin myself and I keep up with the latest informa-tion with the Hubble Telescope and my ownobservations (LH).

Olivia identified herself with ‘‘amateur’’ scientistwho could keep up with scientific information.Similarly, she repeatedly mentioned becoming anamateur scientist as a valuable science learningexperience: ‘‘We did much more hands-on typeexperimentsy for a brief moment we were scien-tists’’ (LH). Although her description of science andscience learning was limited to scientific informa-

tion, she valued students’ involvement in the processof gathering information resulting in relatingstudents to science.

5.1.3. (T2, R1) group: received inquiry

Eight participants believed that science wastentative and evolving knowledge but separatedthe science of scientists and school science. There-fore, they emphasized science as a process in whichknowledge was refined and constructed. However,they limited this process to the scientific communityand did not relate to their own science learning orteaching. They were spectators of science. Forinstance, Kacy defined science as ‘‘the method ofdiscovering and understanding things that areunknown to humans’’ but at the same time, shestated, ‘‘[Science is] providing us with a betterunderstanding of our world and beyond’’ (LH)indicating science is outside her and her students. Inthe same essay, she described science learning:

I know that I need to have a combination oflecture and labs for science because during thelecture I receive [italics added] the base knowl-edge that I need to apply in the laby. Ourstudents can learn more by experiencing itybutwe also need to show them how to appreciate thewritten words of others that have made advances,big and small.

Apparently for Kacy science is something out thereproviding us with information and methods thatscientists invented. Science learners have a passiverole of receiving in her epistemological beliefs.

Similarly, the other members in her groupemphasized the inquiry aspect of science, but theydid not relate science inquiry to the learning processand seemed to envision a passive role of the learner.For instance, Elisa viewed science as ‘‘anything thatis studied through observations or experiments’’(LH) instead of a fixed body of information, andthen she described her learning experience and ideasabout teaching in terms of assimilation rather thanactive construction. For instance, she observed alesson on Punnett squares in which the teacher drewcorrect answers from students to guide the lesson tothe prescribed content. She evaluated the observedlesson as exemplary and failed to point out themonologue-like nature of classroom interaction thatdid not invite different ideas or questions fromstudents. Although Elisa viewed science as knowl-edge construction process she did not relate the


process to learning and teaching resulting in distin-guishing school science from real science.

5.1.4. (T2, R2) group: constructed inquiry

Five participants demonstrated the most sophis-ticated personal epistemologies. They believed thatscience was evolving theories and processes ofmultiple methods and that they could seek scientificanswers to their own questions in school. Forexample, Denis defined science as ‘‘attempting toanswer the how and why of what we experience andobservey [and hence] human knowledge continuesto grow’’ (LH). Given his view of science as bothinquiry and knowledge, he promoted scientificinquiry methods in teaching:

During my [high school] sophomore year therewas a big shift from facts to a more investigativeapproachy. I really enjoyed this approach, and Ithink it was noticeably lacking through most ofmy earlier science educationy. Science teachingis most effective when it guides students to makethe discoveries themselvesydiscussing theirideas before presenting the facts (LH).

As the excerpt demonstrates, Denis differentiated‘‘facts’’ from ‘‘investigative approach’’. Consistentwith his view of science as answering how and why,he believed that science learning should be conduct-ing inquiry and finding out answers on one’s ownwith guidance. In his CO report, he pointed out theimportance of communication of thoughts inlearning:

It was fairly obvious what answer [the teacher]was looking for. Although it seemed to spurstudent participationyit didn’t really providemuch detail on the level of student understand-ing. Also, I think yes/no answers are lacking aslearning tools for other students because there isno information provided that they can compareand contrast with their own thoughts.

Denis differentiated student participation as simpleattending behavior from interactions with theteacher, peers, or the learning materials on acognitive level (Copeland, Birmingham, DeMuelle,D’Emidio-Caston, & Natal, 1994). Apparently,learning was viewed as communicating and con-structing ideas. Just like Denis viewed science as‘‘attempting to answer how and why’’ his view ofknowing was focused on the process of thinking andcommunicating ideas.

Similarly, the members of this group emphasizedthe evolving nature of science and advocated the useof inquiry as an effective teaching and learning tool.Moreover, they identified themselves with scientistsin their description of past science learning experi-ences and wanted their students to be able tosimulate scientific approaches in learning—sciencewas what their students can do.

5.2. Teaching goals

Participants’ teaching goals were identified fromall data sources. In this section, however, the goalsidentified from learning history are presented be-cause the data source involves participants’ re-sponses to direct questions about science teachinggoals while the others are indirect data that requiremore inferences in analysis. Therefore, the teachinggoals described in this section are espoused beliefs

that may be normative in nature i.e., written tosatisfy the reader or ideal that may not be enacteddue to constraints. Consequently, caution needs tobe taken in understanding the findings in this section.This issue is discussed further in the next section.

Most participants addressed the usefulness ofscientific knowledge for students to understand andutilize in everyday life. Given the common goal, theparticipants were grouped into two according toadditional primary goals emphasized, respectively:developing scientific thinking skills for inquiry anddeveloping appreciation of scientific knowledge(Table 1). Participants who advocated developingthinking skills in learning science used terms such as‘‘analytical thinking skills’’, ‘‘curiosity’’, ‘‘logicalthinking’’, and ‘‘a different way to think’’. Theyfurther elaborated their meaning of these termsindicating they were referring to scientific inquiryskills. For example, Anna elaborated her goal forscience teaching:

[Science learning can] improve our critical andanalytical thinking skills, our creativity by for-mulating interesting questions, by requiring us tofollow the entire process and our presentationskills, by having us show what we discoveredabout our hypothesisy. [Science learning] mademe understand the inner-workings of scientificdiscovery (LH).

For Anna, science learning was to develop skillsto conduct inquiry in science. Similarly, othermembers in this group advocated thinking skillsfor scientific inquiry.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Participants’ additional primary science teaching goals and direct quotes

Developing thinking skills for science inquiry Developing appreciation of science knowledge

Anna: To improve our critical and analytical thinking

skills, to understand inner workings of science

Alpha: To be aware of the scientific explanations and appreciate the importance

of scientific information in every day’s occurrences

Bart: To supply base knowledge to the scientists of

tomorrow, to develop complex thinking skills

Andy: To gain new knowledge

Denis: To exercise minds, to enable [students] to ask

‘‘why’’ and even go further to ask ‘‘what if’’ to build

the knowledge required to make educated decisions

Dan: To appreciate science in everyday life

Hedy: An open mindy Science teaching is about

provoking curiosity in students and guiding them to

ask questions

Dick: Science is a tool, to understand information necessarily for technology-

driven society

Maddy: To make educated decisions, logical thinking

that everyone can benefit from

Elisa: To prepare our youth for successful career and fulfilling personal lives

Emma: To learn how things work in everyday life

Ethan: To show students aspects of science which apply to real world situations

Haley: To prepare for the future

Jade: An understanding of science is critical so that they can become more

familiar with the world and processes around them

Jake: Learning about the world around you and how things work

Jane: Science gives students an understanding of why and how we are here

Kacy: Students need to learn and understand science because it is something that

effects them in everyday life

Kayla: If students have a better understanding of science, they will have a better

ability to function on a daily basis

Marvin: Science gives students a better understanding of what there is in the

world

Nelly: To know how the world around them works, to make educated decisions

Olivia: To learn more about the universe, earth, why things do what they do

Paige: To understand the world around us and to be successful in school and

future

Ryan: To understand the world around us

N.-H. Kang / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 478–498488

On the other hand, more participants emphasizedappreciation of the usefulness of science in everydaylife and excluded thinking skills as learning out-comes. They focused on the body of knowledge andapplications of the knowledge in everyday phenom-ena as the content of science teaching. For example,Nelly elaborated why she thought students shouldlearn science:

Students need to know how the world aroundthem works. What is the science behind their cellphones, their cars, their food, and their homes?

Theyyshould know the basic concepts of theirworkingsy. They can choose healthier foods orat least understand why certain foods may not begood for them (LH).

Nelly wanted her students to be able to applyscientific information in order to make informeddecisions as consumers of science. This emphasis onbeing knowledgeable about science applied toeveryday life was distinctive from understanding‘‘the inner working of science’’ on which the othergroup members focused.


Similarly, Ethan emphasized applications ofscientific knowledge stating that science teaching isto ‘‘show students aspects of science which apply toreal world situations’’. All the other members of thisgroup emphasized students’ appreciation of theusefulness of scientific knowledge. This indicates aninstrumental perspective of science in science learn-ing.

5.2.1. Possible links between personal epistemologies

and teaching goals

Comparisons of the two different primary goals—developing thinking skills for inquiry and apprecia-tion of the use of scientific knowledge—andparticipants’ personal epistemologies provided aninsight into whether the primary teaching goalsare related to personal epistemologies. All themembers who viewed science learning as a way todevelop both students’ knowledge and thinkingskills for inquiry were from the (T2, R2) groupof personal epistemologies. The five participants inthis group viewed science as evolving knowledgeand the knower/learner can seek answers to theirown questions. Consistent with their personalepistemologies, these preservice teachers viewedthe goal of teaching science as helping studentslearn scientific knowledge and develop thinkingskills that were necessary to conduct scientificinquiry.

On the other hand, the other preservice teachersignored the goal of science teaching for developinginquiry skills; instead, they emphasized appreciationof utility of scientific knowledge. This seemed to beconsistent with their personal epistemologies. Thosewho considered science as facts paid little attentionto thinking skills involved in science (T1; those whoare in left two quadrants in Fig. 1), and conse-quently their espoused teaching goals did notinclude developing students’ inquiry skills. Not allpreservice teachers who viewed science as anevolving body of knowledge that entailed a processof inquiry (T2), however, included developinginquiry skills as teaching goals. The relationaldimension of personal epistemology seemed to beclosely connected to the goal of developing thinkingskills for inquiry. When the participants viewedscience as evolving knowledge (T2) and connectedthemselves to science by identifying themselves asscientists (R2), they expected their students to bescientists who can conduct scientific inquiry andhence, their teaching goals included thinking skillsfor inquiry.

5.3. Translating beliefs into practice

In this section, participants’ actions and reflec-tions on their teaching episodes are reported incomparison with the personal epistemologies andgoals that they espoused. The data on participants’teaching actions are drawn from their VT episodesand their reflections. Not all the participantsrecorded their ‘ideal’ lessons, according to them,mainly because they were in someone else’s class-room. Moreover, only one teaching episode perparticipant falls short of understanding their teach-ing practices in full. Therefore, participants’ reflec-tions on their teaching actions served as criticalcomplementary data.

Understanding how beliefs are translated intopractice requires an understanding of how beliefsdrive practice (Kagan, 1992; Richardson, 2003) andhow practice is negotiated in teaching contexts.Therefore, the participants’ personal epistemolo-gies, teaching goals and their reflection on actionsguided my interpretation of their actions. The dataindicates a great deal of inconsistency betweenespoused beliefs and actions. It is likely thatthe methods course and field experiences assistedthe participants in their formation of teachingpractice, although changes in beliefs were notexpected during the relatively short term. There-fore, the inconsistency found in the data wasinterpreted as the connection between emergingpractices and being introduced to new perspec-tives of science teaching and learning rather thanchanges in beliefs. This perspective provided un-foreseen insights into the participants’ learning toteach. This is further discussed after the descrip-tion of each group of preservice teachers’ teachingactions.

Initially, it was expected that four distinctivepatterns would emerge according to the categoriesof personal epistemology. Those who limit scienceto a collection of facts might emphasize factualinformation while others focus on inquiry thinking.Those who believe knowing as receiving mightengage students differently from others who believeknowing as constructing meanings. Different com-binations of positions on these two dimensions wereexpected to emerge from the data. The data onparticipants’ teaching actions (VT) revealed threeout of four possible combinations, and theirreflection (VR) suggested the fourth combinationas a potential pattern of teaching actions. The threeenacted patterns of teaching included: presenting


science as facts or procedures and setting asidestudents’ meaning construction as a black box,consistent with (T1, R1) epistemological beliefs;presenting science as a product of thinking involvedin problem solving and asking students to follow thegiven scientific thinking, consistent with (T2, R1)epistemological beliefs; presenting science as athinking or inquiry process and inviting students’thinking as a knowledge source, consistent with (T2,R2) epistemological beliefs. Most participants ex-pressed their feeling of successful enactment of theirbeliefs, but five participants (Alpha, Haley, Maddy,Olivia and Ryan) reflected that their actions werenot representative of their beliefs about teaching forvarious reasons (VRs) (dormant group). Amongthem, Olivia and Ryan suggested a possibility ofstudents’ searching for information instead of theirpresentation resulting in the fourth way of teachingactions, consistent with (T1, R2) epistemologicalbeliefs. The data suggested that many of theparticipants’ membership in the personal epistemol-ogies group shifted as indicated in Fig. 2. In the

Relational epistemKnowing as activeor seeking one’s ow

Ontological dimension: Science as a collection of facts or information and straightforward representation of nature

Relational epistemoloKnowing as receiving

(T1, R2) Olivia

Ryan

Jane, Kayla, Nelly Dick, Jake (T1, R1)

Fig. 2. Participants’ personal epistemologies in action. (Members in the

initial personal epistemology group the underlined participants are.)

following sections typical teaching actions of themembers in each group are briefly described alongwith potential explanations for the changes in theirmembership.

5.3.1. Actions of (T1, R1) group

Five participants (Dick, Jake, Jane, Kayla, Nelly)demonstrated a similar pattern of teaching actions.All of them listed science topics as their lessonobjectives using the following phrases: ‘‘Studentswill be able to describey’’, ‘‘Students will learnabouty’’, ‘‘Students will demonstrate their knowl-edge ofy’’ (LPs). All but Nelly lectured for the first15–20min while students were taking notes, andthen they asked students to complete textbookreview questions or worksheet questions. Nelly useda student laboratory activity in a similar way. Shepresented lab instructions in detail, and thenstudents completed the lab producing similar dataand the same conclusion. In their reflections, thesefive participants remained on concerning technicalor surface levels of learning without students’

ological dimension: meaning construction

n answers

(T2, R2) Anna, Bart, Denis, Hedy

Andy, Emma, Maddy

Ontological dimension: Science as both product and process of inquiry and/or thinking

gical dimension: knowledge

Alpha, Haley

Dan, Marvin, Paige

Ethan, Jade, Elisa, Kacy

(T2, R1)

dormant group are indicated in gray. Arrows indicate from which


cognitive engagement. For example, Kayla reflectedon her teaching:

My assumption was that students just aren’t allthat excited about learning about reptiles. There-fore, I made a point to mention a few neat factslater in lecturey. To encourage higher-levelthinking, I introduced students to the structureof a four chambered heart. Until now, they haveonly learned about two- and three-chamberedhearts.

Thinking was not differentiated from knowledgeand complexity of information was equated withhigher-level thinking. Moreover, teaching wasequated with dissemination of information, andstudents were expected to have a passive role.Similarly, Jane described her teaching practice:

I encourage meaningful learning by askingstudents questions that are related to the notesthey just tooky. I also try to keep the studentsthinking by giving them a worksheety. Itensures that they pay close attention and thinkthrough the problems to make sure they arrive atthe correct name.

In these five preservice teachers’ teaching actions,science was depicted as collection of facts, andthinking was equated with paying attention orrecalling information. Moreover, high-level think-ing was measured in terms of the complexity ofinformation rather than the degree of cognitivedemands on students’ part. In sum, science was abody of information, and the connection betweenscience and students through students’ meaningconstruction was never evident throughout the data.Therefore, the goal of teaching was to providefactual knowledge.

Interestingly, Dick and Jake shifted their personalepistemologies from (T2, R1) to (T1, R1) in theirteaching practices. Their reflection, apparently,provided an insight into the reason. Dick attributedhis lack of invitation of students’ thinking to thenature of class:

I was not expecting much participation from theclassy. I have been in this class for most of thesemester and no matter what we (the cooperatingteacher and I) tried, it has been difficult to engagethe class for more than a few moments (VR).

Then Dick continued to state other factors in hispedagogical decision-making:

There is almost 40 students in my classy. Withso many students, the room setup is limited inwhat we can do. We have to decide the types oflabs and discussion that we can have in the class.There might be a great lab that we saw, buty.we might modify the lab or leave the lab outaltogether (VR).

Dick’s teaching practice seems to be the result ofnegotiation with his students and teaching condi-tions. Similarly, Jake justified his mode of teachingbased on similar teaching conditions. Althoughboth of them described their teaching conditions asdeplorable they expressed confidence in theirpedagogical decisions.


Seven participants (Dan, Elisa, Ethan, Jade,Kacy, Marvin, Paige) demonstrated a similarpattern of teaching. All of them also listed sciencetopics as their lesson objectives. However, unlike the(T1, R1) group, the participants in this grouppresented science as a product of thinking. In theVT episodes, most of them lectured with Power-Point or overhead slides, but they asked studentsnumerous questions demonstrating scientific think-ing involved in the content presented. For example,Kacy taught layers of the Earth in a lecture format.As she showed her slides that listed information sheasked questions such as ‘‘Why do you think [thecrust] is the most studied and understood layer?’’‘‘It’s eight to thirty kilometers wide. Why do youthink there’s such a big range in thickness?’’ ‘‘Wheredo you think it’s only eight kilometers?’’ (VT). Byasking these questions the information she put onthe slides became resources for students to thinkabout. Information was given as things to talkabout rather than facts to be accepted. The othermembers in this group demonstrated a similarteaching practice that utilized questions resultingin demonstrating students scientific thinking in-volved in content.

Although the participants in this group guidedstudents’ thinking through questioning, they onlyfocused on a certain path of thinking while ignoringalternatives. For example, to Kacy’s question,‘‘Why do you think [the crust] is the most studiedand understood layer?’’ a student responded,‘‘‘Cause it’s easy to study’’ (VT). Although theanswer was worth elaboration Kacy overlooked it insearching for her anticipated answer. She solicited adifferent answer in order to talk about social and


political relevance of science. Similarly, otherpreservice teachers in the group encouraged stu-dents’ cognitive engagement but mostly paid atten-tion to a certain way of reasoning leavingalternatives out. In so doing, they were able to stayon the topic that they wanted to cover at anexpected pace; meanwhile, most of their studentswere expected to receive both product and processof thinking rather than constructing their own.Therefore, the teaching goal of developing thinkingskills was limited to a certain degree.

Dan, Marvin, and Paige shifted their personalepistemologies in their practice. Instead of present-ing science as a collection of information, theyengaged students in thinking about the reasoningbehind the information. A probable reason for theirshift is their purposeful utilization of teachingmethods introduced and emphasized in the methodscourse. Dan used the Prediction–Observation–Ex-planation (POE) method (White & Gunstone 1992).Unlike the others, Marvin and Paige plannedspecific thought-provoking questions to ask duringa lecture and a student activity. Although theparticipants were not required to use any certainteaching methods, these preservice teachers andthree others who will be discussed in the followingsection purposefully utilized the methods in thereported teaching episodes.


Six preservice teachers (Andy, Anna, Bart, Denis,Emma, Hedy) demonstrated a similar pattern ofteaching that had the attributes of personal epis-temologies of (T2, R2). In most cases, the majordifference between the participants from the (T2,R1) group and this group was that these teachersnot only engaged students in thinking but alsoacknowledged and/or utilized students’ variousideas or mode of thinking so that students becomesources of knowledge and hence, are connected tothe product of thinking. Therefore, their studentshad opportunities to develop inquiry thinking skillsas well as knowledge. For example, Andy taught alesson on erosion. His lesson objective was ‘‘toexplain the effect that gravity plays on erosion’’(LP). His lesson started with a group discussion inwhich students answered a series of questions in agroup and shared their answers in front of the wholeclass. Without any correction or further discussion,he asked students to start to build a modelmountain from soil and rock by stating, ‘‘You willsee the answer to the last two questions soon’’ (VT).

Then, he provided an instruction sheet for themodel building activity:

In a large tray construct a model mountain fromsoil and rock. Shake the tray to simulate anearthquakey. On a blank piece of paper, answerthese two questions: How did the water cause themountain to erode? In both the rainfall and theearthquake, what happened to the particles thatmoved downhill? Clean up your area and returnto your seats (LP).

He briefly restated the instructions and askedstudents to start the activity saying, ‘‘Observe whathappens and try to explain why it happens’’ (VT).During the activity Andy walked around the class-room and monitored students by asking them todescribe their observations and to relate thephenomena to gravity. At the end, he asked studentsto look and compare each group’s model as a wholeclass discussion. He then summarized the gravityeffects behind the movement of water and earthparticles that made the students’ models possible.

Andy did not present answers as facts. He did notguide students’ thinking in one way so that all ofthem had the same answer through the samereasoning. Instead, he expected and utilized stu-dents’ diverse answers. Having the activity serve as aboundary for students’ diverse thinking, Andy madehis students become sources of knowledge byanswering questions on their own and sharing themwith their peers. In a very similar fashion, Emmataught an ecology lesson on local wildlife in whichshe asked students to plan ‘‘an ecologically soundhighway’’ (VT). Instead of the teacher presentinginformation, the students decided what informationthey needed, developed their own plan, and sharedtheir plans.

To more or less degree, the others in this groupinvited their students to be in charge of theirlearning and encouraged students’ thinking in amore diverse way. Anna used the K-W-L (what weKnow, what we Want to know, what we Learned)(Ogle, 1986) method because ‘‘[she] firmly believe[d]that giving students some say in what they learninvests them in their learning’’ (VR). Instead ofteaching predetermined content, she wanted totailor the content to ‘‘what students wonder about’’(VR). Hedy invited her students to teach each otherby sharing knowledge authority. Denis and Bartlectured, but they addressed most of their stu-dents’ diverse thoughts resulting in having students


‘‘compare and contrast with their own thoughts’’(Denis, CO).

Three teachers in this group warrant furtherconsideration. Anna believed in the effectiveness ofthe KWL method she learned in education coursesand purposefully utilized it in her instruction. Thelesson was not only for the students to review theirexisting knowledge, Anna claimed, but also forthem to develop inquiry skills and a questioningskill in particular. As a result, Anna claimed thather lesson was inquiry-based, and she reflected thatshe should modify the lesson in the future. In hervideo-recorded episode, she found her students’ lackof skill in asking questions and planned to spendmore time on soliciting students’ questions in astrategic way. Clearly Anna’s belief guided herinstructional practice but at the same time herpractice was in negotiation with the teachingcontext and students’ reactions in particular.

Andy and Emma shifted their personal epistemol-ogies in their actions. Coincidentally, these twopreservice teachers claimed that their lessons wereinquiry-based leading to a conjecture that they triedinquiry-based teaching approaches advocated in thescience methods course. Their shift in epistemolo-gical orientations in practice seems to be related tothe utilization of science methods advocated in thecourses. They considered their lessons successfulattributing the success to their students’ enthusiasm,good questioning skills and active responses toquestions. Yet again, their teaching practices werein negotiation with the teaching context andstudents’ reaction in particular.

5.3.4. Dormant group

Five teachers (Alpha, Haley, Maddy, Olivia,Ryan) claimed that their teaching practices werenot in alignment with their ideal for multiplereasons: restrictions originated from teaching insomeone else’s classroom (Alpha, Haley, Maddy), alack of content knowledge (Olivia) and the nature oflesson (Ryan). Alpha and Maddy stated that theyfelt constrained in asking students questions be-cause they had to cover as much content as theircooperating teacher asked them to cover (VRs).With less questioning, they argued, they failed toinvolve student thinking in their teaching. Haleyreflected that the authoritative nature of the class-room environment already built by another teacherhindered her to ‘‘create lessons where studentcomments revolve around their own discussionand discovery’’ (VR).

In contrast, Olivia reflected upon her owncompetence. She described her lesson, ‘‘the imageof a teacher I portrayed to my class was that theteacher is the only one who knows the answers’’(VR). Then she attributed the ‘‘too much one-waycommunication from teacher to student’’ (VR) toher lack of knowledge base and stated, ‘‘I became soincredibly self-conscious of my hesitationsy andthus a demise in my ability to concentrate to thinkabout my how to deal with the delicate next step inanswering or transitioning the response’’ (VR).

Ryan demonstrated an encyclopedic teachingstyle. He attributed his decision on ‘‘pure lecture’’to the introductory nature of the lesson:

This lesson was designed to be an introductorylesson to give the students a skeletal outline ofwhat was going to be studied during the next 2–3weeksy. While studying each of these topicsseparately, inquiry-based lessons concerning eachsphere can be developed to give the students abetter understanding (VR).

Depending on the purpose of lesson, Ryan argued,the teaching mode should change. His argumentdemonstrated his beliefs in the flexible use ofdifferent types of teaching approaches with differentepistemological orientations.

In summary, those who purported developingstudents’ knowledge as well as inquiry thinkingskills ((T2, R2) group) invited students’ thinking asa source of knowledge. On the other hand, theothers either presented science as facts to beaccepted ((T1, R1) group) or thinking process tobe followed ((T2, R1) group). The role of studentsas information collector was also suggestedalthough not enacted ((T1, R2) group).

5.3.5. Patterns of learning to teach

The preservice teachers’ emerging teaching prac-tices did not necessarily reflect their initial personalepistemologies and espoused teaching goals. Threedifferent patterns of emerging teaching practiceswere identified: (1) enacting their initial beliefs, (2)enacting beliefs different from their initial beliefs,and (3) failing to enact their beliefs. Eleven out of 23(about 48%) preservice teachers kept their initialpersonal epistemological beliefs and teaching goals,and enacted their beliefs in teaching. These pre-service teachers’ learning outcome throughout thecourse, therefore, might have been developing waysof enacting their initial personal epistemologies andteaching goals.


Seven out of 23 (about 30%) preservice teachers’teaching actions demonstrated beliefs that weredifferent from their beginning personal epistemolo-gies and goals. Arrows in Fig. 2 illustrate which setof beginning personal epistemologies those sevenpreservice teachers came from. Among those whoshifted personal epistemologies in action, fiveenacted more sophisticated beliefs than their initi-ally espoused personal epistemologies and teachinggoals while two opted for less sophisticated epis-temologies in action. The common reason for thosewho were able to demonstrate more sophisticatedepistemologies in action was that they tried outscience teaching methods advocated in the methodscourse. The POE methods, pre-planned thought-provoking questions, and inquiry-based activitieswere appropriately utilized and became parts of thepreservice teachers’ teaching repertoire. On theother hand, two of the preservice teachers (Dick,Jake) opted for teaching actions based on lesssophisticated epistemologies in reaction to class-room conditions such as inactive students, contentcoverage requirement, or a large class size. Backedby these reasons, the two preservice teachersjustified their teaching practices that reflected naı̈veepistemologies (VR). They voluntarily chose toteach the way they did at the cost of conveyingnaı̈ve epistemologies through their ways of teaching.

Five preservice teachers (22%) claimed that theywere not satisfied with their teaching practices thatdid not mirror their beliefs. Among the five, three(Ryan, Alpha, Haley) preservice teachers’ reflectionon teaching practices demonstrated more sophisti-cated personal epistemologies than their initial onesindicating their epistemological perspectives werebroadened. In other words, these preservice tea-chers’ espoused personal epistemologies becamesophisticated although they were not able to enacttheir espoused beliefs. On the other hand, two(Maddy, Olivia) preservice teachers did not changetheir initial personal epistemologies while they werenot able to enact their beliefs. These five preserviceteachers left the course with intention for testingalternative ways of teaching practices in their futureteaching because they were dissatisfied with theircurrent practice.

6. Conclusion and implications

The purpose of this study was to identifypreservice secondary science teachers’ personalepistemologies and teaching goals and to examine

how they translated their beliefs into actions as apart of learning to teach. A total of 23 preserviceteachers from a secondary science teacher educationprogram in the USA participated in this study. Thepreservice teachers espoused a range of personalepistemologies and teaching goals. Their personalepistemologies and teaching goals were congruentto some degree in that the preservice teachers whohad sophisticated epistemologies espoused teachinggoals that were consistent with the current scienceeducation reform. With regard to translating beliefsinto actions, the preservice teachers demonstratedthree different patterns that provided some insightsinto teacher education programs.

The preservice teachers’ ways to enact theirbeliefs illustrate different types of learning outcomesfrom the science methods course and accompanyingfield experience. For those who acted on their initialbeliefs the teacher education courses seemed to haveserved as opportunities to develop ideas about howto enact their beliefs. It was not the purpose of thestudy to examine changes in beliefs during the shortperiod of time. However, some of the preserviceteachers’ teaching actions indicated potential forchanges in beliefs as their learning outcomes.Through field experience and reflection, eightpreservice teachers (about 35%) demonstrated moresophisticated personal epistemologies and goalsthan their initial beliefs. Among them, five wereable to enact more sophisticated epistemologies andgoals while three were not able to enact but left thecourse with intention to find ways to enact moresophisticated beliefs. It may be too hasty to judgethat these preservice teachers had changed theirpersonal epistemologies; however, reflection onteaching practices from a more sophisticatedperspectives or initial successful adoption of teach-ing practices informed by more sophisticatedepistemologies than their espoused beliefs may serveas a starting point for them to refine their beliefs.When assuming a dialectical relationship betweenbeliefs and actions (Tobin, Tippins, & Hook, 1994),actions may induce sophisticated epistemologiesand vice versa.

To the frustration of teacher educators, twopreservice teachers in this study opted for teachingbased on less sophisticated epistemologies than theirinitial beliefs and justified their choices indicatingless commitment to enacting their beliefs. Similarphenomena among inservice science teachers arealso reported in the literature (Friedrichsen & Dana,2005; Kang & Wallace, 2005). Given that the


reasons for the preservice teachers’ regression inenacting personal epistemologies were from teach-ing conditions, systematic approaches to reformwould be necessary to support teachers’ enactingsophisticated epistemologies (Goertz, Floden, &O’Day, 1995). Without systematic reform thataddresses teaching conditions, teachers may easilyfall back on the traditional way of teachingregardless of their beliefs.

Multiple factors emerged as possible explanationsfor the inconsistency between espoused beliefs andteaching practices providing an insight into teachereducation. First, teacher education programs shouldaddress specific teaching conditions that affectteaching practices in the classroom. Content cover-age requirement, a large size of class and passivestudents led the preservice teachers to negotiationsover teaching goals or shifting of their epistemolo-gical orientations in action. Whether the shift was oftheir own volition or not, these preservice teachers’teaching practices were negotiated with the teachingconditions just as it is portrayed in the literature(Bullough, Knowles, & Crow, 1992). For theseparticipants, the aged claim that field experienceeasily reproduces traditional teaching practices(Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985) holds true.By developing adjustment skills, these preserviceteachers were fitting into the existing system. Inorder to stop continuing the status quo andencourage more reform-oriented teaching practice,teacher education programs should help preserviceteachers become critical about the status quo andprovide them with tools for dealing with the kindsof teaching conditions that impede teaching prac-tices for reformed teaching goals based on sophis-ticated epistemologies. For example, teachereducation programs should introduce preserviceteacher to ways to deal with content coveragerequirement while conveying sophisticated epis-temologies, teaching strategies for a large class,and strategies for supporting student active partici-pation in class activities (e.g., Windschitl &Thompson, 2006).

Second, the cases of preservice teachers who wereable to enact more sophisticated epistemologiesthan their initial beliefs illuminate the possible waysto foster epistemological development. Throughtheir trials of new teaching methods such asinquiry-based activities and thought-provokingquestioning these preservice teachers seemed toappraise the effects of their practice in real class-room contexts. Moreover, their reflection on the

trials opened a possibility to refine their personalepistemologies. Therefore, teaching methods thatare drawn on more sophisticated epistemologiesshould be promoted along with reflection onepistemic bases and their effects on student learning.In order to change teaching practices along withepistemological beliefs, a cyclic process of engagingin practice, reflection and deliberations should bepromoted (Hashweh, 2003).

Third, Olivia’s reflection suggests that lack ofcontent knowledge be a cause for relying on thetraditional didactic teaching approach. Similarfindings were also reported in the case of inservicescience teacher (Carlsen, 1992; Carlsen & Hall,1997). With regard to teachers’ content knowledge,teacher education programs should address twoissues: (a) preparing teachers for dealing with theirlack of content knowledge without falling back onthe traditional teaching approach and (b) ensuringteachers’ content knowledge. The former providesan insight into the content of teacher education inalignment with the current emphasis on developingteachers’ epistemologies. The current science reformemphasis on inquiry-oriented science educationencourages teachers to go beyond teaching pre-scribed knowledge. Teachers are expected to be co-inquirers rather than ‘‘know-it-all’s’’, and be willingto go beyond the content that they feel comfortablewith when necessary to support student inquiry. Forthis, teachers should develop sophisticated epis-temologies and dispositions for engaging students inknowledge construction that allows multiple waysof knowing. Therefore, teacher education coursesshould provide teachers with opportunities toengage in inquiry and explicit discussion on under-lying epistemological issues (Windschitl & Thomp-son, 2006). On the other hand, teacher educationprograms should ensure teachers’ content knowl-edge as well as scientific inquiry skills. This may bepossible through pre-requirement for admission toteacher education programs. Instead of using coursegrades as measures of content competency, teachereducators should develop meaningful tools forassessing preservice teachers’ content knowledgefor teaching (Hill, Schilling, & Ball, 2004). Inaddition, providing preservice teachers with in-quiry-oriented content courses that address subjectmatter knowledge to be taught in schools willprepare them for reform-oriented teaching. Forsuccessful efforts, collaboration between disciplineexperts, teacher educators, and school curriculumexperts is critical.


In conclusion, longitudinal research on thechanges in teaching practices will provide an insightinto the pathways of the preservice teachers’professional development and hence, ways tosupport the process. The preservice teachers in thisstudy came to the science methods course with arange of personal epistemologies and demonstrateddifferent levels of development in their teachingpractices with various epistemological orientations.Marks and Gersten (1998) reported that whenteachers perceived differences between their ownbeliefs and those proposed by the teacher educatortheir changes in teaching practices were slow andgradual. Similar to the findings of this study, theteachers negotiated their teaching practices withteaching conditions after filtering new teachingapproaches through their beliefs. The evidence ofslow development and changes in beliefs, if any,points to the importance of continuing professionaldevelopment after initial training. Teacher educa-tion programs should provide learning opportu-nities during induction years in which the noviceteachers refine their beliefs and develop teachingpractices to meet the teaching standards throughproductive negotiations with teaching conditions.The findings of this study suggest potential changesin beliefs and emerging practices during thepreservice teacher education phase. In order to keepthe momentum for further development, appropri-ate induction programs should be provided withconsistency. For these efforts, development ofpartnerships between universities and schools isessential (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Studies about therole of induction programs in science teachereducation have been limited (Roehrig & Luft,2006; Plummer & Barrow, 1998). Further researchon the design and implementation of coordinatedinduction programs that are sensitive to personalepistemologies and teaching goals will informteacher education programs that can nurtureteachers who readily adopt social constructivistteaching practices as they are advocated in thecurrent science education reform.

Appendix A. Guiding questions for science learning

history essay

What made you learn science better when youwere a student? Research has shown that teachers’own learning histories influence their ways ofteaching. Therefore, it is critical for you to be awareof the influences you had in the past in order

to repeat good history and in order not to repeatbad history. Write a reflection paper by answer-ing the following nine questions. Provide speci-fic examples in your description or arguments.You may find you repeating in some questions,which is absolutely fine. Your answers will beaddressed throughout the course. Only ‘‘well-thought’’ and ‘‘persuasive’’ descriptions will becounted as ‘‘reflective’’.

(1)
Describe your science learning experience fromelementary, middle, high school, and college.What made you like and dislike learningscience?
(2)
Who are your science teachers that motivatedyou to learn more science? Why?
(3)
In your opinion, what is a good or effectivescience teaching like?
(4)
What kinds of teaching and learning methodswere good for you to learn science?
(5)
Describe a classroom situation where you feltyou were really learning science well.
(6)
How do you know when you really understandthe information?
(7)
What are the characteristics of science thatmotivated you to learn?
(8)
Why do you want to be a science teacher? (9) In summary, why do you think students need to
learn science in secondary schools? How shouldthey learn science?

Appendix B. Guiding questions for self-video

reflection

You will video record your practicum teachingand review the video-recorded teaching on yourown. Write a reflection paper (1000–2000 words) onyour teaching actions. Start the paper with back-ground information (grade, subject, number ofstudents—gender, ethnicity, students of specialneeds, characteristics of students and etc.) andanswer the following questions:

(1)
What are the expected and unexpected reactionsof the students? How would these affect yourteaching or student learning?
(2)
What are your actions that reveal basic assump-tions (e.g., Difficult questions should not beasked, Science is exciting subject, etc.) held byyou? How would these affect your teaching orstudent learning?


(3)
How do you encourage high-level thinking? (4) How do you encourage meaningful learning? (5) How do you use what students already know or
have experienced?
(6) How do you meet students’ diverse needs? (7) Identify your habits of teaching (e.g., your
movement, speech habits and etc.). How dothese affect students’ understanding or attitudestoward science learning?

(8)
What are the decisions made throughout yourplanning and the classroom teaching? How dothese affect student learning?
References

Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. A. (1997). Reconceptualizing the

elementary science methods course using a reflection orienta-

tion. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 153–166.

Anderson, R., & Helms, J. (2001). The ideal of standards and the

reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 38, 3–16.

Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Patcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching

students ‘‘ideas-about-science’’: Five dimensions of effective

practice. Science Education, 88, 655–682.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J.

M. (1986). Women s ways of knowing: The development of self,

voice and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Bullough, R. V., Knowles, J. G., & Crow, N. (1992). Emerging as

a teacher. New York: Routledge.

Carlsen, W. S. (1992). Closing down the conversation: Discoura-

ging student talk on unfamiliar science content. Journal of

Classroom Interaction, 27(2), 15–21.

Carlsen, W. S., & Hall, K. (1997). Never ask a question if you

don’t know the answer: The tension in teaching between

modeling scientific argument and maintaining law and order.

Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32(1), 14–23.

Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.).

Indianapolis, IL: Hackett.

Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, J. T. R. (2002). Science instruction

in middle and secondary schools (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research:

Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learn-

ing Sciences, 13, 15–42.

Copeland, W. D., Birmingham, C., DeMuelle, L., D’Emidio-

Caston, M., & Natal, D. (1994). Making meaning in

classrooms: An investigation of cognitive processes in aspiring

teachers, experienced teachers, and their peers. American

Educational Research Journal, 31, 166–196.

Davis, K. S. (2002). ‘‘Change is hard’’: What science teachers are

telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative

practices. Science Education, 87, 3–30.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice:

Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching.

Teachers College Record, 103, 1013–1055.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of

experience in teacher preparation. Teachers College Record,

87, 53–65.

Friedrichsen, P. M., & Dana, T. M. (2005). Substantive-level

theory of highly regarded secondary biology teachers’ science

teaching orientations. Journal of Research in Science Teach-

ing, 42, 218–244.

Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary

school science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the

philosophy of science. Science Education, 75, 121–134.

Garm, N., & Karlsen, G. E. (2004). Teacher education reform in

Europe: The case of Norway; trends and tensions in a global

perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 731–744.

Goertz, M. E., Floden, R. E., & O’Day, J. (1995). Studies of

education reform: Systemic reform. Rutgers, NJ: Consortium

for Policy Research in Education.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher

knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory

physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 151–183.

Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of personal

epistemology. In B. K. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),

Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowl-

edge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemolo-

gical beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 33, 47–63.

Hashweh, M. Z. (2003). Teacher accommodative change.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 421–434.

Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing

measures of teacheres’ mathematics knowledge for teaching.

The Elementary School Journal, 105, 11–30.

Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences

in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychol-

ogy, 25, 378–405.

Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implica-

tions for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology

Review, 13, 353–383.

Hofer, B. K. (2004). Exploring the dimensions of personal

epistemology in differing classroom contexts: Student inter-

pretations during the first year of college. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 29, 129–163.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of

epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and know-

ing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational

Research, 67, 88–140.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Personal

epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and

knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief.

Educational Psychologist, 27, 65–90.

Kang, N., & Oldfather, P. (2002). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs

about science, science teaching and motivation: Insights from

their personal histories. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

April, New Orleans, LA.

Kang, N., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’

use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs,

goals, and practices. Science Education, 89, 140–165.

Kirschner, P. A. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and

academic skills in science education. Science and Education,

1, 273–299.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.).

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (Eds.). (1970). Criticism and the

growth of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University

Press.

Lemberger, J., Hewson, P. W., & Park, H. (1999). Relationships

between prospective secondary teachers’ classroom practice

and their conceptions of biology and of teaching science.

Science Education, 83, 347–371.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Losee, J. (1972). A historical introduction to the philosophy of

science. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lynch, S. (1997). Novice teachers’ encounter with National

Science Education Reform: Entanglements or intelligent

interconnections? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

34, 3–17.

Marks, S. U., & Gersten, R. (1998). Engagement and disengage-

ment between special and general educators: An application

of Miles and Huberman’s cross-case analysis. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 21, 34–56.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher,

17(2), 13–17.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study

applications in education: Revised and expanded from case

study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). An expanded source book:

Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science

education for the future. London: King’s College London.

Moore, W. S. (2002). Understanding learning in a post-

modern world: Reconsidering the Perry scheme of intellectual

and ethical development. In B. K. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich

(Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs

about knowledge and knowing (pp. 17–36). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education

Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops

active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39,

564–570.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research:

Cleaning up a Messy construct. Review of Educational

Research, 62, 307–332.

Palmquist, B. C., & Finley, F. N. (1997). Preservice teachers’

views of the nature of science during a post-baccalaureate

science teaching program. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 34, 595–615.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1998). Forms of intellectual and ethical

development in the college years: A scheme. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass (Originally published in 1970. New York: Holt,

Renehart & Winston).

Plummer, D. M., & Barrow, L. H. (1998). Ways to Support

Beginning Science Teachers. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 9, 293–301.

Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. Raths, &

A. McAninch (Eds.), Teacher beliefs and classroom perfor-

mance: The impact of teacher education. Greenwich, CT:

Information Age.

Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2006). Does one size fit all? The

induction experience of beginning science teachers from

different teacher-preparation programs. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 43, 963–985.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad

results: The disasters of ‘well-taught’ mathematics courses.

Educational Psychologist, 23, 145–166.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching in context.

Issues in Education, 1, 1–94.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of

knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psy-

chology, 82, 498–504.

Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Gariglietti, G., & Bajaj, A. (1997).

The development of epistemological beliefs among secondary

students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 89, 37–40.

Schraw, G., & Olafson, L. (2002). Teachers’ epistemological

world views and educational practices. Issues in Education,

8(2), 99–148.

Schuh, K. L. (2004). Learner-centered principles in teacher-

centered practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20,

833–846.

Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of

science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 28, 761–784.

Tobin, K. G. (Ed.). (1993). The Practice of constructivism in

science education. Washington, DC: AAAS Press.

Tobin, K. G., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Cultural myths as

constraints to the enacted science curriculum. Science Educa-

tion, 80, 223–241.

Tobin, K. G., Tippins, D. J., & Hook, K. (1994). Referents for

changing a science curriculum: A case study of one teacher’s

change in beliefs. Science and Education, 3, 245–264.

van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional

development and reform in science education: The role of

teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 38, 137–158.

van Zee, E., & Roberts, D. (2001). Using pedagogical inquiries as

a basis for learning to teach: Prospective teachers’ reflections

upon positive science learning experiences. Science Education,

85, 733–757.

White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. New

York: Falmer.

Wilson, S. M., & Ball, D. L. (1996). Helping teachers meet the

standards: New challenges for teacher educators. The

Elementary School Journal, 97, 121–138.

Windschitl, M., & Andre, T. (1998). Using computer simulations

to enhance conceptual change: The roles of constructivist

instruction and student epistemological beliefs. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 35, 145–160.

Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple

forms of school science investigation: The impact of

preservice instruction on teachers’ understandings of model-

based inquiry. American Educational Research Journal, 43,

783–835.

Yerrick, R. K., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to

promote deeply rooted change: The ‘‘filtering effect’’ of

teachers’ beliefs on understanding transformational views of

teaching science. Science Education, 81, 137–159.