promoting teacher learning through learning study discourse: the case of science teachers in...
TRANSCRIPT
Promoting Teacher Learning Through Learning StudyDiscourse: The Case of Science Teachers in Singapore
Yuen Sze Michelle Tan • Samson Madera Nashon
� The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2013
Abstract The potential of a theory of variation-framed learning study, a teacher
professional development approach, to help teachers overcome curricular and
pedagogical challenges associated with teaching new science curricula content was
explored. With a group of Singapore teachers collaboratively planning and teaching
new genetics content, phenomenographic analysis of data corpus from classroom
observations, teacher meetings and interviews revealed teacher learning that man-
ifested in the teachers’ experiences. These were captured as (1) increased degrees of
student-centered pedagogy and challenges to teachers’ prior assumptions about
science pedagogy, (2) increased awareness of possibilities and limitations of their
beliefs about science pedagogy, and (3) emergence of new understandings about
new curricular content and science pedagogy. The possibility of transformative and
generative learning is also discussed.
Keywords Curriculum � Learning study � Teacher beliefs � Teacher learning �Professional development � Theory of variation
Introduction
The introduction of large-scale science curriculum reforms has often faced
challenges (Davis 2003). With the rhetoric of these reforms recognizing that
Y. S. M. Tan (&)
Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University,
1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore
e-mail: [email protected]
S. M. Nashon
Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia,
2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Sci Teacher Educ
DOI 10.1007/s10972-013-9340-5
teachers hold the key to change, research literature has shown how the successes of
these reforms depend on opportunities for teachers to adapt the curriculum for local
use, for collaboration and dialogues, and for professional development (Barab and
Luehmann 2003; Davis 2003; Peers et al. 2003). Research studies have also
highlighted how teachers’ interests, dispositions and beliefs can determine if the
learning outcomes stipulated in a science curriculum are achieved (Coenders et al.
2008; Haney et al. 2002).
An example of a teacher professional development (PD) program that has been
utilized to prepare teachers to enact new curriculum, and thus support the agendas of
educational reforms, is the learning study approach (Elliott 2012). Widely employed
in Hong Kong and Sweden, learning study promotes teacher research and
collaboration as a way for teachers to tackle curricular and pedagogical challenges
encountered in curriculum reforms. A review of literature suggests that research
studies have consistently highlighted how student and teacher learning were
enriched. However, there appears to be a paucity of studies focusing on teacher
beliefs and how they support curriculum reforms. Moreover, the teacher learning
mechanism accompanying this aspect of teacher PD is still relatively unexplored in
learning study literature.
Given the importance of teacher beliefs in supporting curriculum reform agendas,
the purpose of the study was to explore the influence of Singapore teachers’ beliefs
on enacting new curricular content. Furthermore, as an attempt to address the gap in
learning study literature, we also wanted to explore how the teachers’ beliefs
changed and in turn prepared them to deal with new curricular initiatives. Set in the
context of a Singapore learning study comprising of four Grade 9–10 biology
teachers, and premised on how shifts in teacher beliefs may constitute learning
(Pang 2006), we employed phenomenographic methods of analysis (Bowden and
Walsh 1994; Marton 1988) to capture the different ways the teachers experienced
their own learning. Focusing on teacher beliefs, the research question that guided
our study is: What is the nature of learning that manifest in a group of Singaporeteachers’ learning study experience of planning and enacting lessons focusing onnew Biology content?
In this learning study, the nature of teacher learning was captured as shifts in beliefs
and pedagogy. Therefore, beyond focusing on the nature of a new curriculum
(Schneider and Krajcik 2002), the results are significant in directing attention to a
possible PD approach that may increase the successes of curriculum reforms. This
approach provided teachers opportunities to adapt the curriculum as part of their own
research into their own classrooms, and promoted their collaboration and discussions
around the curriculum (Barab and Luehmann 2003; Davis 2003; Peers et al. 2003).
In addition, by framing shifts in teacher beliefs as instances of teacher learning, the
study contributes to teacher learning literature examining the relationships between
teacher beliefs and learning (e.g., Clarke and Hollingsworth 2002). As a consequence,
the often-perceived dichotomy between the two is dissolved. Furthermore, such a view
of learning discourages changing teachers’ beliefs merely for the sake of addressing
reform challenges. Rather, it encourages greater attention on how teachers can
transform potentially problematic contexts of curriculum reforms to contexts that
promote their own learning.
Y. S. M. Tan, S. M. Nashon
123
Context of Study
In Singapore, a compulsory General Science curriculum is taught in Grade 7 and 8,
and students are offered different combinations of Chemistry, Physics and Biology
at upper grade levels. Determined by the streaming exercises implemented at lower
grade levels, students will sit for the high-stakes national examinations either at the
end of Grade 10 or 11. Incidentally, the prescribed science curricula are closely
aligned to these examinations.
To meet the changing demands in education and in Singapore, the nation-wide
science curricula are usually reviewed after 6 years of implementation. With every
new cycle, new content and educational initiatives may be included. The context of
this study is framed by the 2007 introduction of new molecular genetics content into
the Grade 9–10 Biology curriculum, which included the genetic processes of
transcription and translation. In view that teachers may be unfamiliar with new
aspects of the science curricula or lack prior experiences as students from which to
model teaching this particular aspect (Nashon 2005), this background prompted our
interest in how Singapore teachers coped with teaching new and unfamiliar
curriculum content.
The challenges of implementing this new curriculum are exacerbated by how
genetics is perceived as a difficult school topic (Gericke and Hagberg 2010).
Research studies have suggested various interventions, including conceptual change
strategies (Tsui and Treagust 2004) and the use of subtopics to address gaps in
student understandings (Lewis and Kattmann 2004). However, the limited use of
these interventions may be attributed to how they were formerly introduced in one-
off PD seminars. These kinds of PD formats are often ineffective in helping teachers
situate their own learning back into their teaching contexts (Wilson and Berne
1999). Thus, we seek alternatives to helping teachers work with prescribed
curricula, which included utilizing the allocated PD time in schools and teachers’
own classrooms as sites for PD.
Literature Review
Introduction to Learning Study
The learning study is a PD approach that encouraged teachers to collaboratively
plan, enact and evaluate student learning activities (Pang and Marton 2005, 2005).
The approach shares similar features with the Japanese lesson study (Lewis et al.
2009; Stigler and Hiebert 1999). These include the building of professional
communities through collaboration (Lieberman 2009), improving instruction and
developing teacher knowledge through classroom research (Pang and Lo 2012), and
examining student learning (Runesson et al. 2011). Both approaches are also
organized around an object of student learning: a capability that students are to
develop through research lessons. Thus, instead of focusing on content mastery,
lessons can be organized around longer-term and larger goals of student learning
(Lewis et al. 2006). Insofar as the features of the two approaches are concerned,
Promoting Teacher Learning Through Learning Study
123
learning study and lesson study are highly similar. This leads to how some
researchers would deem learning study as a variant of the lesson study (e.g., Pang
and Lo 2012).
A distinction between the two approaches resides in how learning study employs a
theoretical framework (Holmqvist 2011; Pang and Lo 2012). According to Pang and
Marton (2003), learning study has adapted the idea of combining the instrumental
and theory-oriented aspects of (teacher classroom) research in design experiments
(Collins 1992) to compensate for the lack of theoretical frame in lesson study.
Furthermore, the inclusion of a theory may shape the discourse differently. For
example, in a lesson study, teachers may focus on class activities and instructional
materials when examining what students are learning (see e.g., Fernandez et al. 2003;
Lewis et al. 2009). In a learning study, student learning and teacher acts may be
interpreted and discussed through a theoretical perspective instead (e.g., Lo et al.
2006; Pang and Lo 2012). Put simply, the differences in what teachers pay attention
to result in different learning experiences (Marton and Booth 1997).
According to Elmore (2002), there are two formats of PD: traditional and job-
embedded. Traditional PD format is a top-down model arising from policy
mandates where experts hold workshops, seminars, lectures, etc. (Elmore 2002) on
what they consider to be effective pedagogy or curriculum reform. On the other
hand, job-embedded PD locates training within the school or local context by utilizing,
for example, collaborative inquiry groups. In the group settings, teachers are encouraged
to participate in reforming curriculum and pedagogy in ways that are relevant and
beneficial to their own students (Elmore 2002). In our view, the learning study should be
a welcome hybrid of both formats, where the activities focus on teachers as agency for
change. The learning study resembles the job-embedded format because of its reliance
on an expert who is crucial in introducing the theory to the teachers (Elliott 2012).
Furthermore, consistent with literature on traditional PD format, the approach is
premised on how changing teachers’ practices requires longer time duration (Porter et al.
2000; Stein et al. 1999) and a variety of activities (Mazzerella 1980) to learn more about
their practice. On the other hand, like job-embedded format, learning study locates PD
within the school for purposes of creating ongoing communities (Hord 1997), and for
allowing teachers to do the talking, thinking and learning about their practice and student
work (Feiman-Nemser 2001).
Theory of Variation in Learning Study
Theory of variation is commonly employed in learning studies. Developed from
phenomenography, it provides a perspective of learning (Marton and Booth 1997):
what a learner pays attention to shapes how a phenomenon or the intended learning
could be experienced. Key to what could possibly be learnt (Runesson 2006),
learning is seen as the development of a capability to experience something in more
complex ways than before; as the increasing capacity to simultaneously discern
critical features (known as critical aspects) of the object of learning. For example, in
Pang and Lo’s study (2012), in order for students to develop the capability to
determine the factors affecting the rate of a chemical reaction, Grade 10 students
can deepen their understanding of the effect of volume on rate, that is, that the
Y. S. M. Tan, S. M. Nashon
123
volume of a reactant will not affect the rate of a chemical reaction when the
concentration of acid remains unchanged.
Within the classroom contexts, theory of variation was further developed as a
pedagogical tool (Pang and Lo 2012) that guided teachers’ design of patterns ofvariation and invariance to enrich student learning (e.g., Holmqvist et al. 2007;
Runesson et al. 2011). These patterns directed students’ attention to critical aspects of
the object of learning that were varied, while other aspects were kept constant. In this
way, aspects that might have been taken-for-granted, or that the student was unaware of
in the past, can now be examined. In Pang and Lo’s (2012) study, one pattern of
variation and invariance used was to vary the concentration of hydrochloric acid while
keeping the mass of solid calcium carbonate and volume of hydrochloric acid invariant;
thus helping students to discern that if the volume of reactant remains unchanged, the
concentration level will affect the rate of chemical reaction. How learning study
promotes teacher learning has also been explored. For example, Holmqvist (2011)
illustrated teachers’ increased ability to analyze critical features of the object of student
learning, while Runesson et al. (2011) demonstrated teachers’ increased sensitivity to
student learning. Pang and Lo (2012) reported that teachers learnt to use theory of
variation to enhance student learning. How teachers’ conceptions of teaching
economics increased in complexity has also been reported (Pang 2006).
Theoretical Framework
Theory of variation was employed by the participating teachers to help organize,
implement and evaluate student learning experiences. The theory also provided the
perspectives to analyze teacher learning that manifested in their learning study
experience. With the object of teacher learning as the development of a capability to
enact teaching new genetics content in the Biology curriculum, teacher learning can
be framed as the building of teacher capacity to experience their own professional
practices in more complex ways than before; to pay attention to more aspects of
teaching and learning than was formerly possible. The nature of the differences
(Pang 2003) in how teachers learnt was also explored: structural and referential
aspects (Marton and Booth 1997) that represented the different ways teachers
experienced their own learning were examined. The structural aspect referred to
what teachers focused on and the referential aspect, the meanings teachers ascribed
to that particular way of experiencing.
Methods
Participants
Four Grade 9–10 biology teachers participated in the study (see Table 1, names are
pseudonyms). The school and the participants were selected based on their
availability. This school had an ongoing PD program to encourage teachers to work
collaboratively to improve their teaching practices; based on the subject and grade
Promoting Teacher Learning Through Learning Study
123
level/s taught, the school leaders assigned the teachers to teams. The school leaders
recognized that the school’s PD program might be limited in its effectiveness for
teacher learning due to its top-down format (Elmore 2002). Furthermore, all the
teachers were required to go through the same program and that left little room for
differentiation. Hence, in our view, the learning study was welcomed as an alternative
to the ongoing PD program, especially since it is a form of hybrid between traditional
PD and job-embedded PD format (Elmore 2002). The participating teachers belonged
to the same team and the weekly-allocated time of one hour was utilized to run the
learning study sessions. Each teacher taught four to five biology classes.
The Learning Study
The learning study extended over 22 weeks and comprised the following phases:
1. Pre-study phase. The study was introduced and teachers’ consent to participate in
the study was obtained. The teachers were interviewed; they were asked to share
what good biology teaching and learning is, and about their pedagogical
strategies. The teachers also filled up a questionnaire (Genetics Questionnaire)
that probed for their views on the important outcome/s of teaching genetics. Some
of the questions were adapted from previous studies (e.g., Koballa et al. 2005).
2. Planning phase I. Guided by theory of variation, the teachers collectively planned
the curricular flow, which comprised mapping and sequencing key genetic topics
in the new biology curriculum. The teachers also determined the object of student
learning, which is to develop students’ capability to understand and apply the
principles of the genetic processes of transcription and translation (new curricular
content) to real-life contexts, such as mutation.
3. Exploratory phase. In order to uncover students’ pre-understandings of genetics
content, pre-tests (n = 80) were administered for Chris, Amy and Pam’s Grade 10
classes. Kate’s students did not participate in the study because she was teaching
Grade 9. Fifteen students were also selected by the teachers to participate in
follow-up interviews that were conducted by the authors. The selection was based
on student’s responses that offered insights into how the learning study impacted
their learning experiences. For example, a student who used the analogy of a
superhero to describe mutation was selected because the teachers were interested
to further understand how she related the two aspects. Students were also selected
based on their potential to articulate their thoughts critically and honestly.
Table 1 Teaching experiences
of the participating teachersParticipant Number of years
teaching biology
(years)
Total number of
years in teaching
service (years)
Number of times
chosen topic has
been taught
Pam 3 3 0
Amy 3 3 1
Chris 5.5 14 1
Kate 7 15 1
Y. S. M. Tan, S. M. Nashon
123
4. Planning phase II. Drawing from both pre-test results and interviews, as well as
from theory of variation, critical aspects of the object of student learning were
determined. These included the structural and functional aspects of genetic
biophysical entities (chromosomes, DNA and genes), as well as the relation-
ships between the two aspects. Patterns of variation were subsequently designed
based on these aspects. For example, a change in the nucleotide of the gene
(variation in structure) will result in a different mRNA being copied during
transcription (process kept invariant). The teachers hoped that this would help
draw students’ attention to how the structure of the gene affects the product of
the genetic process.
5. Research phase. Chris, Amy and Pam enacted the theory-guided research lessons
in their Grade 10 classes (n = 25, n = 27, n = 28, respectively). The teachers
were also encouraged to teach according to their own pedagogical styles. Chris
and Amy taught three lessons each (total of 3.5 and 4 h, respectively), while Amy
taught two lessons (total of 3 h). With one teacher enacting the research lesson, the
other teachers collected classroom data; the classroom observations focused on
what students learnt in relation to the teacher’s pedagogy. Student post-tests
(n = 80) were also administered, with the same students interviewed.
6. Reflection phase. Four weekly post-lesson discussions (each lasting about an
hour) were held concurrent to the research phase. The teachers discussed the
data collected and provided feedback to improve the design and delivery of
subsequent lessons. Collectively, they also documented good teaching practices
for future references. The teachers also wrote down short notes of their thoughts
and reflections after the final post-lesson discussion.
7. Post-study phase. Two sets of teacher interviews were conducted, with the latter
serving clarification and elaboration purposes. Collectively, the interviews
probed for the teachers’ experiences in the learning study, including what and
how they have learnt. The teachers also commented on changes in their
responses to the Genetics Questionnaire. The preliminary findings were
subsequently shared with the school leaders and through conferences.
Data Collection
The data set comprised audio–video recordings of all sessions (11 meetings and 4
post-lesson discussions) and research lessons (8 lessons, 10.5 h in total); written
descriptions of the research lessons and meeting notes; authors’ field notes; Genetics
Questionnaire, teacher reflective journal entries (from all four teachers) and
interviews (total of 12 transcripts, each lasting 1–1.5 h); and student pre- and post-
tests (n = 80 each) and interviews (n = 15 each).
Data Analysis
Employing phenomenographic methods of data analysis (Bowden and Walsh 1994;
Marton 1988), the variation in the ways teachers have experienced their own learning
were captured in the form of categories. Consistent with phenomenography, we
Promoting Teacher Learning Through Learning Study
123
focused on the teachers’ descriptions of their own experiences, which were captured
through the teacher interview data (audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim) and their
reflective journal entries. However, as consistent with phenomenography, the rest of
the data set were essential to provide the contextual understanding and to ensure
consistency in interpretations; the teacher transcripts and journal entries were
constantly checked against the other sources of data to ensure credibility of the
findings. For example, when teachers described an instance where they have learnt,
these were checked against the researchers’ field notes and the audio–video
recordings. Similarly, the pre- and post-tests were referred to whenever teachers
mentioned them. The analysis included:
Selection and Reduction of Data
The audio–video recordings of the meetings and research lessons were viewed
chronologically and alongside the reviewing of other data sources. This stimulated
recall and provided the contextual understanding for subsequent interpretation of
teacher transcripts and reflective journal entries. The research lessons were also
described, followed by a reiterative reading and marking of teacher interview
transcripts and journal entries.
Profile Development
Individual teacher profiles were developed through the construction of narrative
descriptions of teachers’ experiences. These descriptions were accompanied by marked
quotes/parts from the interview transcripts and journal entries. The interpretations were
triangulated with other data sources (Lincoln and Guba 1985), such as the authors’ field
notes and descriptions of the research lessons.
Construction of Categories
The teacher profiles, interview transcripts and journal entries were carefully read
alongside each other. Expressions/descriptions that had similar meanings were
grouped. This was aided by the search for recurring regularities in words, phrases,
common sequences and relationships (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Miles and Huberman
1994). Subsequently, themes and patterns that cut across the four profiles were
identified, forming the initial categories that described the teachers’ learning
experiences. These initial categories included ‘challenges to beliefs’, ‘deepening of
prior beliefs’ and ‘emergence of new insights’. The categories were further defined
by the differences in meanings between the groups, and by the structural and
referential aspects of the categories. For example, a review of the meetings (audio–
video recordings) and a further reading into the interview transcripts helped us to
tease out what ‘deepening of prior beliefs’ meant: the teachers gained insights when
they explored and reflected on the possibilities and limitations of their prior beliefs
about good teaching. However, these insights differed from those that the teachers
have not considered before, of which the latter were subsumed into the category
‘Emergence of new understandings about new curricular content and science
Y. S. M. Tan, S. M. Nashon
123
pedagogy’. Similarly, the teachers’ focus on the links between topics (structural
aspect) and their increasing conviction that these links were important to teaching
(referential aspect) helped us further pinpoint that the beliefs were about science
pedagogy; the category was refined as ‘increased awareness of possibilities and
limitations of teachers’ beliefs about science pedagogy’. In avoiding judgments on
the ways teachers have learnt, the categories were not hierarchically ordered. This
differed from the usual practice in phenomenography.
Verification of Categories
The constructed categories were checked against other data sources. The descriptions
were adjusted and readjusted whenever necessary.
As demonstrated above, the multiple sources of data served as a source of
triangulation to establish credibility of the findings (Lincoln and Guba 1985). To
ensure reliability of the findings, the authors also regularly compared individual
analyses and engaged in in-depth discussions of the constructed categories; the
development of a collective interpretation of the data set entailed working together
to test concepts and opening one’s analysis to the scrutiny of others (Corbin and
Strauss 1990; Stake 1995). To ensure validity of the findings, attempts to collect
unbiased data included beginning the analysis only after the whole learning study
was completed, which prevented premature constructions of theoretical structures or
interpretations (Sandberg 2005).
Results and Discussion
Ways of Experiencing Teacher Learning
The outcome of the analysis resulted in capturing three ways the participating
teachers experienced their own learning. Whereas the discernment of the categories
was informed by an examination of all the data sets, this paper uses only select
excerpts to illustrate the categories. Presented below is the overall data analysis,
which included a phenomenographic analysis that focused on the teachers’ own
descriptions of their experiences; with the teachers’ descriptions triangulated with
the audio–video recordings, research meetings and field notes, and student
comments. Representative of the collective’s complex experiences, select excerpts
from teachers’ reflective journal entries and interview transcripts were included to
enrich the discussion. In view that the excerpts were taken out of the context of the
entire transcript, clarifications were provided in square brackets to reflect the
teachers’ interpretations.
1. Increased Degrees of Student-Centered Pedagogy and Challenges to Teachers’Prior Assumptions about Science Pedagogy. One of the ways teachers experienced
learning manifested as shifts away from predominantly teacher-centered teaching, and
towards an increasing degree of student-centered pedagogy. According to the
teachers, organizing the lessons around an object of student learning encouraged them
to focus on the development of a student capability—‘‘the thing we want to make sure
Promoting Teacher Learning Through Learning Study
123
that the kids get’’ (Excerpt 1). This allowed the teachers to move away from a
‘‘traditional way of thinking and designing our lessons’’ (Excerpt 1), where covering
curricular content in the syllabus was focused on (Excerpt 2). As was revealed in the
first set of teacher interviews, this aspect of the teachers’ learning study experience
supported what they believed good biology teaching was, that is, an increasing degree
of student-centered teaching. When prompted to share about their experiences of
dealing with an object of student learning, the teachers described them as follows:
(1) Kate: By being forced to sit down and ask ourselves ‘‘What is the thing we
want to make sure that the kids get?’’ We clarify and crystallize our
focus so much more… The learning point would have been talking
about a capability… It was a good learning point because you move
away from a very traditional way of thinking and designing our
lessons…Interviewer: So will you try to apply this in future?
Kate: I think definitely. I’m quite inspired by how we did it.
(2) Amy: In that sense that was always at the back of my mind, like, ‘‘What
was the main focus?’’ So even though I was covering the same
details…I try to draw it back to how we always want to help them
understand the links…Interviewer: So was this a new focus?
Amy: Yes, definitely. Because last year when I taught, it was more like
I followed very closely to the syllabus and the sequence. So that was
more of addressing what the syllabus wanted, and I just covered it in
that sense.
As illustrated above, focusing on the object of student learning empowered the
teachers to move away from an over-reliance on curricular content; away from
‘‘addressing what the syllabus wanted’’ (Excerpt 2). In gaining greater clarity on
what they wanted students to learn (Excerpt 1), the teachers centered their classroom
instruction on student learning. For example, Amy was more systematic in showing
how chromosomes, DNA and genes were structurally related by engaging students in
a discussion around them, and by using a video to show the unraveling of a DNA
strand and its coiling into a chromosome. In the post-study interview, she shared that
this differed from how she would have quickly run through the content as presented
in a diagram in the prescribed textbook; focusing on the delivery of the content rather
than how student could have learnt the content. The pre-tests results also showed
evidence of her students’ mastery of this aspect of learning genetics. Consequently,
extending these new experiences of focusing on student learning beyond the learning
study, the teachers also expressed their intentions to adopt a similar approach to
lesson planning in the future (see Excerpt 1 as well).
The increased degrees of student-centered pedagogy were often accompanied by
challenges to the teachers’ prior assumptions about science pedagogy. Evident in the
meetings and recorded in the field notes were the teachers’ assumption of student
learning: biology content taught in lower grade levels would necessarily translate to
students’ mastery of it. In this case, the teachers assumed that the students would
have a good grasp of the structure of DNA, chromosomes and genes because they
Y. S. M. Tan, S. M. Nashon
123
were taught the content in Grade 7 and 8. The teachers’ views of teaching thus
resonated with what Goodson (1998) described as the transmission of knowledge,
and stood in contrast to research literature (Lewis and Kattmann 2004). In surfacing
gaps in students’ understandings, the pre-test results challenged the teachers’ view of
science pedagogy (Excerpt 3 & 4). As observed in the audio–video recordings and
field notes, Chris was adamant that an emphasis on the structural relationships
between the genetic biophysical entities was not necessary because the content has
been taught in Grade 7 and 8. However, in reviewing the pre-test results that revealed
students’ difficulties in describing the relationships between these entities, he
expressed how the pre-test scores were unexpected. Consequently, Chris ‘‘started
from almost entry level’’ (Excerpt 3) in his research lessons to teach this aspect of
genetics and addressed gaps in the students’ conceptions.
(3) Chris: The pre-test was very helpful. I didn’t expect the percentages to be
that low. So that means I have to pact my standard lower and then
start from almost entry level.
Interviewer: So did you address some of the conceptions that emerged from the
pre-tests?
Chris: Yeah… I spent more time on that.
(4) Pam: Last time, we used to do this subconsciously. You wouldn’t have a
pre-test to find out a certain percentage of people who have a certain
misconception. It’s probably verbal… Through this study, you have a
clearer understanding of what are some of their misconceptions… It
kind of showed that even though they learnt it [structural aspects of
genetic biophysical entities] in Sec. 1 and 2 [Secondary 1 and 2;
Grade 7 and 8], they are still very confused.
In view that it was not a common practice to use pre-test to uncover students’
pre-understandings (Excerpt 4), deliberately introducing the exploratory phase of
the learning study seemed to have increased teachers’ sensitivity to student learning.
Runesson et al. (2011) have also emphasized this aspect of teacher learning in the
learning study. The pre-tests also provided glimpses of how students ‘‘experience
genetics in everyday life’’ (Pam’s interview transcript) (see Excerpt 5 as well). This
allowed for what Goodson (1998) termed as an ‘‘alternative pedagogy’’ that
transcended transmission pedagogy: one that ‘‘sensitized the teacher to individual
processes and interests and positioned his response to these at the center of his
teaching’’ (p. 29). In this case, the teachers were sensitized to how students related
the object of student learning to their ‘‘everyday life’’, and have responded by
addressing students’ gaps and level of understandings in the research lessons.
Similarly, physical characteristics and mutants were used as entry points to Amy
and Pam’s lessons. These aspects constituted the ways students related genetics to
their ‘‘everyday life’’.
(5) Kate: When you look at this kind of pre-tests…you are trying to uncover what
their understanding is, right or wrong… It was like ‘‘What on earth does
she mean by this? Is this questionable? Does she mean something else?’’
Promoting Teacher Learning Through Learning Study
123
2. Increased awareness of possibilities and limitations of teachers’ beliefs aboutscience pedagogy. Teacher learning also manifested as an increased awareness of
the possibilities and limitations of the teachers’ beliefs about science pedagogy. At
the beginning of the study, the teachers expressed good biology learning as students
developing the capability to establish links between different concepts and topics.
The teachers believed that this could help students cope with large amounts of
biological ‘‘facts’’ (Excerpt 6). The teachers’ belief was similarly reflected in their
responses to the Genetics Questionnaire.
(6) Interviewer: So what is important in students learning biology?
Kate: I think the biggest thing for me is the linking and seeing the
patterns… The problem with a lot of our students is that for
biology, there’re a lot of facts and they really haven’t made sense
of the facts. So they are just at the level of trying to memorize it.
Despite the importance attributed to this aspect of student learning, the teachers’
attempts were often more implicit than signaled, especially since they ‘‘don’t tell the
students, but hopefully by the end of it, they will see… how things are linked’’
(Chris’ interview transcript). In contrast, the teachers were more intentional in
developing this capability in the research lessons through the patterns of variation
that were enacted. The patterns of variation were designed to encourage students to
(1) link the structural and functional aspects of genes, and (2) to understand how a
sequential variation of gene structure leads to mutation. As observed in the research
lessons, the patterns of variation were contextualized in case studies depicting real-
life mutations, such as sickle-cell anemia. The post-test results revealed that
students were better able to describe the phenomenon of mutation using the
principles in transcription and translation, and by attributing mutation to the changes
in gene structure. In contrast, as observed in the pre-tests, mutation was often
associated with superheroes and mutants, and was described as physical traits that
were abnormal. In being able to ‘‘see the students responding to the real-life
examples and case studies’’ (Excerpt 7), the teachers consequently deemed students
establishing links with real-life phenomenon as a more important outcome of
teaching genetics. For example, during the post-study interview, Chris changed his
response in the Genetics Questionnaire by ranking ‘‘encourage students to establish
links with real-life phenomenon that is related to genetics’’ as more important than
before; he believed that:
(7) Chris: …for biology to be real to them, they must see the links to real-life
phenomena… I think the more you see the students responding to the
real-life examples and case studies, that will tell me that it is a more
powerful tool to use in learning.
Interviewer: So what are these ‘‘real-life example/s’’?
Chris: The one that came to my mind, and we discussed, is the mutation
part.
Illustrated above are the teachers’ attempts to transcend the transmission
pedagogy by positioning the development of students’ capability to link biological
concepts and processes at the center of teaching (Goodson 1998). Extending
Y. S. M. Tan, S. M. Nashon
123
learning beyond the learning study context, the teachers mentioned in the interviews
that theory of variation ‘‘is another tool in our toolbox we can use in future’’ (Kate’s
interview transcript), and have expressed their intentions to use similar case studies
and patterns of variation in their other classes.
3. Emergence of new understandings about new curricular content and sciencepedagogy. Through the learning study discourse, the teachers also gained new
understandings of new curricular content and science pedagogy. Formerly, the
teachers’ classroom instruction appeared to be centered on students’ mastery of
curricular content—as was suggested in their interviews (e.g., Excerpt 2) and
Genetics Questionnaire responses. In line with how their teaching would ‘‘focus on
the content first’’ (Chris’ interview transcript), the teachers likewise believed that
the outcome of teaching genetics can be expressed as student learning more content.
However, the post-study interviews revealed that apart from learning more content,
the teachers have gained an appreciation that the outcome of genetics can also be
expressed in terms of student learning content differently (Excerpt 8).
(8) Interviewer: Let’s take a look at the Genetics Questionnaire. Are there any
responses you would like to change?
Pam: ‘‘The outcome of genetics is expressed in terms of students
knowing more content or content differently’’—I think it’s a bit
of both now. I mean, they need to know more, definitely. But the
‘‘content differently’’ part, I think ‘‘yes!’’ Because, for example,
through the use of mutation, they learn more about the DNA
structure.
A further analysis suggests that the teachers’ development of this new
understanding may be attributed to the successes they experienced in incorporating
the topic of mutation into gene expression—‘‘to know that it works was important’’
(Pam’s interview transcript). According to the teachers, the patterns of variation
provided the students a different way of learning curricular content related to
mutation and gene expression. Phrased differently, the learning study offered
teachers opportunities to ‘‘explore possibilities’’ (Chris’ interview transcript) and
‘‘new ways to help students learn better’’ (Pam’s reflective journal entry). The
excerpt below illustrates how students have ‘‘learn better’’ and mastered the object
of student learning, which was achieved when Chris’ enacted the patterns of
variation through a word game.
(9) Interviewer: What aspect of Chris’ teaching did you find beneficial for your
learning?
Student: I guess it would have been the game…it taught us how each letter
plays a part in making a different word, and therefore each
nucleotide plays a part in making different proteins…how
mutations could occur because of the change in nucleotide
sequence… We understood mutation because Chris taught us
transcription and translation.
Promoting Teacher Learning Through Learning Study
123
In light of the above, it appears that the power to transform classroom practice
resides in the potential to shift the focus of classroom pedagogy from student
learning of more content to helping students develop capabilities to learn content
differently. In transcending a transmission pedagogy that largely focuses on content
mastery (Goodson 1998), the teachers also extended their own learning beyond the
learning study: different experiences of the learning study were documented as good
pedagogical practices to be incorporated into the teachers’ teaching practices. These
included the application of a theory to promote new ways of organizing student
learning activities, collaborative planning of lessons focusing on an object of
learning, using pre-tests to ascertain students’ pre-understandings, and the use of
systematic variations in teaching.
The Nature of Teacher Learning
The experiences of teacher learning manifested as changes in the teachers’ beliefs.
The shifts in beliefs can be characterized by challenges in the teachers’ assumptions
about science pedagogy that led to changes in classroom practices, an increased
awareness of the possibilities and limitations of existing beliefs, as well as the
gaining of new understandings about new curricular content and science pedagogy.
With the view that a phenomenographic analysis has both the potential to capture
the variation in ways of experiencing a particular phenomenon and to elucidate the
nature of a particular way of experiencing (Pang 2003), what the teachers learnt can
also be understood in terms of the structural and referential aspects. As illustrated in
Table 2, it appears that focusing on (1) the object of student learning, (2) student
pre-understandings, (3) skills students should develop, and (4) the outcomes of
students learning biology promoted the teachers’ reflection on broader ideas around
(1) what constituted good biology learning and teaching, (2) student learning
processes and (3) what was worth teaching.
In relation to supporting teacher learning, the teachers valued the opportunities
for collaboration. For example, the teachers constantly described collaboration as
being key to ‘‘widening their perspectives to promote different ways of thinking and
teaching’’ (Chris’ interview transcript). Similarly, as observed in the meetings, the
teachers were able to develop collective interpretations of how to teach the research
lessons by building on the individual ideas of team members. We believe that the
opportunities for teachers to explore and test out their beliefs through classroom
research—as afforded by the learning study—were also important. This assertion is
supported by the results presented above, which illustrated the importance of the
pre- and post-test results in shaping the teachers’ beliefs. The importance of
collaboration and teacher research in promoting teacher learning is consistent with
the findings of other learning studies and PD approaches (e.g., Lewis et al. 2009;
Pang and Lo 2012; Runesson et al. 2011).
Possibilities for Transformative and Generative Learning
The teachers’ experiences of teacher learning also suggest the possibility for
transformative and generative learning. According to Kincheloe and Steinberg
Y. S. M. Tan, S. M. Nashon
123
(1998), transformative learning entails both teachers’ development of their ownknowledge and teacher empowerment. Underpinning their argument is that teachers
should be empowered to determine what is to be taught and learnt, and to be
knowledge producers in ways that free them from being ‘‘disempowered in their
role as information delivers, servants of knowledge and curricula produced
elsewhere’’ (Kincheloe and Steinberg 1998, p. 13).
With this view, the participating teachers’ shifts in beliefs about science
pedagogy signal the possibilities for their deeply held assumptions about schooling
to be transformed (Dunetz 2005). They also suggest the possibility for teachers’
beliefs to be developed as their own knowledge. In view that teacher knowledge is
created when ‘‘student-presented information collides with teacher experience’’
(Kincheloe and Steinberg 1998, p. 19), teacher knowledge may have been created
when the participating teachers were given opportunities to explore students’
understandings in the exploratory and research phases of the learning study. In the
same vein, it has been illustrated how the pre- and post-test results challenged and
deepened the teachers’ understandings of the possibilities and limitations of their
beliefs, and encouraged new understandings about science pedagogy to emerge.
We also begin seeing the glimpses of a transformative classroom when teachers
moved away from a ‘‘traditional way of thinking and designing our lessons’’
Table 2 Different ways teachers experienced their own learning
Different ways of experiencing
teacher learning
Structural aspect Referential aspect
Increased degrees of student-
centered pedagogy and challenges
to teachers’ prior assumptions
about science pedagogy
Object of student learning The development of student
capability constituting a new and
important focus for the design and
implementation of classroom
instruction
(What constitutes good teaching)
Student pre-
understandings of
genetics
Belief that enacted curriculum is
directly translatable to student
mastery of content knowledge
challenged
(The process of student learning)
Increased awareness of possibilities
and limitations of teachers’ beliefs
about science pedagogy
Links within and between
topics; real-life
examples and case
studies
Increasing conviction that
establishing links (1) within and
between topics, and (2) with real-
life genetic (biology) phenomenon
are pertinent to good biology
teaching and learning
(What constitutes good teaching and
learning)
Emergence of new understandings
about new curricular content and
science pedagogy
Outcomes of teaching
genetics as expressed in
terms of student
learning
New understandings that student
learning content differently is also
an important outcome of teaching
genetics and of student learning
(What is worth teaching, and what
constitutes good student learning)
Promoting Teacher Learning Through Learning Study
123
(Kate’s interview transcript). Avoiding the risk of perpetuating a transmission
pedagogy (Goodson 1998), the teachers demonstrated an increased sensitivity to
student learning. For example, they learned more about why students may have
learning difficulties through the exploratory phase, and have analyzed the object of
student learning by drawing from students’ prior understandings and experiences.
These experiences were also reported in previous learning studies (Holmqvist 2011;
Runesson et al. 2011). The teachers also centered their classroom instruction on
developing students’ capabilities, and focused on helping student learn content
differently as opposed to merely learning more content. All these reflected the
teachers’ empowerment to enact increased degrees of student-centered pedagogy.
Teacher empowerment was also evident in how the research lessons were more
aligned with the teachers’ convictions about good teaching and learning.
The teacher learning experiences captured in this study also suggest the potential of
generative learning. According to Holmqvist et al. 2007, generative learning can be
appreciated as the generation of future learning. In their view, generative learning can
be characterized as learning beyond the learning situation; the development of a ‘‘way
of seeing the object of student learning in forthcoming situations that deepens the
knowledge further’’ (p. 188). Thus, the learning experiences of the participating
teachers may be viewed as precursors for learning beyond the learning study context.
In order words, what is learnt in the learning study may be situated in teachers’ daily
teaching practices. Seen in this light, the value of generative learning also resides in
how the re-contextualization of learning into the teachers’ local contexts addresses the
ineffectiveness of one-off PD formats (Wilson and Berne 1999).
In the context of this study, instances suggesting the occurrences of generative
learning comprise: the teachers frequently expressing their intentions to adapt their
new experiences into their teaching practices. The experiences include focusing on
the object of student learning and determining the curricular flow. The teachers were
equally keen to employ the collaboratively planned patterns of variation in their
other classes. Similarly, theory of variation was viewed as ‘‘another tool in our
toolbox we can use in future’’ (Kate’s interview transcript). The teachers also
documented different experiences of the learning study as good practices they
would incorporate into their teaching.
With the results hinting at the possibility of transformative and generative
learning, further exploration is needed to elucidate the nature of this aspect of
teacher learning, and how teacher knowledge can be further developed in the
process.
Limitations of Study
The small sample size limits the generalizability of the study. In addition, only one
cycle of the learning study was implemented due to time constraints. As such, we
could not explore how the manifested shifts in teacher beliefs shaped subsequent
lessons and neither could the stability of the shifts be examined. In not being able to
carry out a second cycle, we suspect that valuable teacher learning opportunities
may have been lost; previous learning studies have illustrated how subsequent
Y. S. M. Tan, S. M. Nashon
123
cycles of the learning study provided opportunities for gaps between theory of
variation and the research lessons to be addressed (Pang and Lo 2012), and have
promoted a better analysis of critical aspects of the object of student learning
(Holmqvist 2011). In our study, we would have hoped to further encourage teachers
to apply their learning beyond the current learning situation; thus exploring a way to
further deepen teacher knowledge and enhance teaching practice. Despite limited
generalizability and that only ‘snap-shots’ of teacher learning were captured, we
hope that by carefully describing the learning study and the teachers’ experiences,
others may gain insights in spite of the localized details. Without the intentions to
make broad generalizations, we have also made some suggestions in the next
section.
Concluding Remarks
The potential of transforming the challenges of curriculum reforms into contexts for
teacher learning has been suggested through this Singapore case of learning study.
While it is reasonable to expect teachers to struggle with any new curriculum
innovation, we propose that certain ways of perceiving curriculum reforms may be
helpful. For one, in spite of the challenges in introducing curriculum innovations, it
is possible for teachers to learn. Although this may seem straightforward, the
introduction of new curriculum may not always be perceived as an opportunity for
teacher PD (c.f. Schneider and Krajcik 2002). We propose viewing teacher beliefs
not only as reactions towards curricular innovations, but that the reshaping of these
beliefs also constitute teacher learning; teacher learning supported by collaboration,
teacher classroom research, and a theory-framed discourse that focuses on
enhancing student learning.
In practical terms, greater attention has to be paid to how we may promote
teacher learning in the context of curriculum reforms. In the view that time is
required for teacher beliefs to be explored and developed (Davis 2003), a greater
time lag between teachers’ exploration of new content and the formal implemen-
tation of new curriculum may be required. We are also compelled to deliberate over
the following: How do we cultivate the practice of reflexive awareness by
encouraging teachers to reflect on the relationships between their beliefs and science
pedagogy, to clarify their own goals of teaching, and to reconstruct their roles as
teachers (Kincheloe and Steinberg 1998)? How can such reflexive awareness lead to
greater teacher empowerment and transformations in the classroom?
Finally, by framing shifts in teacher beliefs as instances of teacher learning, we
may focus on what can be learnt in terms of what teachers are paying attention to
and the meanings ascribed to their beliefs. We may also ponder over how teacher
beliefs may be mobilized as part of their professional learning beyond a PD
program. Simultaneously, the knowledge teachers produced through experiencing
shifts in their beliefs, and how these shifts transform classroom practices and
permeate into the daily rhythms of school, still leave much to be explored.
Promoting Teacher Learning Through Learning Study
123
References
Barab, S. A., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and
accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87, 454–467.
Bowden, J. A., & Walsh, E. (Eds.). (1994). Phenomenographic research: Variations in method. TheWarburton symposium. Australia: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teachingand Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.
Coenders, F., Terlouw, T., & Dijkstra, S. (2008). Assessing teachers’ beliefs to facilitate the transition to a
new chemistry curriculum: What do the teachers want? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19,
317–335.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), Newdirections in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Berlin: Springer.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria.
Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–20.
Davis, K. S. (2003). ‘‘Change is hard’’: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher
learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87, 3–30.
Dunetz, M. (2005). Classroom teaching methods: Students as inquirers. In J. L. Kincheloe (Ed.),
Classroom teaching. An introduction (pp. 351–396). New York: Peter Lang.
Elliott, J. (2012). Developing a science of teaching through lesson study. International Journal for Lessonand Learning Studies, 1(2), 2–27.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative forprofessional development in education. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and
sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.
Fernandez, C., Cannon, J., & Chokshi, S. (2003). A US–Japan lesson study collaboration reveals critical
lenses for examining practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 171–185.
Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2010). Conceptual incoherence as a result of the use of multiple
historical models in school textbooks. Research in Science Education, 40, 605–623.
Goodson, I. F. (1998). Towards an alternative pedagogy. In J. L. Kincheloe & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.),
Unauthorized methods: Strategies for critical teaching (pp. 27–41). New York: Routledge.
Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M., & Egan, V. (2002). From beliefs to actions: The beliefs and
actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 171–187.
Holmqvist, M. (2011). Teachers’ learning in a learning study. Instructional Science, 39, 497–511.
Holmqvist, M., Gustavsson, L., & Wernberg, A. (2007). Generative learning: Learning beyond the
learning situation. Educational Action Research, 15(2), 181–208.
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry andimprovement. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. R. (1998). Lesson plans from the outer limits: Unauthorized methods.
In J. L. Kincheloe & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Unauthorized methods: Strategies for critical teaching(pp. 1–23). New York: Routledge.
Koballa, T. R., Glynn, S. M., Upson, L., & Coleman, D. C. (2005). Conceptions of teaching science held
by novice teachers in an alternative certification program. Journal of Science Teacher Education,16, 287–308.
Lewis, J., & Kattmann, U. (2004). Traits, genes, particles and information: Re-visiting students’
understandings of genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 195–206.
Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement?
The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.
Lewis, C., Perry, R. R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving mathematics instruction through lesson study:
A theoretical model and North American case. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12,
285–304.
Lieberman, J. (2009). Reinventing teacher professional norms and identities: The role of lesson study and
learning communities. Professional Development in Education, 35(1), 83–99.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Lo, M. L., Chik, P., & Pang, M. F. (2006). Patterns of variation in teaching the colour of light to Primary
3 students. Instructional Science, 34, 1–19.
Y. S. M. Tan, S. M. Nashon
123
Marton, F. (1988). Phenomenography—exploring different conceptions of reality. In D. M. Fetterman (Ed.),
Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education. The silent scientific revolution (pp. 176–205). New
York: Praeger.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mazzerella, J. A. (1980). Synthesis of research on staff development. Educational Leadership, 38,
182–185.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Nashon, S. (2005). Reflections from pre-service science teachers on the status of Physics 12 in British
Columbia. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 3(1), 2532.
Pang, M. F. (2003). Two faces of variation: On continuity in the phenomenographic movement [1].
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 145–156.
Pang, M. F. (2006). The use of learning study to enhance teacher professional learning in Hong Kong.
Teacher Education, 17(1), 27–42.
Pang, M. F., & Lo, M. L. (2012). Learning study: Helping teachers to use theory, develop professionally,
and produce new knowledge to be shared. Instructional Science, 40(3), 589–606.
Pang, M. F., & Marton, F. (2003). Beyond ‘‘lesson study’’: Comparing two ways of facilitating the grasp
of some economic concepts. Instructional Science, 31, 175–194.
Pang, M. F., & Marton, F. (2005). Learning theory as teaching resource: enhancing students’
understanding of economic concepts. Instructional Science, 33, 159–191.
Peers, C. E., Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2003). Supports and concerns for teacher professional
growth during the implementation of a science curriculum innovation. Research in ScienceEducation, 33, 89–110.
Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Desimone, L. D., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2000). Does professionaldevelopment change teaching practice? Results from a three-year study: Executive summary.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary.
Runesson, U. (2006). What is it possible to learn? On variation as a necessary condition of learning.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(4), 397–410.
Runesson, U., Kullberg, A., & Maunula, T. (2011). Sensitivity to student learning: A possible way to
enhance teachers’ and students’ learning? Constructing Knowledge for Teaching SecondaryMathematics, Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(4), 263–278.
Sandberg, J. (2005). How do we justify knowledge produced within interpretive approaches?
Organizational Research Methods, 8, 41–68.
Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative
curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221–245.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (1999). The development of professional developers: Learning
to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3), 237–269.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: The Free Press.
Tsui, C., & Treagust, D. F. (2004). Conceptual change in learning genetics: An ontological perspective.
Research in Science & Technological Education, 22(2), 185–202.
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An
examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research inEducation, 24, 173–209.
Promoting Teacher Learning Through Learning Study
123