high school chemistry teachers’ scientific epistemologies...

© Kamla-Raj 2015 Int J Edu Sci, 11(2): 196-209 (2015)

High School Chemistry Teachers’ Scientific Epistemologiesand Laboratory Instructional Practices

Elaosi Vhurumuku

Marang Centre for Science and Maths Education, School of Education, University ofWitwatersrand, Number 27 St Andrews Road, Parktown, 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa

E-mail: [email protected]

KEYWORDS Nature of Science. Scientific Inquiry. Conceptual Ecology. Beliefs

ABSTRACT This qualitative study investigated the translation of two High School Chemistry teachers’ scientificepistemologies into laboratory work instructional practices. The teachers’ epistemologies on selected aspects ofnature of science (NOS) and nature of scientific inquiry (NOSI) were elicited through semi-structured interviewing.Their laboratory instructional practices were obtained through observation of laboratory work sessions andreflective interviews. The findings reveal that the manifestation of a teacher’s scientific epistemologies intolaboratory work instructional practice is complex, and governed by factors in the instructional environment aswell as other beliefs embedded within the teacher’s conceptual ecological system. It is argued that the translationof a teacher’s beliefs into practice is a conscious activity during which the teacher weighs and balances cognitiveand epistemic factors and makes judgmental decisions about the merits and demerits of instructional action. It isconcluded that teachers put their scientific epistemologies into practice, but only to a small extent.

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the nature of interaction be-tween teacher beliefs and instructional practic-es is a major research issue in contemporary ed-ucation (Borg 2015). Teacher beliefs comprise acomplex, interrelated system of personal knowl-edge, assumptions, implicit theories, attitudes,and cognitive maps that are said to guide teach-er instructional decision-making and action (Pa-jares 1992). The many beliefs that teachers holdhave been identified and classified (Lumpe et al.2000; Nespor 1987; Schraw and Olafson 2002).They include beliefs about the nature of knowl-edge and the processes of knowledge develop-ment and validation (epistemological beliefs),teaching effectiveness, teacher-efficacy, stu-dents and student learning, and the purpose oflaboratory work.

During the last four decades, research intothe interaction between teachers’ beliefs andclassroom instructional practices has producedcontradicting findings with some results show-ing that relationships exist (for example, Brick-house 1989; Gwimbi and Monk 2002; Hashweh1996; Kang and Wallace 2005; Schraw and Olaf-son 2002; Tsai 2007) and others showing thatteacher beliefs are not related to classroom prac-tices (for example, Abd-El-Khalick et al. 1998; Kinget al. 2001; Lederman and Ziedler 1987; Mellado1997). A recent study by Shi et al. (2014) found

that the classroom practices of novice teachersare not always consistent with their espousedbeliefs. It appears that the relationship betweenteacher beliefs and instructional practices is stillboth contentious and not clearly understood.For that reason, it remains an important researchissue (Shi et al. 2014; Kim et al. 2013; Borg 2015).The study being reported in this paper is an at-tempt to understand the relationship betweenteacher scientific epistemologies and instructionalpractices utilizing a fusion of teacher beliefs andinstructional practices theory with the interac-tionist conceptual ecology model. This fusionprovides an interpretive lens for understandingthe manifestation of teachers’ beliefs into Chem-istry laboratory instructional practices.

Sandoval (2005) defines scientific epistemol-ogies as the constellation of beliefs, images,preconceptions, dispositions, views, percep-tions and convictions concerning the nature ofscientific knowledge and the nature of scientif-ic inquiry, harbored by an individual. Scientificinquiry is the process of development and vali-dation of scientific knowledge (Schwartz et al.2004). Essentially, the present study investigatesthe interaction between the teachers’ beliefsabout nature of science (NOS) and nature ofscientific inquiry (NOSI) (Bartos and Lederman2014) and teacher instructional practices. Forthis study, these beliefs are collectively called

TEACHERS’ SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGIES AND LABWORK 197

scientific epistemologies. According to Bartosand Lederman (2014: 1153), some of the under-standings of NOS secondary school teachersand learners are expected to have are:

1. Scientific knowledge is empirically based;2. Observations and inferences are qualita-

tively distinct, in that the former are di-rectly accessible to the senses, while thelatter is only identified through its mani-festation or effects;

3. Scientific theories and scientific laws aredifferent types of knowledge;

4. The generation of scientific knowledgerequires, and is a partly a product of, hu-man imagination and creativity, from gen-erating questions to inventing explana-tions;

5. Scientific knowledge is theory-laden (thatis, influenced by scientists’ prior knowl-edge, beliefs, training, and expectations);

6. Scientific knowledge both affects and isaffected by the society and culture inwhich it is embedded; and

7. Scientific knowledge, while reliable anddurable, changes (From Bartos and Led-erman 2014: 1153).

Some aspects of NOSI secondary schoolteachers and learners are expected to understandare:

1. Scientific investigations always begin witha question;

2. There is no single set or sequence of stepsin a scientific investigation;

3. The procedures followed in an investiga-tion are invariably guided by the question(s)asked;

4. Scientists following the same procedureswill not necessarily arrive at the same re-sults;

5. The procedures undertaken in an investi-gation influence the subsequent results;

6. Conclusions drawn must be consistentwith collected data;

7. Data is not the same as evidence; and8. Scientific explanations are developed

through a combination of evidence andwhat is already known (From Bartos andLederman 2014:1153-1154).

Teachers and learners who do not harborsuch understandings can be described as hav-ing inadequate knowledge, naive and tradition-al (Wallace and Kang 2004; Lederman et al. 2014;Pomeroy 1993).

To achieve the goals of developing desir-able learners’ understandings of both NOS andNOSI, Duschl and Grandy (2012) advocate thatexplicit teaching and learning about NOS andNOSI should not be separated from the practiceof science as inquiry. This entails teaching labo-ratory work. Rudolph (2003) argues that the lab-oratory is the best place for developing and nur-turing the learners’ ideas about NOS and NOSI.This is supported by Van Dijk (2014) who al-ludes to the fact that the process of developingthe learners’ scientific epistemologies should notbe separated from their studying science as in-quiry including what happens in the school sci-ence laboratory. Wong and Hodson (2008) sug-gest that the best way of developing learners’understanding of scientific inquiry is involvingthem in authentic laboratory inquiry. Vhurumuku(2004) concurs and mentions that the Chemistrylaboratory could be one of the best places forteaching about NOS. Aydin (2015) alludes to thisfact and alludes to Chemistry teaching as a con-duit through which teaching about NOS andNOSI can be done. This is especially so whenChemistry subject matter knowledge and teach-er NOS understandings support each other. Thisis further supported by the findings of Demirdö-gen et al. (2015), which reveal that in order for ateacher to explicitly or implicitly teach aboutNOS that teacher must have adequate under-standing of NOS. A teacher’s understanding ofNOS and NOSI is part of his/her scientific epis-temology. The reform of Chemistry laboratoryteaching practices is a priority on the agendafor science education in many parts of theworld. Consequently, it is important to under-stand and explain how exactly Chemistry teach-ers’ scientific epistemologies translate into in-structional practices so as to inform both thepractice and theory of Chemistry education. Itis against this background that the study be-ing reported here contributes to the under-standing of the interface between teachers’beliefs and teaching practices.

Study Objectives

Given the contentious nature of the interac-tion between teacher beliefs and their instruc-tional practices, the present study sets out toexplain the process by which teachers’ scientif-ic epistemologies translate into classroom in-structional practice, within the context of Ad-vanced Level Chemistry laboratory work. Addi-

198 ELAOSI VHURUMUKU

tionally, it seeks to unravel some of the factorsthat come into play at the teacher belief and in-structional practice interface. Understandingthese factors can be particularly valuable to thoseinvolved in curriculum development and inno-vation for both Chemistry teacher training andsecondary school Chemistry teaching. In orderto achieve the study objectives the followingresearch questions are posed:

1. What are the A-level Chemistry teach-ers’ scientific epistemologies?

2. What is the nature of the teachers’ labo-ratory work instructional practices?

3. To what extent do teachers’ scientificepistemologies influence laboratory in-structional practices?

Theoretical Framework

Interactionist Conceptual Ecology Modeland Teacher Instructional Practice

From an interactionist conceptual ecologyperspective (Strike and Posner 1992; Souther-land et al. 2006), scientific epistemologies arepart of an individual’s conceptual ecologicalsystem. The conceptual ecological system en-compasses metacognitive, motivational and af-fective attributes, including scientific epistemol-ogies, beliefs about teaching and learning, teach-er attitudes towards students’ capabilities andteacher perceptions of the teaching and learn-ing environment, all of which influence teaching(Posner et al. 1982). Beliefs are part of an indi-vidual’s conceptual ecology. Verjovsk andWaldegg (2005) define beliefs as those cogni-tive constructs, with episodic roots based onpersonal experience, which the individual ac-cepts as true. This is in line with Nespor (1987)who describes beliefs as existential presump-tions or personal truths generally unaffected bypersuasion and tilted more heavily towards theaffective and evaluative side. Beliefs are insepa-rable from human existence, personal experienceand action.

Although teachers’ experiences and actionsbelong to the social and are physical, they areactually part of the belief system as a whole(Wallace and Kang 2004). Teaching experiencesand actions are part of episodic memories,knowledge and feelings, which feed into, andinteract with, the teacher’s belief system. Teach-ers’ knowledge and experiences based on actual

classroom practice form part of what has beenreferred to as “practical theories of teaching” orpractical knowledge (Lotter et al. 2007). In addi-tion to this contextualized knowledge of the class-room, the teacher also utilizes constructedknowledge of the subject matter. As human be-ings who experience phenomena, teachers alsomake use of incoming perceptual data. Audi(1998) is of the view that perceptual data is linkedto and feeds directly into the belief system of anindividual.

Within the teacher’s conceptual ecology,beliefs relate to each other and can influenceone another. This relationship can lead teachersto perceive, and act on information in differentways (Lotter et al. 2007), influencing classroomdecisions, and instructional actions. As part ofthe belief system, instructional environment fac-tors (time, resources, administrative require-ments) can also influence teacher decision-mak-ing and instructional practice (Tobin et al. 1990).Tobin et al. (1990) use the term “constraints” torefer to this. Along the same lines, Lumpe et al.(2000) describe how teachers’ perceptions ofresponsiveness of their teaching environmentfor their effective practice as ‘context beliefs’.Context beliefs are about how the entire envi-ronment in which instruction occurs influencesteaching behavior and action. This environmentincludes students, other teachers, administra-tors, “institutions, organizations and the physi-cal environment” (Lumpe et al. 2000: 278). Thevarious types of teacher beliefs are said to com-pete with or against each other in mediating in-structional practice, behavior and action (Kangand Wallace 2005). There is also the possibilitythat different beliefs could interrelate in suchways as to reinforce or favor certain classroombehaviors and actions by the teacher.

In line with the above described interaction-ist perspective, Tsai (2002) describes teachers’scientific epistemologies as being “nested”,meaning that teachers beliefs about scientificknowledge and scientific inquiry are related toand interact with other beliefs within the eco-logical system (Southerland et al. 2006). Theseinclude beliefs about teaching, learning and stu-dent abilities. A logical consequence of the in-teractionist conceptual ecology model is thatcomponents of the ecological system act on eachother. The action can be part of a rational pro-cess during which individuals account for theirperceptions, compare competing ideas and make


evaluative decisions about preexisting concep-tions (Southerland et al. 2006). For practicingteachers this implies an ecologically embeddedbelief driven decision-making process, and asocio-cognitive process that includes problemidentification, reflection and action. Duschl andWright (1989) are of the view that teacher deci-sion-making determines their instructional be-havior consciously or unconsciously.

Some studies have shown that other thanscientific epistemologies, teacher classroom de-cision-making, behavior and actions are mediat-ed by a plethora of other factors including thenature of the curriculum, the nature of students,school administrative requirements and the avail-ability of teaching and learning resources(Demirdögen et al. 2015; Gess-Newsome and Le-derman 1995; Southerland et al. 2003). It is alsoknown that in their classroom practices, teach-ers might act in ways, which are contrary to theirespoused beliefs (Shi et al. 2014; Southerland etal. 2003; Wallace and Kang 2004).

As already noted, this study advances anexplanation of the interaction between AdvancedLevel Chemistry teachers’ scientific epistemolo-gies and their classroom actions. Empirical datais drawn from a combination of interviews andChemistry laboratory class observations.

METHODOLOGY

Participants

The participants were two Zimbabweanteachers of Advanced-level (A-level) Chemistryteaching for the last two years in a high schoolin Zimbabwe. For ethical reasons, the teachersare presented here under the pseudonyms, Zi-vanai and Abongile.

Zivanai was a 33-year-old male who had beenteaching A-level Chemistry for six years. He helda Bachelor of Science Education degree equiva-lent (Lic. Cert Enrique, Jose Varona University,Cuba). Zivanai is a product of the Zimbabwe-Cuba Teacher Training Program and was quali-fied to teach both Mathematics and Chemistryat Advanced level (A-level). His teaching loadalso included classes in O-level Physical Sci-ence and Mathematics for younger students.

Abongile was a 23-year-old female and a pro-fessional neophyte. She had just graduated fromthe Bindura University of Science Education

(Zimbabwe), with a Bachelor of Science Educa-tion degree majoring in Chemistry and Mathe-matics. Like Zivanai she was qualified to teachboth Chemistry and Mathematics up to A-level.This was her first year of experience as a quali-fied science teacher and of handling an A-levelChemistry class. Abongile was interested inproving herself as an effective teacher. She is astrict disciplinarian as revealed by the manner inwhich she emphasized accuracy of students’experimental results and punctuality to labora-tory sessions.

Data Collection

For the current study, the scientific episte-mologies explored included the purpose of ex-periments in science, the nature of scientificobservations, the source of scientific knowledge,the validation of scientific knowledge, the ten-tative nature of scientific knowledge, and thecultural ‘contextuality’ of scientific knowledge.These aspects were chosen because of their rel-evance to Zimbabwe A-level Chemistry educa-tion. In order to get information about teachers’beliefs about NOS and NOSI, that is, their scien-tific epistemologies, each teacher was asked aset of core questions around which probing forclarification and deeper understanding was done.The semi-structured interview questions (seeAppendix A) were drawn and synthesized fromthe literature (Ryder et al. 1999; Vhurumuku et al.2006). All interviews were audiotaped and tran-scribed verbatim.

Teacher laboratory instructional practiceswere investigated through laboratory class ob-servations and in-depth reflective interviews.Teaching materials, such as, laboratory manuals,exercises and assessments guides were also ex-amined. Semi-structured, non-participatory obser-vation (Cohen et al. 2000) was done (see Appen-dix B for observation guide). The aim was to cap-ture as much as possible of the laboratory classevents. Each teacher was observed for four con-secutive laboratory sessions, teaching differentlaboratory work content areas. About one weekbefore each laboratory session observation, theteacher was asked to avail a copy of the laborato-ry work task that was to be done. The teacheralso briefed the observer (researcher) on the ap-proach he/she was going to use and providedthe marking guide by which he/she was going toassess the students’ reports.


At the end of each laboratory class observa-tion, the teacher was interviewed based on his/her lesson delivery. The purpose of questioningwas to get clarifications and further understandthe teacher’s actions and reasons and justifica-tions for those actions. Probing was also donewith the aim of making the teachers reflect onboth their scientific epistemologies and instruc-tional practices. Additionally, each teacher wasasked to provide responses to the followingquestions: 1. Can you briefly describe yourteaching of A-level Chemistry laboratory work?2. Do you think the way you teach Chemistrylaboratory work helps students understand whatscience is all about? All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim.

Teacher interviews and laboratory class ob-servations were done during the first term of theA-level Chemistry Upper Sixth year. In Zimba-bwe, A-level is studied over a two-year period.The first year is called Form 5 or Lower Sixth andthe second year is called Form 6 or Upper Sixth.Students write their final examination at the endof the second year. Schools run for three terms ayear. The duration of each term is about 90 days.

Data Analysis

Data was qualitatively analyzed through acombination of analytic induction (Murcia andSchibecci 1999; Lincoln and Guba 1985) and in-terpretive analysis (Thorne et al. 1997; Gall et al.1996). In analyzing the teachers’ scientific epis-temologies, each respondent’s responses to allthe questions were repeatedly read and emerg-ing themes/units of meaning coded and recod-ed. Data from the post laboratory session inter-views was similarly read and reread and units ofmeaning coded and recoded. The objective herewas to get insights into the teacher’s decision-making process and instructional practice at theconceptual ecological level. For each teacher, allthe data, that is, from scientific epistemologiesinterviews, laboratory session observationnotes, and post laboratory session interviewswere also read and reread with the objective ofgetting a holistic picture of the teachers’ scien-tific epistemologies and instructional practicesas well as look for patterns that might suggestlinks or associations between scientific episte-mologies, decision-making and instructional ac-tion. At the bottom of the data interpretation

was an effort to answer the questions: Whatcould have driven the teacher to teach in theway he did? What could have been going on inthe mind of the teacher? What factors could haveinfluenced the teacher’s decision-making andinstructional action? How can the data be givenmeaning from the point of view of interactionistconceptual ecology theory? What could havebeen happening in the conceptual ecologicalsystem of the teacher? In what ways were theteacher’s scientific epistemologies influencingteacher behavior and action? There was a delib-erate effort to isolate the scientific epistemolog-ical issue in question and make inferences con-cerning it being reflected in teacher laboratoryinstructional actions. This meant going back tolisten to the audiotaped interviews and readingand rereading the transcribed texts. Thorne et al.(1997) advise that the major focus of this kind ofanalysis and interpretation should not be simplysorting and coding but synthesizing, reconcep-tualizing and theorizing. In line with this, therewas a deliberate effort to search for patterns andstrands of linkage between or among the variouspieces of information. Meaning making was done,and reasonable inferences made based on action,behavior and speech. The researcher and an ex-perienced science educator in the same Universi-ty with the researcher carried out coding and re-coding of the responses independently. All thefinal meanings and interpretations were a resultof consensual agreement.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The findings are presented under the head-ings teachers’ scientific epistemologies, teach-ers’ instructional practices, and the manifesta-tion of teachers’ scientific epistemologies intolaboratory work instructional practices.

Teachers’ Scientific Epistemologies

Zivanai

On the issue of the purpose of experimentsin science, Zivanai gave a response, which couldbe described as having taints of both realismand constructivism. To realists science is donefor purposes of discovering new knowledge forknowledge’s sake, so as to quench human curi-osity. Constructivists are of the view that sci-


ence should be pursued to solve human prob-lems of needs and wants, for example, curing ofdiseases and producing more food (see, Mat-thews 2015). When asked, “Why do scientistsdo experiments?” his reply was:

Z: The reason why scientists do experimentsis out of curiosity or to find why certain thingshappen and for development purposes, for ex-ample produce a new product like polymers ora new drug, which can be of use to man.

Zivanai was also of the view that scientists’theoretical backgrounds affect their observa-tions and interpretation of evidence. This is il-lustrated in the interview extract below:

Z: If you have a theory, observations maybebiased towards the theoretical background.There are instances where you can do awaywith that through experience.

I: Are scientific observations objective?Z: I think there are instances where they

can be objective but we can’t get rid of ourbeliefs when carrying out observations. Thereis a certain percentage of objectivity but thereis always that subjectivity.

According to Bartos and Lederman (2014),such an understanding of the nature of scientif-ic observations by teachers is desirable. To Zi-vanai, scientific knowledge could come from avariety of sources including experiments andobservations. He acknowledged the role of imag-ination and creativity in the generation of scien-tific knowledge. His thinking about the role ofculture and how scientific knowledge is validat-ed is reflected in the interview extract below:

Z: Usually its beliefs which are cultural, forexample the cold war between Soviets and Amer-icans. When scientists work together, withoutcultural conflicts, consensus is usually arrivedat. To a large extent our science in Africa is con-sidered inferior. The chemicals we produce arenot considered to be of scientific value.

I: How do the scientists arrive at consensus?Z: I think they sit down and talk and come

to one point like Americans coming togetherwith the Russians.

These responses point towards a generallyacceptable understanding regarding NOSI, name-ly the influence of culture and political nature ofthe development of scientific knowledge as wellas how disputes are settled within the scientificcommunity. On whether scientific knowledge wasstatic or dynamic, Zivanai was of the view thatscientific knowledge changes, was tentative and

revisionary. He went on to explain that advanc-es in technology bring about a better under-standing of nature and leading to abandonmentof old theories and the generation of new ones.Consistent with the expected desirable under-standings (Bartos and Lederman 2014), he hadthe idea that scientific knowledge was both ten-tative and durable. This is part of what he said:

Z: What we can call a theory can be untruein future. Some theories can stand the test oftime but in many areas there is a lot to learn.For example, the Periodic Table is one area inChemistry where… We are still synthesizing el-ements maybe one day someone will rearrangethe elements.

Abongile

When answering the question: “Why doscientists do experiments?” Abongile gave a re-sponse, which can be described as inadequate,naïve, traditional or verificationistic (Wallace andKang 2004; Matthews 2015; Pomeroy 1993). Shesaid:

A: To verify some concepts, to show that whatis said is really true. Vanenge vachida kutarid-za kuti ruzivo nderwe chokwadi [Shona for“They would want to show that knowledge isreally true”] or maybe to explain some phenom-enon.

Unlike Zivanai, Abongile was of the opinionthat scientific observations were objective. Hermeaning of the term objective however appearedto be the same as that for the term real:

A: They [observations] are objective becauseeee... what you observe and what actually hap-pens is one and the same thing.

I: Can different scientists make differentobservations on the same thing?

A: They should see the same things if theyall observe carefully.

Her views on the source of scientific knowl-edge can be described as inductivist and posi-tivist. According to her, experiments and obser-vations were the key sources of scientific knowl-edge. Scientists performed experiments and cameto valid conclusions. Contrary to contemporaryunderstandings of NOSI and NOSI, she saw lit-tle roles for dream and imagination in the gener-ation of scientific knowledge (Bartos and Leder-man 2014)

A: At times you get reactions, but at timesyou get some result and you have to explain


why you get those results. So by observing, theymay be doing some experiment with a controlof some sort and then they come to make a con-clusion and say it’s like this.

I: What about just imagining?A: Even dreaming, but all the same you have

to back what you say by doing experiments…soreally it’s experiments that matter.

Although she agreed that scientific knowl-edge could change in the light of new evidence,she did not believe in the role of consensus inthe authentication and legitimization of scientif-ic knowledge. To her, experiments and observa-tions were the cornerstones in the validationand legitimization of scientific knowledge. Shefurther argued that scientific truths were univer-sally and culturally free, because they were basedon experimental evidence.

Teachers’ Laboratory Work InstructionalPractices

Results from the laboratory session obser-vations and interviews capturing the instruc-tional practices of the two teachers are summa-rized in Table 1. The Table was constructed fromthe analysis of data from the post laboratorysession interviews and laboratory session ob-servations. It captures the main strategies usedby the teacher in executing laboratory work, suchas, starting with laboratory work and followingit with discussion of theory, using teacher dem-onstrations, organizing problem-solving activi-ties, verificationistic laboratory activities andorganizing group or individual practical activi-ties, the level of student-student interaction, the

level of inquiry, and what the teacher mentionedto be the major constraints to teaching.

In the next sections, the teachers’ instruc-tional practices are further described.

Zivanai

Zivanai had been teaching A-level Chemis-try for six years. He said that he would enjoy histeaching, as he loves the profession, but thatthe acute shortage of essential reagents andchemicals for the effective teaching of A-levelChemistry was increasingly frustrating him. Asis the case in many of Zimbabwe’s high schoolsthe country’s economic problems are inevitablybearing on the teachers’ classroom practices.Zivanai succinctly captured the sad scenario:

Z: A hundred grams of silver nitrate can costthe equivalent of my monthly salary. So yousee, most of the time you really don’t teach theway you want. Some practical experiments yousimply avoid because they are unaffordable,especially for a school like this one. You do thebest you can but hey…

Zivanai believed that laboratory work shouldtrain students to become scientists in their ownright. When asked: “What is the aim of schoolChemistry laboratory work?” he replied:

Z: To boost the understanding of scientificconcepts and also train them for life so thatthey are able to solve problems so that they canfind solutions. They can actually solve prob-lems of a scientific nature because they havelearnt skills of a scientific nature.

His general strategy in teaching A-level lab-oratory work was that he started by demonstrat-

Table 1: A summary of the teachers’ instructional practices determined from laboratory work sessionsobservations and interviews

Teacher Most important Main Level of Level of Mentioned objective of strategies interaction inquiry constraints

Zivanai - Develop students’ - laboratory High student low inquiry -Examinations and understanding of work then theory -student -Syllabus content theory Examination - group -practicals interaction -Resources preparation -teacher demons-

trations- problem solving Low student VeryLow -Syllabus

Abongile Examination preparation - Verificationistic -student inquiry content- Guided discovery interaction -Examinations- practical to theory -Resources- Individualized practical work


ing the use of equipment including manipula-tions of apparatus. Students were then assignedto work on practical activities in small groupswith the teacher moving from group to groupgiving assistance where required. After a fewlaboratory sessions and when he was satisfiedthat the requisite laboratory skills had been mas-tered by the students, he gave the students in-dividual practical work. He gave his rationale:

I: What methods do you normally employ inteaching laboratory work?

Z: It depends on the stage, for example whenthey are in Lower Sixth they need lots of assis-tance from the teacher. I demonstrate the use ofequipment, they work in small groups and this isnot for evaluative purposes…we change stagesin Form 6 we gradually get to the individual. Weexpect them to be scientists in their own right.They must learn to have their own results.

For all the four observed lessons, Zivanai’spattern of instruction was basically the same.Typically, he would start by introducing the day’slaboratory task. Almost always these tasks weresourced from past examination papers. Duringthe pre-laboratory talk the students listened andwrote notes. They took the form of going throughthe laboratory worksheet with the students, withthe teacher explaining the distribution of appa-ratus and reagents. Although the laboratory ex-ercises were to be done individually, the stu-dents were told that they were free to exchangeinformation and discuss their results during thepractical. Students asked questions pertainingto aspects of the practical as they read about itfrom the worksheet. Students started workingon the laboratory activity. The laboratory assis-tant was present all the time and assisting stu-dents with manipulations of apparatus whenappropriate. In one of the laboratory sessions,the assistant was seen to spend some time witha student who was struggling with using thepipette filler. In all the sessions, students wereobserved to work quietly at first but the labora-tory became noisy as the laboratory session pro-gressed. Meanwhile, the teacher would disap-pear into his office, which was adjacent to thelaboratory. The noise level would rise. Occasion-ally the lab assistant shouted at the students“Hey guys too much noise”. Students were seento share ideas and ask each other questions.The girls generally appeared to be less talkativeand more self-centered and individualistic than

the boys. They also appeared to be less confi-dent in following the procedures of the labora-tory exercise. During the first observed labora-tory session, students were seen checking oneach other’s titers. One student whose volumewas much different from the others went back torepeat a titration. The teacher would occasion-ally pop in from his office to check on the stu-dents’ progress. He would move around the classmaking stops here and there. Students would bereminded that their laboratory reports should behanded in by the end of the following day. Aftercollecting and marking the students reports theteacher would then discuss the practical duringone of the theory lessons.

Abongile

As already mentioned, Abongile had justcome out of university (1 year experience) andwas handling her first A-level class. Abongilewas interested in proving herself as an effectiveteacher. When asked what she thought was themain purpose of school Chemistry laboratorywork, she earnestly replied that it was to preparestudents for examinations. The development ofthe students’ understanding of the subject mat-ter was only important if it aided the examinationpreparation goal. She always emphasized accu-racy of experimental results and following of in-structions. During one of the observed labora-tory sessions, a student raised a complaint aboutthe mark he had been given by the teacher forone of the answers to the post laboratory ques-tions. Abongile had this to say to the student:

A: Robert [not the student’s real name]…eeeyou are one of those who failed to follow in-structions. Now if you don’t read the instruc-tions carefully you mess up. I always say firstread and understand the instructions then goon to do the practical. It’s mistakes like yours,which can lead to inaccurate results. By theway your question again?

During the fourth observed laboratory ses-sion, one of the problems of investigation wasthe separation of magnesium and copper ionsfrom a solution labeled FA7 (a mixture of magne-sium nitrate and copper (II) nitrate) using sodi-um hydroxide, sulphuric acid, distilled water, testtubes, filter funnel and filter paper. Students wererequired to design an experiment to achieve theseparation and go on to identify the ions in theseparated precipitates or solutions. Students


were given a handout outlining the problem forinvestigation. The problem in question was froma past examination. Students were asked to dothe practical individually. The teacher empha-sized that it was to be individual work and noexchange of ideas or any form of unnecessaryinteraction was going to be tolerated. Each stu-dent was provided with a set of core reagentsand apparatus. Chemicals to be shared were madeknown to the students and their place of sourceindicated. The laboratory assistant was inattendance.

Students went on to do the laboratory task.The teacher moved around the class whisperingassistance to some students. When one of thestudents was making a serious error, the teacherstopped the class and boomed at the students:

A: Now you people, what did I say aboutadding reagents in qualitative analysis. I saidlittle by little not a whole bucket at a time. Ifyou don’t follow instructions your results willalways be inaccurate or wrong.

The students continued with the practicalstill with not much interaction. At the end of thesession, Abongile collected the completed work-sheets. She was going to mark them putting a lotof emphasis on accuracy of observations. If themarking showed that the students had problemswith the practical she would come back the fol-lowing session and start by performing a dem-onstration. She said she always wanted the stu-dents to do the laboratory exercise first then shecould follow it up with class discussions or dem-onstration or both. When she had marked thestudents’ scripts, she came back in the follow-ing laboratory session and started by reviewingthe students’ answers. She reported that onequarter of the students had done well. Most hadfailed to follow instructions. The teacher wenton to propose and demonstrate her own methodfor separating copper ions from magnesium ions.The students said the teacher’s method for sep-aration of ions was good. Abongile challengedstudents who thought their method was goodto come forward and share it with the class. Noneof the students volunteered. Instructions for theday’s laboratory exercise were given and stu-dents went on to do the laboratory exercise. Asusual this was strictly individual work. The prob-lem had again been sourced from a past exami-nation paper and no student-student coopera-tion was encouraged.

The Translation of Teachers’ ScientificEpistemologies into Laboratory WorkInstructional Practices

Zivanai held strong beliefs about science asprogressing through consensus and that scien-tists are creative. In his practice however, Zi-vanai is seen to struggle against an “unfriend-ly” instructional environment and still make de-cisions and do practices he believes can bringabout students’ understanding of science andhow it is practiced. In line with the findings ofShi et al. (2014) and contrary to his beliefs, he isobserved to organize group activities and en-couraged students to engage in scientific dis-course. Overall, however, there appeared to besome link between some of his scientific episte-mologies and his instructional decision-makingand instructional practices (Borg 2015). Zivanaiexplained his instructional actions identifyingsome constraining variables responsible for himnot teaching exactly according to all his beliefsas suggested by Shi et al. (2014) and as foundfrom results of Demirdögen et al. (2015).

Z: We repeat experiments whose results areknown rarely do we ask students to be creative.Our education system is examination orientedthere is little room for students to becreative…to act like real scientists.

Zivanai’s actual practice, when teaching lab-oratory work, can be described as a balance be-tween what he believes in and what the instruc-tional environment allows him to do. In his in-structional practice he attempts to develop thestudents’ manipulative skills and allow studentsto be creative but, the extent to which he can doso appears to be limited by factors in the in-structional environment, the syllabus content,lack of resources and examinations (Shi et al.2014; Demirdögen and Hanuscin 2015). Whenasked whether the way he was teaching labora-tory work made students understand scientificinquiry as he understood it he replied:

Z: You don’t always teach the way you wantscience to be like because of these examina-tions and the syllabus, and also sometimes youdon’t have resources. It’s not always about whatyou believe, not in our system.

This is in line with the findings of Shi et al.(2014) that teachers can practice contrary to theirespoused beliefs. His actual practice appears tobe guided by effort to balance the realities of theinstructional environment (the curriculum, re-


sources, examination) and his own beliefs andorientations about what science is and how itshould be taught. He is seen to be trying to givestudents a feel of inquiry, as he understands it.This supports assertions (Abd-El- Khalick andLederman 2000; Lotter et al. 2007) that the trans-lation of teachers’ scientific epistemologies intoinstructional practices is difficult because ofintervening variables or barriers (Tobin et al.1990). From what Zivanai is saying and watch-ing him teach, it appeared that some factors inthe instructional environment inhibited thetranslation of some of Zivanai’s scientific epis-temologies into laboratory instructional practice.In this case, the translation of teacher scientificepistemologies into laboratory instructional prac-tices is determined by what the teacher sees asthe reality in the instructional environment.

In the case of Abongile, the translation of ateacher’s scientific epistemologies into instruc-tional decision-making and practice also appearsto suffer from the influence of factors embeddedwithin the teacher’s conceptual ecology. Therewas an association between her beliefs aboutinquiry and her instructional practices (Borg2015). When asked to explain what she under-stood by laboratory inquiry Abongile had thisto say:

A: I think eee…it is how scientists gatherinformation or can I say discover things. It’show scientists show that or obtain new knowl-edge and showing by experiments that thatknowledge is actually true.

I: You are talking about what scientists dobut what about here in your laboratory withyour students?

A: Here we want students to learn by doingexperiments so that they pass the examination.

There is an apparent link between believingthat scientific inquiry is about scientists “show-ing by experiments that knowledge is actuallytrue”, that school laboratory inquiry helps stu-dents “learn by doing experiments” and Abong-ile’s practice of instruction, which is mainly ver-ificationistic and examination focused (as wit-nessed during the laboratory session observa-tions—individualistic and very low student-stu-dent interaction). This also appears to be in linewith her belief in one method of science. Herbeliefs about what makes a good teacher that isone whose students pass the exam, appears alsoto have a great influence on how she teaches.Abongile’s beliefs about the purpose of experi-

ments in professional science and what makes agood teacher also appears to be linked to herbeliefs about the purpose of experiments inschool Chemistry. This is not surprising, sincethe teachers’ epistemological beliefs have beenshown to be related to teachers’ beliefs aboutteaching (Borg 2015).

What appears to be the case with the teach-ers studied here is that the extent to which theteacher’s scientific epistemologies filter onto thelaboratory instructional practice is reduced bythe factors in the instructional environment suchas examination demands and availability of re-sources. The effect of these factors is to makethe teachers not to teach science “the way youwant” or not always to teach, “what you be-lieve”. As the teachers’ instructional practicesand the interview transcripts suggest their prac-tices appear to be in reconciliation between theirscientific epistemologies and their perceptionsof the environmental factors in which they oper-ate, that is, the contextual factors or barriers orconstraints (Demirdögen et al. 2015). Interest-ingly, in the case Abongile, so-called constrain-ing variables appear to actually foster filtrationof verificationistic scientific epistemologies intolaboratory practices, which are teacher centered.In this case, the examination-focused curricu-lum actually promotes manifestation of a teach-er’s traditional scientific epistemologies intopractice. In this case, it is not exactly a con-straint. The influence of instructional environ-ment factors appears not to always discouragethe translation of scientific epistemologies intoinstructional practice.

Previous studies (for example, Tsai 2002,2007) have pointed towards the teachers’ har-boring of non-traditional (constructivist) beliefsas meaning engaging in teaching practices thatare also constructivist or open-inquiry oriented.The actions of the teachers in this study fail tofully support that view. However, it appears thatthere was constant conflict between the teach-ers’ beliefs and the realities of their teachingcontexts. In deciding the nature of his/her prac-tice, the teacher appears to strike a balance be-tween those convictions embedded within his/her conceptual ecology and factors obtaining inthe environment in which he/she is operating asa teacher. The expression of some of the teach-ers’ scientific epistemologies appears to be bothweakened (Zivanai) and in some cases strength-ened (Abongile). It looks like what eventually


filters from scientific epistemology into teacherlaboratory instructional practice is determinedby the effect or influence of both environmentalfactors and other beliefs already embedded inthe teacher’s conceptual ecology. Teacher in-structional practices here appear to be governedby conscious effort to balance both environ-mental factors and the influence of other beliefsin the teacher’s conceptual ecology. Judgmen-tal decisions are made about the merits and de-merits of instructional choices. The teacher ap-pears to be constantly asking him or herself:“Under these circumstances could this be thebest approach to use?” The teacher reflects onthe nature of his/her instructional practice. Theythink about and continuously locate features ofthe instructional environment context into theirconceptual ecosystem, an ecological system thatis replete with interacting factors. The transla-tion of a teacher’s scientific epistemologies intopractice is complex because all factors are inter-related. They all might have an influence on eachother.

CONCLUSION

The teachers’ perceptions of their instruc-tion provide reflective and evaluative mirrorsthrough which they can make judgments aboutthe merits and demerits of instructional deci-sions that is, their scientific epistemologies. Be-cause teachers continuously reflect on their in-structional practices, the translation of scientif-ic epistemologies into practice is not a subcon-scious activity but a conscious purposeful ac-tivity feeding into daily decision-making andinstructional practice. Previous studies suggest-ed that teachers with constructivist science epis-temological beliefs tend to utilize student-cen-tered pedagogies where the student-student in-teraction is high. The same studies link harbor-ing naïve or empiricist or traditional scientificepistemologies with use of teacher centered ped-agogies. The results of this study do not sup-port such a direct linkage. While the teachermight hold naïve or constructivist scientific epis-temologies, these epistemologies do not easilyfilter onto the teacher’s instructional practices.As far as the teachers studied in this investiga-tion are concerned, instructional behavior is acarefully considered activity, resulting from con-scious balancing of a variety of factors and con-victions. In deciding the nature of his/her prac-

tice, the teacher appears to strike a balance be-tween those convictions embedded within his/her conceptual ecology and factors obtaining inthe environment in which he/she is supposed tooperate as a teacher. What filters from scientificepistemological beliefs into practice are only buttrickles mediated by a plethora of factors.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In order for teachers to properly and explicit-ly teach learners about NOS and NOSI, it is nec-essary for policymakers, including curriculumdesigners to ensure that conditions are favor-able for teachers to enact practices according totheir convictions. Teachers might have all thenoble intentions and right beliefs, but they maynot teach what is right for learners to learn andknow if the environment in which they operateis not socially, politically and materially condu-cive. At the same time, new assessment practic-es require to be fashioned out, so that teachersdo not merely see teaching as serving the pur-pose of preparing learners or students for sub-ject matter examinations. Significant latitudeshould be given to teachers to teach what theybelieve is the best for learners without the con-straints of curricula and examinations. In the caseof Zimbabwe, it is necessary to revise the cur-rent A-level Chemistry curriculum in order toencourage explicit teaching of the acceptableideas about NOS and NOSI. Additionally, un-derstanding and developing teacher beliefsshould be part and parcel of in-service teachertraining and educational research in teacher train-ing institutes. This can greatly enhance under-standing of the interaction between teacher be-liefs and classroom practices.

REFERENCES

Abd-El-Khalick F, Bell L, Lederman NG 1998. Thenature of science and instructional practice: Mak-ing the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82:417-436.

Abd-El-Khalick F, Lederman NG 2000. Improving sci-ence teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: Acritical review of literature. International Journalof Science Education, 22: 665-701.

Audi R 1998. Epistemology: A Contemporary Intro-duction to the Theory of Knowledge. London: Rou-tledge.

Aydin S 2015. A science faculty’s transformation ofnature of science understanding into teaching grad-uate level chemistry course. Chemistry Education:Research and Practice, 16: 133–142. Doi:10.1039/C4RP00212A


Bartos S, Lederman NG 2014. Teachers’ knowledgestructures for nature of science and scientific inqui-ry: Conceptions and classroom practice. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 51(9): 1150–1184.

Borg S 2015. Researching teacher beliefs. In: B Pal-tridge, A Phakiti (Eds.): Research Methods in Ap-plied Linguistics: A Practical Resource. London:Bloomsbury, pp. 487-504.

Brickhouse NW 1989. The teaching of science in sec-ondary classrooms: Case studies of teachers’ per-sonal theories. International Journal of Science Ed-ucation, 11: 437-499

Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K 2000. Research Meth-ods in Education. 5th Edition. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Demirdögen B, Hanuscin DL, Uzuntiryaki-KondakciE, Köseoglu F 2015. Development and nature ofpreservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical contentknowledge for nature of science. Res Sci Educ, DOI10.1007/s11165-015-9472-z

Duschl, RA, Grandy R 2012.Two views about explicit-ly teaching nature of science. Science and Educa-tion. DOI 10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4

Duschl RA, Wright E 1989. A case study of high-schoolteachers’ decision-making models for planning andteaching science. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 26: 467-501.

Gall DG, Borg WR, Gall JP 1996. Educational Re-search: An Introduction. New York: Longman Pub-lishers.

Gess-Newsome J, Lederman NG 1995. Biology teach-ers’ subject matter structures and their relationshipto classroom practice. Journal of Research in Sci-ence Teaching, 32: 301-325.

Gwimbi ME, Monk M 2002. A study of the associationbetween classroom practice and philosophy of sci-ence amongst A-level Biology teachers in Harare,Zimbabwe. African Journal of Research in SMTEducation, 6: 51-68.

Hashweh MZ 1986. Toward an explanation of concep-tual change. European Journal of Science Educa-tion, 8: 229-249.

Kang N, Wallace CS 2005. Secondary science teachers’use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemologi-cal beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education,89: 140-165.

Kim CM, Kim MK, Lee C, Spector MJ, DeMeester K2013. Teacher beliefs and technology integration.Teaching and Teacher Education, 29: 76-85.

King K, Shumow L, Lietz S 2001. Science education inelementary school: Case studies of teacher beliefsand instructional practices. Science Education, 85:89-110.

Lederman NG, Antink A, Bartos S 2014. Nature ofscience, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific is-sues arising from genetics: A pathway to developinga scientifically literate citizenry. Science and Edu-cation, 23(2): 285-302.

Lederman NG, Ziedler DL 1987. Science teachers’ con-ceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influ-ence teacher behaviour? Science Education, 74:225-239.

Lincoln YS, Guba EG 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Bev-erly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lotter C, Hardwood SH, Bonner JJ 2007. The influ-ence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ useof inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 44: 1318-1347.

Lumpe AT, Haney JJ, Czerniak CM 2000. Assessingteachers’ beliefs about their science teaching con-text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37:275 – 292.

Matthews MR 2015. Science Teaching: The Contribu-tion of History and Philosophy of Science. 20th An-niversary Revised and Expanded Edition. New York:Routledge.

Mellado V 1997. Pre-service teachers’ classroom prac-tice and their conceptions of the nature of science.Science and Education, 6: 331-354.

Murcia K, Schibecci R 1999. Primary student teachersconceptions of the nature of science. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 21: 1112-1140.

Nespor J 1987. The role of beliefs in the practice ofteaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19: 317-328.

Pajares MF 1992 Teachers beliefs and educational re-search: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review ofEducational Research, 62: 307-332.

Pomeroy D 1993. Implication of teachers’ beliefs aboutthe nature of science a comparison of the beliefs ofscientists, secondary science teachers and elemen-tary teachers. Science Education, 77: 261-278.

Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson PW, Gertzog WA 1982.Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towardsa theory of conceptual change. Science Education,66: 211-227.

Rudolph JL 2003. Portraying epistemology: Schoolscience in historical context. Science Education,87: 64-79.

Ryder J, Leach J, Driver R 1999. Undergraduate sci-ence students’ images of science. Journal of Re-search in Science Teaching, 36: 201-220.

Sandoval WA 2005. Understanding students’ practicalepistemologies and their influence on learningthrough inquiry. Science Education, 89: 634-656.

Schraw G, Olafson L 2002. Teachers’ epistemologicalworldviews and educational practices. Issues in Ed-ucation, 8(2): 99-148.

Shi Q, Zhang S, Lin E 2014. The relationships of newteachers’ beliefs and instructional practices: Com-parisons across four countries. Action in TeacherEducation, 36(3): 322-341.

Southerland SA, Gess-Newsome J, Johnston A 2003.Defining science in the classroom: The manifesta-tion of scientists’ beliefs in classroom practice. Jour-nal for Research in Science Teaching, 40: 669–691.

Southerland SA, Johnston A, Sowell S 2006. Describingteachers’ conceptual ecologies for the nature of sci-ence. Science Education, 90(5): 874-906.

Strike KA, Posner GJ 1992. A revisionist theory ofconceptual change. In: R Duschl, R Hamilton (Eds.):Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Science and Edu-cational Theory and Practice. Albany, NY: SUNYPress, pp. 147-176.

Thorne S, Kirkham SR, MacDonald-Emes J 1997. In-terpretive description: A non-categorical qualita-tive alternative for developing nursing knowledge.Research in Nursing and Health, 20: 169-177.


Tobin K, Briscoe C, Holman JR1990. Overcoming con-straints to effective elementary science teaching.Science Education, 74(4): 409-420.

Tsai C 2002. Nested epistemologies: Science teachers’beliefs of teaching, learning and Science. Interna-tional Journal of Science Education, 24: 771-783.

Tsai C 2007. Teachers’ scientific epistemological views:The coherence with instruction and students’ views.Science Education, 91(2): 222-243.

Van Dijk E 2014. Understanding the heterogeneousnature of science: A comprehensive notion of PCKfor scientific literacy. Science Education, 98(3):397–411.

Verjovsky J, Waldegg G 2005. Analyzing beliefs andpractices of a Mexican high school biology teacher.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42: 465–491.

Vhurumuku E 2004. An Investigation of Zimbabwe A-level Chemistry Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs,Laboratory Instructional Practices and Students’Images of the Nature of Science. PhD (Education)Thesis. Bellville, South Africa, University of theWestern Cape.

Vhurumuku E, Holtman L, Mikalsen O, Kolsto SD2006. An investigation of Zimbabwe high schoolchemistry students’ laboratory work based imagesof the nature of science. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 42: 127-140.

Wallace CS, Kang NH 2004. An investigation of experi-enced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about in-quiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Jour-nal of Research in Science Teaching, 41: 936-960.

Wong S, Hodson D 2008. From the horse’s mouth:What scientists say about scientific investigationsand scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93:109-130.


Interview Guide

The questions you will be asked require you to saywhat you think about science and how it is developed,basing your answers on your own thoughts. There is noright or wrong answers. Just say what you think.

1. Why do scientists do experiments?2. Do experiments always tell us the truth about

the nature of things? Explain your answer.3. Are scientific observations theory- free? Explain

your answer.

APPENDIX A

Laboratory Class Observation Guide

While the observations were done without the guide-lines of an observation schedule (in the tradition of achecklist or adaptation of a schedule used elsewhere),the capture of lesson proceedings was guided by a delib-erate effort to examine the following issues:

(i) source of problem for practical activity oractivities

(ii) distribution of apparatus, chemicals, etc.(iii) how the teacher gave out instructions and other

information(iv) the role of the laboratory assistant(v) nature of student-student interactions(vi) nature of teacher- student interactions

4. Do you think what you do in the Chemistry lab-oratory with your students is similar to what isdone in scientific laboratories?

5. How are conflicts of ideas resolved in the scien-tific community?

6. Will the knowledge we know in Chemistry todayone day change? Explain.

7. Comment on the issue of science and culture.8. How do scientists arrive at conclusions in build-

ing scientific knowledge?

APPENDIX B

(vii) how students recorded information(viii) group activities if any(ix) pre and post laboratory activities(x) what was expected of students’ reports(xi) how students made observations(xii) how students interpreted data(xiii) skills and techniques performed by the stu-

dents(xiv) students’ performance of frequent experimen-

tal tasks e.g. transferring of aliquots, turningburette taps, controlling Bunsen flames, etc.

(xv) lesson introduction and lesson closure(xvi) the open-endedness of tasks or activities

(degrees of freedom given to students to make decisions)

high school chemistry teachers’ scientific epistemologies...

Documents