spanish teachers' epistemological and scientific conceptions: implications for teacher...

This article was downloaded by: [University of North Carolina]On: 07 October 2013, At: 12:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20

Spanish Teachers'Epistemological andScientific Conceptions:Implications for teachereducation1Rafael Porlán Ariza & Rosa Martín Del PozoPublished online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Rafael Porlán Ariza & Rosa Martín Del Pozo (2002) SpanishTeachers' Epistemological and Scientific Conceptions: Implications for teachereducation1, European Journal of Teacher Education, 25:2-3, 151-169

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0261976022000035683

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0261976022000035683

reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

European Journal of Teacher Education,Vol. 25, Nos. 2 & 3, 2002

Spanish Teachers’ Epistemological and Scienti� cConceptions: implications for teacher education1

RAFAEL PORLAN ARIZA & ROSA MARTIN DEL POZO

SUMMARY We present the theoretical framework, the central issues, bibliographic antecedents,and most relevant results of three studies concerning Spanish teachers’ epistemological andscienti� c conceptions. The samples analysed present a majority tendency towards an absolutistview of knowledge and an empiricist conception of science. In our view, this represents a realobstacle to constructive and active professional development. Finally, we argue the need for anepistemological education of teachers that is closely linked to the design and development of theschool curriculum, and that does not reproduce the traditional academicist-type models.

RESUME Nous presentons dans ce travail le cadre theorique, les principaux problemes, labibliographie anterieure et les resultats les plus remarquables de trois etudes realisees sur lesconceptions scienti� ques et epistemologiques des professeurs. Dans les echantillons que nousavons analyses, se dessine une tendance majoritaire proche d’une vision absolutiste de laconnaissance et d’une conception empiriste de la science. Ceci, d’apres nous, constitue unveritable obstacle pour une formation professionnelle consciente et constructive. En dernier lieu,nous commentons l’exigence d’une formation epistemologique des enseignants etroitement liee ala plani� cation et au deroulement des programmes scolaires et qui ne reproduise pasl’academisme des modeles traditionnels.

RESUMEN En este trabajo presentamos el marco teorico, las cuestiones o problemas centrales,los antecedentes bibliogra� cos y los resultados mas relevantes de tres estudios sobre lasconcepciones cient õ � cas y epistemologicas de los profesores. En las muestras analizadas apareceuna tendencia mayoritaria cercana a una vision absolutista del conocimiento y a unaconcepcion empirista de la ciencia; lo que, desde nuestro punto de vista, supone un verdaderoobstaculo para un desarrollo profesional consciente y constructivo. Finalmente, se discute lanecesidad de una formacion epistemologica del profesorado estrechamente vinculada al disenoy desarrollo del currõ culo escolar, que no reproduzca los modelos academicistas tradicionales.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG In dieser Arbeit bringen wir die Theorie, die Hauptprobleme, diebibliogra� schen Vorgange und die wichtigsten Resultate der drei Studien uber wissenschaftlicheund epistemologische Vorstellungen der Professoren. In den untersuchten mustern erscheint einmehrheitlicher Trend nah eines absolutistischen Gesichtspunkt der kemtnis und einer em-pirischen Vorstellung der Wissenschaft; aus unseren Gesichtspunkt bedeutet es ein wahres

ISSN 0261-9768 print; ISSN 1469-5928 online/02/020151-19Ó 2002 Association for Teacher Education in EuropeDOI: 10.1080/0261976022000035683

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

152 Rafael Porlan Ariza & Rosa Mart õ n del Pozo

Hindernis fur eine bewußte professionelles Entwicklung. Letztendlich wird uber dieNotwendigkeit einer epistemologischen Ausbildung des Professorats diskutiert welche in engernZusamimenhang zum besign und Entwicklung des scaulischen Lebenslauf steht und die dentraditionallen akadamischen Modellen nicht entspricht.

The General Theoretical Framework

The authors of the present work belong to a network of teachers involved in School-teaching Research and Renovation (RED-IRES). One of this group’s most basictheoretical postulates is the need to develop a speci� c and differentiated epistemologicalambit by formulating what should be the desirable body of curricular knowledge for thepupils and the reference body of professional knowledge for the teachers (GrupoInvestigacion en la Escuela, 1991). In the case of our group, the line of research hasfocused on the study of professional knowledge from an epistemological perspectivewith emphasis on the following assumptions (Porlan et al., 1996; Porlan et al., 1997,1998; Porlan & Rivero, 1998):

(a) Teachers work with various kinds of knowledge (that of their pupils, of thesciences, of textbooks, their own knowledge as teachers etc.), and they more orless tacitly possess related meta-ideas, i.e. they have personal epistemologicalconceptions.

(b) These conceptions may have a in� uence on their interpretations and actions inteaching, and therefore constitute information that is indispensable for appropri-ate intervention in initial and ongoing teacher education.

(c) For this teacher education, a new reference body of professional knowledge isneeded which will be the result of the epistemological integration of differenttypes of knowledge (knowledge of the discipline, school-age experiences, actionroutines and scripts, worldviews etc.), and will be organised as an evolvingsystem of ideas (i.e. as a hypothesis of progression to favour improvement of theteachers’ initial conceptions) (Shulman, 1986; 1987).

In our view, therefore, a relative, evolutionary, complex and integratory vision ofknowledge (Toulmin, 1972; Morin, 1982; Garcõ a D õ az, 1998) should act as referent inthe analysis of teachers’ conceptions and in the formulation of proposals for a referencebody of professional knowledge. More speci� cally, a major part of our work hasconsisted in describing and analysing teachers’ conceptions of science and its relation-ship with school curricular content, taking the following theoretical principles intoconsideration (Porlan, 1989, 1993):

(a) Scienti� c knowledge is not a superior form of knowledge, but a particular formof interpreting reality in accord with certain determined ends (search for rationalexplanations for relevant problems) and in a determined internal (communitiesthat are professionally prepared for innovation, systematisation, and criticism)and external (economic, socio-political, and ideological variables etc.) context.

(b) Scienti� c knowledge should not only be identi� ed with the experimental sci-ences, in particular with Physics (considered by many to be the paradigm of whatis scienti� c). Instead, it is more a heterogeneous and dynamic body of knowl-edge.

(c) There exist forms of knowledge which share both the everyday and the scienti� cconceptions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

Spanish Teachers’ Epistemological and Scienti� c Conceptions 153

(d) The purpose of obligatory education should not be to replace the pupils’everyday knowledge by a simpli� ed knowledge of the disciplines, but to enrichand complexify the former under the in� uence of the latter (Garcõ a D õ az, 1995,1998).

The Central Issues of the Research

In this article we shall be examining two closely related issues:

(a) The aforementioned description of the epistemological and scienti� c conceptionsof different samples of teachers.

(b) The relative importance that the major currents of the philosophy and epistemol-ogy of science (Chalmers, 1976) have in these samples.

To this end, we adopted the evolutionary perspective of Toulmin (1972), according towhich the most relevant current epistemological dilemma is that of knowledge evalu-ation (truth criteria), in which two major general tendencies can be recognised:absolutism (there exist universal and immutable truth criteria, whether rational [ratio-nalism] or empirical [empiricism]), and radical relativism (there exist no universal truthcriteria, the criteria are relative to the personal, cultural, and social context etc.).Respecting this situation, Toulmin proposes a sort of moderated relativism or evolu-tionism, according to which one may establish knowledge evaluation criteria withdiffering degrees of generality. These criteria are not immutable, but evolve with time.

Other authors too have approached these issues and argued for the importance ofthese studies for primary education teaching/learning. In particular, it is considerednecessary to investigate the picture that teachers have of science because:

(a) It has a certain relationship with the teaching model that is actually put intopractice, and with what is understood by teaching (Lederman & Zeidler, 1987;Porlan, 1988, 1989; Hashweh, 1996).

(b) It is to some extent coherent with conceptions on how pupils learn science(Porlan, 1989; Brickhouse, 1990; Mart õ n del Pozo, 1994; Hollon & Anderson,1987).

(c) It in� uences the pupils’ scienti� c conceptions and contributes to forming thegeneral public’s image of science (Lederman, 1992).

(d) It forms part of a wider belief system concerning knowledge in general and itsnature, genesis, and evolution, and concerning the processes by which knowledgeis constructed and provided in the school context (Porlan, 1989).

Antecedents

For a certain period of time most attention has been paid to aspects of the process andstructure of teacher thinking. In recent years, however, there has been growing interestin describing and analysing the content of teachers’ conceptions. Since our interest toois centred on the said content, we have taken two types of approach into consideration:(a) one only studies teachers’ ideas concerning scienti� c knowledge (its nature, status,relationship to other types of knowledge, mode of production, change etc.); and (b) oneattempts to relate these ideas to the teaching/learning of school curricular content. Weshall examine these two lines of research separately.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


Studies of Scienti� c Conceptions

Numerous authors (Pope & Gilbert, 1983; Gordon, 1984; Gil, 1991; Lederman, 1992)have emphasised the fact that teachers have an image of scienti� c knowledge and workthat is distorted and has little to do with recent contributions to the epistemology ofscience, although at the same time it is recognised that this is not exclusive to the schoolenvironment.

In one of the � rst empirical studies carried out on this subject, Cotham and Smith(1981) used a questionnaire (Conceptions of Scienti� c Theories Test) with fourdimensions (ontological implications and genesis, selection and testing of theories),each of which allowed two epistemological alternatives (realism/instrumentalism, in-ductivism/invention, objectivism/subjectivism and tentativism/conclusionism, respect-ively). The data show the primary school teachers in the sample to be conclusivistswhen it comes to testing theories, inductivists in explaining how scienti� c knowledge isgenerated, and objectivists in selecting between rival theories.

More than ten years later, Abell and Smith (1994) analysed the conceptions of asample of 140 prospective elementary teachers by means of a questionnaire about thenature of science and science teaching at that level. The majority tendency de� ned anaõ ve (science as the search for truth), positivist, omnipresent and dehumanised vision.

In the same line, it is clear from the recent review by Lederman (1992) and fromour group’s subsequent work (Mart õ n del Pozo, 1994; Porlan, 1995; Porlan & Mart õ ndel Pozo, 1996; Porlan & Rivero, 1998) that there is a majority tendency amongstteachers and student teachers towards the positivist (empirical-inductivist) view ofscience. However, one of the conclusions of the study by Kouladis and Ogborn (1989)is that there is evidence for the existence of other viewpoints concerning scienti� cknowledge, which represent a degree of evolution away from this empirical-inductivistimage towards more contextualised settings. Our own results, as we shall see below,follow this line.

In the aforementioned study, Kouladis and Ogborn (1989) worked with a sample of12 science teachers and 11 student-teachers. They answered a 16-item multiple-choicequestionnaire about different aspects of scienti� c knowledge: the scienti� c method, thecriteria for differentiating between science and non-science, the change in scienti� cknowledge and its status. The different types of responses obtained correspond to thebasic trends in the philosophy of science: inductivism, hypothetical-deductivism, con-textualism (in both its rationalist and relativist versions) and relativism. Nevertheless,the analysis of the results made it necessary to include another category that the authorscalled eclecticism, into which 40% of the sample � tted. The correlation between thedifferent positions that were detected reveal three possible viewpoints about scienceheld by different groups of participants in the study:

(a) The � rst group held an inductivist position on methodology, rationalist ondistinguishing between what is and what is not science, and relativist with respectto the status of scienti� c knowledge.

(b) The second group presented a ‘methodological contextualism’ associated with anindecisive rationalist posture with respect to the status of scienti� c knowledge. Atthe same time, these participants tended to adopt a position of ‘relativistcontextualism’ to explain change in this knowledge.

(c) The third group took an eclectic position for all the aspects studied.

As the authors themselves state, the differences with respect to other studies, where

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


absolutist and positivist approaches prevail, may be due to the difference in age andexperience (their study involved young teachers) and more particularly to the in� uenceof the curriculum which was, in this case, more in line with relativist approaches.

More recently, Kouladis and Ogborn (1995) analysed 26 studies about teachers’scienti� c conceptions (between 1935 and 1991). From this comparative work, thefollowing conclusions can be drawn:

(a) Most of these studies re� ect an absolutist and inductivist conception. However,other minority trends can be detected that are more relativist.

(b) Teachers’ conceptions may vary depending on the speci� c aspect of sciencebeing dealt with. For instance, some teachers may be inductivists with respect tomethodology, rationalists with respect to change in science, and relativists withrespect to the status of scienti� c knowledge.

(c) Many of the studies do not present a wide enough set of categories to cover theexisting extent of epistemological positions.

Finally, it is worthy of note that, in the aforementioned article by Lederman (1992), itis suggested that such investigations should also be carried out during the practicaldevelopment of speci� c topics in the classroom so as to see which beliefs about thenature of science have the greatest in� uence on teaching.

Studies Which Also Cover Other Conceptions Related to Science Teaching/learning

Regarding the most representative studies aimed at relating conceptions of science andof teaching, in most cases they involve samples of (prospective or active) scienceteachers and a plurimethodological approach to contrasts the data using differentinstruments.

Aguirre et al. (1990) worked with a sample of 74 prospective science teachers, whowere asked to � ll in a open-type questionnaire about science and science teaching/learn-ing. From the qualitative analysis of the questions, different conceptions about scienceemerged, the empirical view being held by the majority. These conceptions were:

(a) A naive conception that understands science as a set of explanations andobservations about how and why certain phenomena take place.

(b) An experimental-inductive conception in which knowledge stems from observa-tion and experimentation.

(c) An experimental-falsifying conception in which the role of experiment is to falsifyscienti� c theories.

(d) A technological conception that reduces science to a technological activity meantto improve the quality of life.

(e) And � nally, a conception of science as a three-stage process (development,testing and acceptance of theories by the scienti� c community).

Regarding teaching, the participants were almost equally divided between two concep-tions:

(a) The teacher is a source of knowledge, and teaching is the transmission of thisknowledge.

(b) The teacher is a guide, and teaching is an activity that in� uences or facilitatescomprehension.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


Regarding the learning process, the tabula rasa conception of the mind was in themajority. However, the following two conceptions were also detected:

(a) The learning process is an attempt to give meaning to the new information as afunction of the pre-existing understanding.

(b) The learning process is an affective response.

In their conclusions, these authors emphasise on the fact that prospective teachers,before starting their training, hold diverse points of view with respect to science, sciencelearning and teaching, that should be taken into account in the training process. Also,although this study does not systematically relate this set of conceptions, it points outthat an empirical view of science may imply a disposition of the prospective teacherstowards transmissive teaching, as contradictory as that may seem.

In Smith and Neale’s study (1991) of primary-level science teachers, four differenttendencies were detected that do relate these conceptions about science, and sciencelearning and teaching:

(a) A discovery-based approach: science is understood as an investigative processand teaching as facilitating the students’ discovery.

(b) A process-based approach: science stems from the scienti� c method and teachingshould encourage students’ to learn that method.

(c) A content-based approach: science is a set of data, concepts and theories andteaching should suitably present to the students.

(d) Conceptual change-based approach: science is a form of knowledge which isbuilt and evolves within the framework of a conceptual ecology, and teachingshould facilitate the evolution of the students’ ideas.

Brickhouse (1990) interviewed three primary level teachers and observed their lessonsfor 35 hours. The results apparently show that the participants had different views onthe nature, processes and changes of scienti� c knowledge, and that those viewsin� uenced their teaching. The detailed description of the two more experiencedteachers shows that:

(a) The � rst teacher conceived scienti� c theories as problem solving tools (accordingto the author, following the philosophy of Kuhn and Lakatos). The secondregarded them as truths discovered by rigorous experimentation (according tothe author, following logical positivism and empiricism). The � rst teacherwanted the students to apply the theories to solving problems while the secondsimply wanted them to know and learn scienti� c theories.

(b) The � rst teacher regarded observation and experimentation as theory-drivenprocesses, while the second, on the contrary, regarded scienti� c processes aspurely inductive. The � rst teacher gave much importance to the students’predictions, and the second to learning the textbook concepts and to followinglaboratory practice scripts in order to obtain the right results.

(c) The � rst teacher considered that scienti� c process is due to the ability to makenew interpretations of old observations. The second saw it as a process ofaccumulation of true theories. For the � rst teacher, students learn by thinkingdifferently about what they already know. For the second, it is question of thestudents’ accumulating new information.

Gallager’s ethnographic study (1991) of 25 secondary level science teachers in � vedifferent schools provides valuable information about the relations between science and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


teaching. Observation of more than 1000 science lessons over two years and conversa-tions with the teachers revealed that all the teachers stressed the students’ scienti� cknowledge and their domination of scienti� c terminology. The teachers explained thescienti� c method in their lessons. According to the author, their explanations, ratherthan the real scienti� c process, re� ected the character of a research report. Further-more, observation was emphasised as being a guarantee for scienti� c objectivity.Gallager points out that one of the reasons for this practice is that the teachers’ initialtraining did not provide them with the opportunity to participate in real researchprocesses. Consequently, the teachers have dif� cult in understanding the origin andevolution of scienti� c processes, which leads them to transmit a positivist view ofscience, an inductivist and super� cial view of scienti� c method, and an objectivistconception of the scienti� c process. This makes their approach to science teachingbased on a formalistic learning of scienti� c concepts, emphasising the memorisation ofterminology rather than the comprehension of concepts and their relationships.

In a recent study, Hashweh (1996) analyses the effects of epistemological beliefs onhow science teachers teach. More precisely, the main hypothesis is that teachers withconstructivist beliefs, relative to the empiricists, are more able to:

(a) detect the students’ alternative conceptions;(b) use more varied teaching strategies;(c) introduce more strategies aimed at achieving conceptual change;(d) more frequently apply potentially more effective teaching strategies.

To do so, the author establishes comparisons between the beliefs of a sample of 35science teachers, previously classi� ed into two groups (constructivists and empiricists)according to their conceptions about knowledge and learning. The instrument was athree-part questionnaire:

(a) The � rst part presents two critical incidents for which the teachers have to takea position.

(b) The second part questions them about what to do with the students’ concep-tions.

(c) In the third part, they are asked to assess six strategies (explaining, repeating,persuading, refuting, developing and re-structuring).

The overall conclusion of the study reveals that, apparently, teachers with constructivistbeliefs are more prepared to induce persistent conceptual change than empiricists,because that is precisely their idea of the teaching and learning process, and theyperceive students’ conceptions as alternative knowledge and use varied strategies topromote change. Teachers with empiricist beliefs, on the other hand, perceive thestudents’ conceptions as mistakes and use far fewer strategies to try to modify them.

In sum, many teachers share our society’s dominant scienti� c myths: scienti� cprogress, the absolute of what is scienti� c, and the infallibility of the experts. Therelatively low level of the real incidence of initial and ongoing teacher education onteachers’ conceptions in contrast to the powerful in� uence of traditions at school (whilethey themselves were pupils of other teachers), of the communication media, and ofeveryday language, helps one to understand this deformed picture of science and of itseducational treatment in schools. Hence the importance that many authors give to thetreatment of these issues in initial and ongoing teacher education (Hewson & Hewson,1987; Gil, 1991). They constitute some of the greatest obstacles to progress in theconstruction of a signi� cant body of professional knowledge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE I. Studies of teachers’scienti� c and epistemological conceptions

Studies Samples Instruments Technique

STUDY 1 Seven prospective Interview Analysis of contentGBE teachers Written reports(GBE: General Basic (Diary of practice)Education, 6–14 years)

STUDY 2 107 prospective Inventory of Scienti� c Principal ComponentGBE teachers Pedagogical Beliefs (ISPB) Analysis (PCA)158 BGE teachers

STUDY 3 24 prospective Inventory of Scienti� c Principal ComponentGBE teachers Pedagogical Beliefs (ISPB) Analysis (PCA)

Design and Methodology of our Studies

We have carried out three empirical studies of scienti� c and epistemological concep-tions with both large and small samples of teachers during their initial training andwhen working as teachers. The instruments and the techniques used in processing thedata are summarised in Table I.

In Study 1, the semi-structured and re� exive interviews were based on a � exiblescheme with several problematic areas relating to science and its teaching and learning,about which conversations were held with the subjects. The questions were intended todetect the conceptions and any possible relationships and contradictions between them.Therefore they may be considered as being of the structural and testing types, followingthe question typology established by Patton (1980) and Spradley (1979).

The analysis of the content (Bardin, 1977; Stubbs, 1983) used both for theinterviews and for the written reports was in the following sequence:

1. Transcription of the interview, where applicable. The result is re� ected in aprovisional protocol that is compared by another member of the team with therecording itself, detecting errors and interpretations. Finally, the researchersjointly analyse the discrepancies found and prepare the � nal protocol of thetranscription.

2. Construction and categorisation of the propositional units. First a list of proposi-tional units was drawn up based on the protocol of the transcription, or on thewritten report, following Stubbs’ criterion (1983) for transforming the units ofinformation (each semantic unit included in the subjects’ sentences) into standardpropositions that properly re� ect their complete meaning. Then each unit isclassi� ed and coded (the code should ideally have one digit for each one of thefollowing variables: category, subject, type of document and number of order ofappearance in the text).

3. Formation of hypothetical constructs. Once the data (the propositional units)were organised into categories, the teachers’ possible conceptions are inferred bygrouping together those units with a similar meaning, either because they aremore or less generically related, or because they complement, reinforce or contra-dict each other.

In Studies 2 and 3, the Inventory of Scienti� c Pedagogical Beliefs (ISPB) was usedwhich, following the triangulation of sources strategy, was drawn up by taking into

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


account the most signi� cant statements obtained in the analysis of the content of theinterviews and the written reports, as well as the content of different questionnairesused in other works (Billeh & Malik, 1977; Strike et al., 1981; Munby, 1983; Buting,1984; Wodlinger, 1985). Speci� cally, 56 statements were selected and organised intofour categories (Image of Science, Personal Didactic Model, Subjective Theory ofLearning, and Teaching Methodology) each with 14 subcategories.

The � rst version of the ISPB was analysed by a group of experts in the � eld and bya group of teachers of different ages, academic levels and types of specialisation, forthem to note the possible problems of understanding, ambiguity, double meanings etc.,and to suggest modi� cations to the draft. A second version was then drawn up, withwhich we have since been working. The statements that refer to the Image of Sciencecategory, which we shall analyse in this article, are the following (the subcategory towhich each belongs is given in parentheses):

The scienti� c theories attained at the end a strict methodological process are a truere� ection of reality. (Validity of scienti� c theories.)

· When observing reality, it is impossible to avoid a certain degree of distortion thatis introduced by the observer. (Limitations of empiricism.)

· The observer should not act under the in� uence of previous theories about theprogramme being researched into. (Should prior theories be rejected?)

· All scienti� c research begins by systematic observation of the phenomenon that isbeing studied. (Role of observation.)

· Human knowledge is the result of the interaction between thought and reality.(Epistemological relativism.)

· Human thought is conditioned by subjective and emotional aspects. (Limitationsof rationalism.)

· The researcher is always limited in his work by the hypotheses that he relates to theproblem being researched into. (Prior hypothesis.)

· Scienti� c knowledge is generated thanks to the capacity that we as human beingshave to pose problems and imagine possible solutions to them. (Science andhuman capabilities.)

· The effectiveness and objectivity of scienti� c work lie in faithfully following theordered stages of the scienti� c method: observation, hypothesis, experimentationand construction of theories. (Phases in the scienti� c method.)

· Scienti� c methodology totally ensures objectivity in the study of reality. (Theobjectivity of the scienti� c method.)

· By experiment, the researcher tests whether his working hypothesis is true or false.(Experimentation and hypothesis.)

· Science has evolved historically by means of the successive accumulation of truetheories. (The history of science.)

· Hypothesis govern the process of scienti� c research. (Role of hypothesis.)· Experimentation is used in certain types of scienti� c research, whilst in other

research work it is not. (Experimental research/descriptive research.)

At the present and as a result of the different studies carried out, we are working on athird version that will remove or replace those statements that have proven to have lesspower for discrimination in multi-factorial analyses.

This type of design and validation strategy allows one to construct more consistentand suitable instruments and, at the same time, to check to what extent the beliefs,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


models of thought and implicit theories discovered in previous qualitative studies arerepresentative. Likewise, the results obtained when applying them to broader samplesallow us to build solider interpretative categories for subsequent case studies.

Even though the ISPB offers different possibilities of use, whether in the form of aquestionnaire or as closed interviews, till now it has been used exclusively as aLikert-type questionnaire, in which the subjects have to mark with a cross their degreeof agreement or disagreement with each statement. In this sense, one may consult in theliterature other questionnaires with similar objectives to those described here (Kouladis& Ogborn, 1989; Perez Gomez & Gimeno, 1992; Marrero, 1994).

The answers to the questionnaire were subjected to different multifactorial analyses(especially principal component analysis), considering the factors obtained to be theprobable dimensions of the teachers’ beliefs. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) isan exploratory technique of unquestionable value when a large number of variables areinvolved in the study (the categories and statements in the questionnaire) and theirinterrelationships are expected to be very complex (components or dimensions inteachers’ thinking). This type of analysis, according to Cuadras (1981), attempts toshow those relationships (components) that are predominant within the said complexityand which, therefore, may be considered, hypothetically speaking, as the main compo-nents of the processes being investigated (in this case, teachers’ epistemological concep-tions). In each PCA, the � rst three factors were further worked on, and in each factorthose statements presenting value of 0.5 or more for the factor’s relation coef� cient.

Results

Four of the seven participants in the (qualitative) Study 1 re� ected opinions that werefairly coherent with an empiricist and naõ ve conception of knowledge, which could besummed up in the following principles:

(a) Principle of neutrality and authenticity of scienti� c knowledge: Knowledge is tobe found in reality and science is a re� ection of it (realism). There is a singleuniversal method for gaining knowledge without the possibility of beingin� uenced by subjectivity (objectivism). This method starts out from observa-tion, construction of a hypothesis, experiment, and statement of theories (induc-tivism). This is a radical empiricist or experimental-inductive conception(Aguirre et al., 1990). Nevertheless, there may be a certain prior in� uence of thehypotheses on this process (moderated empiricism): this is what Aguirre et al.(1990) call an experiment-falsi� cation conception of scienti� c knowledge.

Some of the propositions that illustrate this approach are the following:

Francisco: ‘Science is an activity that comprises the following steps: observa-tion of reality, hypothesis construction, laboratory repetition of the observa-tions, search for solutions and construction of theories to explain the phenom-enon’.Soledad: ‘A Science is characterised by a following method the type: observa-tion, hypothesis, experimentation, theory and implementation’.Pilar: ‘The scienti� c method embraces the following sequence of processes:observation, experimentation, hypothesis and theory construction’.Marta: ‘The scienti� c method is a systematisation process which starts from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


the observation of the facts of reality in order to seek their cause-effect relationships’.

(b) Principle of truth of scienti� c knowledge: Scienti� c knowledge, since it isobtained empirically, has an absolute and universal nature. For example:

Pilar: ‘When a theory is tested, there is certainty about its correctness. Sometheories are absolutely true such as, for example, the law of gravity. Themore experiments are made on a theory, the solider it becomes’.

Nevertheless, in certain participants in the sample, a certain tension was noted withrespect to more relativist positions, due in part to the fact that they are aware of theexistence throughout history of different scienti� c theories for the same phenomenon.Let us see some examples:

Francisco: ‘Scienti� c truth has a universal value. Newton’s theory is truewithin the Earth’s limits. Einstein’s theory is valid at the level of the Universe’.Marta: ‘The validity of theories is tested by seeing if they satisfy reality. Whena theory is not veri� ed, a new one is looked for’.

(c) Principle of superiority of scienti� c knowledge: This expresses the idea of acertain epistemological authoritarianism. Sciences, especially experimental sci-ences, constitute a superior form of knowledge as opposed to the more subjectiveeveryday knowledge.

The following opinions are examples of this point of view:

Francisco: ‘Physics studies real problems that affect the human being’. ‘Phi-losophy is not a Science because it tries to explain reality, but not change it’.‘Experimentation is one of the advantages of Experimental Sciences withrespect to other Sciences, since it allows for a better study of the phenomena.Experimental Sciences can be more objective than other Sciences’. ‘Re-searchers always hold pre-conceived ideas (way of thinking), but this has norelation with the role of scienti� c theories (which pertain to a superior level,close to a law, to a more complete reasoning)’.Soledad: ‘Scienti� c theories are present before and after the observation ofreality. Occasionally research may begin by de� ning a theory to be later ontested through observation. Nevertheless, this is not the logical and naturalproceeding’.

However, in the same study, other non-empiricist positions were detected that can beidenti� ed with relativist views in line with the � ndings of Kouladis and Ogborn (1989).It is not that the other three students present a coherent alternative epistemologicalmodel similar to the one described above, but rather that they express more personaland less stereotyped points of view. They acknowledge some in� uence of the individualin the process of constructing knowledge (the individual’s own ideas and interests, thein� uence of theories on the observation etc.) and regard that knowledge as having amore provisional and evolving nature.

Roc õ o: ‘Scienti� c theories are obtained in contact with reality. There can becontact with reality without being aware of what is really happening. In orderto do Science, it is necessary to be clear about what you are going to see, whatyou are looking at and what you are obtaining’.Juan: ‘Researching is discovering beyond what you perceive in reality’. ‘Sci-ence is dynamic, it interacts with the environment, it tries to explain it and it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE II. Factors obtained in the PCA of the statements related to the image of sciencein the sample of teachers of Study 2

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) (Sample: 158 teachers)

FACTOR 1 (Variance: 14.28%)

· By experiment, the researcher tests whether his working hypothesis is true or false (factor coef� cientrelation: 0.710)

· Scienti� c methodology totally ensures objectivity in the study of reality (0.655)· Hypothesis govern the process of scienti� c research (0.640)

Interpretation: Moderated Empiricism (experiment falsi� cation)


· All scienti� c research begins by systematic observation of the phenomenon that is being studied (0.753)· Human knowledge is the result of the interaction between thought and reality (0.698)· Scienti� c knowledge is generated thanks to the capacity that we as human beings have to pose problems

and imagine possible solutions to them (0.561)· Human thought is conditioned by subjective and emotional aspects (0.500)

Interpretation: Moderated Empiricism (moderated inductivism)


· Science has evolved historically by means of successive accumulation of true theories (0.738)· The scienti� c theories attained at the end of a strict methodological process are a true re� ection of reality

(0.715)· The effectiveness and objectivity of scienti� c work lie in faithfully following the ordered stages of the

scienti� c method: observation, hypothesis, experimentation and construction of theories (0.518)

Interpretation: Radical empiricism (absolutism and realism)

somehow transforms it’. ‘Theories are the starting point for scienti� c research.The scienti� c method is a way of applying theories and searching for newsolutions’. ‘Theories are never absolutely true, there is always something thatescapes them’.Silvia: ‘The steps in the scienti� c method are: hypothesis formulation,veri� cation with reality and theory enunciation’; ‘When scientists discoversomething, they usually have a previous reference that guides their observa-tion.’

Three models of the view of science were detected in Studies 2 and 3, from theprincipal component analysis (PCA) of the answers provided by the different samplesto the ISPB. These were rationalism, relativism and empiricism, with the latter beingclearly dominant. Also, the prospective teachers apparently presented a greater diversityof conceptions than active teachers who clearly showed themselves to be empiricists(see Tables II–IV).

Comparing the two samples in Study 2, one sees that the active teachers are clearlyempiricists, and with dominance of a moderated version of this point of view (Factors1 and 2). However, in the prospective teachers of this sample, three models weredetected: radical empiricism (Factor 1), relativism (Factor 2) and rationalism (Factor3). A possible explanation may be that prospective teachers do not have enoughpractical experience to test their ideas against, and that their points of view are not verystable as they have no well-de� ned criteria.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE III. Factors obtained in the PCA of the statements related to the image of sciencein the sample of prospective teachers of Study 2

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) (Sample: 107 prospective teachers)


· Scienti� c methodology totally ensures objectivity in the study of reality (0.735)· The effectiveness and objectivity of scienti� c work lie in faithfully following the ordered stages of the

scienti� c method: observation, hypothesis, experimentation and construction of theories (0.689)· Human thought is conditioned by subjective and emotional aspects ( 2 0.473)

Interpretation: Radical empiricism (objectivism and radical inductivism)


· The researcher is always limited in his work by the hypothesis that he relates to the problem beingresearched into (0.692)

· Scienti� c knowledge is generated thanks to the capacity that we as human beings have to pose problemsand imagine possible solutions to them (0.589)

Interpretation: Relativism (moderated subjectivism)


· Experimentation is used in certain types of scienti� c research, whilst in other research work it is not(0.727)

· Science has evolved historically by means of successive accumulation of true theories (0.436)· All scienti� c research begins by systematic observation of the phenomenon that is being studied

( 2 0.404)

Interpretation: Rationalism

However, the PCA results for the other smaller sample of prospective teachers(Study 3) offer a basically empiricist picture. The � rst factor represents a moderatedempirical view of science. While the inductive version of the scienti� c method is theprocedure to attain objective and true knowledge, a certain in� uence of hypothesis inthe process is admitted. However, the second factor represents a more radical view ofempiricism, emphasising observation as the source of knowledge and rejecting anyexternal in� uence. The third factor only re� ects the realist and objectivist dimensionsof knowledge.

Conclusions

In consonance with other research studies, a diversity of viewpoints is detected whichallow us to establish different formulation levels of increasing complexity in teachers’conceptions of science. We can, therefore, present a possible progression hypothesiswith:

(a) A base level, which has more to do with what science teachers usually do intheir science lessons (transmission of knowledge) than with what they usuallythink about science.

Rationalism: ‘The rationalist model follows a viewpoint that considers thatknowledge is a product of the human mind, generated through logical rigorand reason. For rationalism, knowledge is not to be found in reality nor is it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE IV. Factors obtained in the PCA of the statements related to the image of sciencein the sample of prospective teachers of Study 3

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) (Sample: 24 prospective teachers)


· Human knowledge is the result of the interaction between thought and reality (0.758)· The effectiveness and objectivity of scienti� c work lie in faithfully following the ordered stages of the

scienti� c method: observation, hypothesis, experimentation and construction of theories (0.701)· The researcher is always limited in his work by the hypotheses that he relates to the problem being

researched into (0.516)

Interpretation: Moderated empiricism


· Science has evolved historically by means of successive accumulation of true theories (0.691)· All scienti� c research begins by systematic observation of the phenomenon that is being studied (0.526)· Scienti� c methodology totally ensures objectivity in the study of reality (0.501)

Interpretation: Radical empiricism

FACTOR 3 (Variance: 13.04%)· Scienti� c knowledge is generated thanks to the capacity that we as human beings have to pose problems

and imagine possible solutions to them ( 2 0.893)· Human thought is conditioned by subjective and emotional aspects ( 2 0.618)

Interpretation: Realistic and objectivist dimensions of knowledge

obtained by a process of observation thereof, since human senses inevitablydistort the facts and, therefore, twist reality thereby preventing authenticknowledge. This intellectual stance corresponds to a non-empiricist form ofabsolutism.’ (Porlan, 1989, p. 313)

(b) Two intermediate levels that attempt to obviate, at times with very differentapproaches, the obstacles that are involved with these majority trends.

(b1) Radical empiricism: ‘Based on the belief that the observation of reality allowsobjective and true knowledge to be obtained by induction which, as such, is are� ection of reality (objectivism, absolutism and realism).’ (Porlan, 1989,p. 315)

(b2) Moderated empiricism: ‘Close to quali� ed inductivism or a certain exper-iment/falsi� cation viewpoint in which hypothesis and experimentation replacesimple observation as the basic support of the scienti� c process.’ (Porlan,1989, pp. 314–315)

(c) Finally, a reference level that attempts to obviate the dif� culties presented bythe partial responses in the intermediate levels and that approaches thedesirable professional knowledge.

Moderated and evolutionary relativism: ‘A new image of science as a sociallyand historically conditioned activity, carried out by scientists (individuallysubjective but collectively critical and selective), who possess different method-ological strategies that cover processes for intellectual creation, empiricalvalidation and critical selection, by means of which temporary and relativeknowledge is constructed that is permanently changing and developing.’ (Por-lan, 1989, p. 65)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


From our approaches to the organisation and construction of professional knowl-edge, one sees that this form of synthesising the data is of practical use for teachereducation (as is also the case with the studies of pupils conceptions), since it offers usa hypothesis as to which are the obstacles that seem to be preventing the transit to moreevolved conceptions of scienti� c knowledge and its teaching/learning in the schoolcontext. Nevertheless, this does not mean that all teachers have to travel the sameclosed itineraries. Rather these are referents for the teacher education professional,which may and should be enriched by and tested against data from experimentationwith teacher education strategies and models that are coherent.

Implications for Teacher Education

If the intention is for teachers to take on an epistemology of science and of primaryeducation that is more in accord with the constructivist consensus, the conceptions thathave been detected constitute authentic obstacles to their professional development.

From our own experience as teacher educators, we understand these obstacles toarise at three levels:

(a) Obstacles that act at the level of epistemological foundations.

These ‘constitute a substantial part of teachers’ hidden ideology, and seldom come outinto the conscious part of their thought; this leads to their in� uence on educationalaction escaping re� exive criticism and empirical evidence’ (Porlan, 1993, p. 131). Weare essentially referring to an absolutist vision of knowledge, according to which thereexists a unique and immutable body of true knowledge, which is what should be aspiredto and should be learnt in school, and which is present in both the empiricist and in therationalist view of science (i.e. in both what teachers usually think and usually do).

(b) Obstacles that act at the level of scienti� c beliefs. Here we would place all thosecharacteristics of scienti� c empiricism and positivism that were brought out inthe studies referred to above. In line with Gil (1991), we would emphasise:

—The presumed objectivity of scienti� c knowledge, in which there seems to beno room for the possibility of observation directed by prior theories.

—The static, ahistoric, and aproblematic characteristic of science, which trans-mits an image of a � nished product and not of a process of construction.

—The consideration of scienti� c knowledge as a superior form of knowledgewhich can be differentiated, by means of rational and universal criteria, fromwhat is not scienti� c.

—The apparent neutrality of science.

(c) Obstacles that act at the level of educational beliefs, such as for instance thefollowing:

—Neglecting the existence of different bodies of knowledge involved in theteaching/learning process (scienti� c, everyday, school, professional, …), withdifferent criteria to judge their validity and which depend on the cultural,historical and social context. This translates, for example, into the lack ofclarity on the type of knowledge that a teacher has or should have about thecontent to be taught: Must this only be knowledge of the scienti� c content, ora professionalised (i.e. didactic) knowledge of that content?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


—Regarding the pupils’ ideas as mistakes to be replaced by correct knowledge.—Considering the body of knowledge of primary education, not as a speci� c

and differentiated epistemological ambit, but as a simpli� ed reproduction ofthe disciplines of science, very much in the line of treatment of many text-books.

Finally we wish to emphasise the need for an epistemological education of teachers.Such education should facilitate the evolution of their conceptions towards positionsthat are more relativist, contextualised, evolutionary, and complex concerning knowl-edge. However, as also is the case with other educational requirements, these may bedealt with in practice in yet another academicist manner, without taking into accountsomething as obvious as that it is not a question of training epistemologists. In our view,the questioning and treatment of teachers’ epistemological conceptions and obstacles isencouraged through work with speci� c curricular topics, which will later be tried outwith their pupils (Porlan & Mart õ n del Pozo, 1996).

In sum, we are convinced that it is only teachers who can get the dominantmodel of science teaching to evolve, and that it is therefore important to investigatetheir conceptions, analyse the obstacles that these present, and, on this basis, todesign and test teacher education programs that encourage teachers’ active and con-structive development, and, through them, the development of their pupils. Hence, webelieve that studies of teachers’ scienti� c conceptions have to be, rather than amere new intellectual curiosity of education research, an undertaking betweenresearchers and teachers to renew the teaching and knowledge of science in the schoolframework.

NOTE

1. This publication is part of project PB97-0737, � nanced by the CICYT.

REFERENCES

ABELL, S.K. & SMITH, D.C. (1994) What is science?: preservice elementary teachers’conceptions of the nature of science, International Journal of Science Education, 16,pp. 475–487.

AGUIRRE, J.M., HAGGERTY, S.M. & LINDER, C.J. (1990) Student-teachers’ conceptionsof science, teaching and learning: a case study in preservice science education,International Journal of Science Education, 12, pp. 381–390.

BARDIN, L. (1977) Analyse de contenu (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France) (Trad.Cast. Analisis de contenido, Madrid, Akal, 1986).

BILLEH, V.Y. & MALIK, M.H. (1977) Development and application of a test onunderstanding the nature of science, Science Education, 61, pp. 559–571.

BRICKHOUSE, N.W. (1990) Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and theirrelationship to classroom practice, Journal of Teacher Education, 41, pp. 53–62.

BUTING, C.E. (1984) Dimensionality of teacher education beliefs: an exploratory study,Journal of Experimental Education, 52, pp. 195–198.

CHALMERS, A.F. (1976) What is this Thing Called Science? (Queensland, University ofQueensland Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


COTHAM, J.C. & SMITH, E.L. (1981) Development and validation of the conceptionsof scienti� cs theories test, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, pp. 387–396.

CUADRAS, C.M. (1981) Metodos de analisis multivariante (Barcelona, Eunibar).GALLAGHER, J.J. (1991) Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers’

knowledge and beliers about the philosophy of science, Science Education, 75,pp. 121–133.

GARCIA DIAZ, J.E. (1995) Epistemolog õ a de la complejidad y ensenanza de la ecolog õ a,Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Sevilla.

GARCIA DIAZ, J.E. (1998) Hacia una teor õ a alternativa sobre los contenidos escolares(Sevilla, D õ ada).

GIL, D. (1991) Que hemos de saber y saber hacer los profesores de ciencias? (Intentode sõ ntesis de las aportaciones de la investigacion didactica), Ensenanza de lasCiencias, 9, pp. 69–77.

GORDON, D. (1984) The image of science, technological consciousness and hiddencurriculum, Curriculum Inquiry, 14, pp. 367–400.

GRUPO INVESTIGACIO N EN LA ESCUELA (1991) Proyecto curricular ‘Investigacion y Reno-vacion Escolar’ (IRES), (4 Vols, Version Provisional), Documento interno.

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

HEWSON, P.W. & HEWSON, M.G. (1987) Science teachers’ concepctions of teaching:Implications for teacher education, International Journal of Science Education, 9,pp. 425–440.

HOLLON, R.E. & ANDERSON, CH.W. (1987) Teacher’s beliefs abouts students’ learningprocesses in science: self-reinforcing beliefs systems. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the AERA, Washington DC.

KOULADIS, V. & OGBORN, J. (1989) Philosophy of science: an empirical study ofteachers’ views, International Journal of Science Education, 11, pp. 173–184.

KOULADIS, V. & OGBORN, J. (1995) Science teachers’ philosophical assumptions: howwell do we understand them? International Journal of Science Education, 17,pp. 273–283.

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

LEDERMAN, N.G. & ZEIDLER, D.L. (1987) Science teachers’ conceptions of the natureof science: do they really in� uence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71,pp. 721–734.

MARRERO, J. (1994) Las teorõ as implõ citas del profesorado: võ nculo entre la cultura y lapractica de la ensenanza, en: M.J. RODRIGO, A. RODRIGUEZ y J. MARRERO (Eds) Lasteorõ as implõ citas. Una aproximacion al conocimiento cotidiano (Madrid, Visor).

MARTIN DEL POZO, R. (1994) El conocimiento del cambio quõ mico en la formacioninicial del profesorado. Estudio de las concepciones disciplinares y didacticas delos estudiantes de Magisterio, Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Sevilla.

MORIN, E. (1982) Science avec conscience (Par õ s, Editions du Seuil).MUNBY, H. (1983) Thirty studies involving the ‘scienti� c attitude inventory’: what

con� dence can we have this instrument? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20,pp. 141–162.

PATTON, M.Q. (1980) Qualitative Evaluations Methods (Thousand Oaks, CA, SagePublications).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


PEREZ GOMEZ, A.I. & GIMENO, J. (1992) El pensamiento pedagogico de los profesores:un estudio emp õ rico sobre la incidencia de los cursos de aptitud pedagogica (CAP)y de la experiencia profesional en el pensamiento de los profesores, Investigacion enla Escuela, 17, pp. 51–73.

POPE, M. & GILBERT, J. (1983) Personal experience and the construction of knowledgein science, Science Education, 67, pp. 193–203 (Trad. cast. La experiencia personaly la construccion del conocimiento en Cienciase, en: R. PORLAN, J.E. GARCIA & P.CANAL (Eds) Constructivismo y ensenanza de las ciencias, Sevilla, D õ ada, 1988).

PORLAN, R. (1988) El pensamiento cient õ � co y pedagogico de los maestros en forma-cion, in: R. PORLAN, J.E. GARC õ A & P. CANAL (Eds) Constructivismo y ensenanza delas ciencias (Sevilla, D õ ada).

PORLAN, R. (1989) Teor õ a del conocimiento, teor õ a de la ensenanza y desarrolloprofesional. Las concepciones epistemologicas de los profesores, Tesis doctoral,Universidad de Sevilla.

PORLAN, R. (1993) Constructivismo y Escuela (Sevilla, D õ ada).PORLAN, R. (1994) Las concepciones epistemologicas de los profesores: el caso de los

estudiantes de Magisterio, Investigacion en la Escuela, 22, pp. 67–84.PORLAN, R. (1995) Las creencias pedagogicas y cient õ � cas de los profesores, Ensenanza

de las Ciencias de la Tierra, 3, pp. 7–13.PORLAN, R. & MARTIN DEL POZO, R. (1996) Ciencia, Profesores y Ensenanza: unas

relaciones complejas, Alambique, 8, pp. 23–32.PORLAN, R., AZCARATE, P., MARTIN DEL POZO, R., MARTIN TOSCANO, J. & RIVERO, A.

(1996) Conocimiento profesional deseable y profesores innovadores: Fundamen-tos y principios formativos, Investigacion en la Escuela, 29, pp. 23–38.

PORLAN, R.& RIVERO, A. (1998) El conocimiento de los profesores (Sevilla, D õ ada).PORLAN, R., RIVERO, A. & MARTIN DEL POZO, R. (1997) Conocimiento profesional y

epistemolog õ a de los profesores I: Teor õ a, metodos e instrumentos, Ensenanza delas Ciencias, 15, pp. 155–171.

PORLAN, R., RIVERO, A. & MARTIN DEL POZO, R. (1998) Conocimiento profesional yepistemolog õ a de los profesores II: Estudios emp õ ricos y conclusiones, Ensenanza delas Ciencias, 16, pp. 271–288.

SHULMAN, L.S. (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching, Educa-tional Researcher, 15, pp. 4–14.

SHULMAN, L.S. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform,Harvard Educational Review, 57, pp. 1–22.

SMITH, D. & NEALE, D. (1991) The construction of subject-matter knowledge inprimary science teaching, in: J. BROPHY (Ed.) Advances in Research on Teaching,vol. 2 (JAI Press).

SPRADLEY, J.P. (1979) The Ethnographic Interview (New York, Holt, Rinehart &Winston).

WHELING, L.J. & CHARTERS, W.W. (1969). Dimensions of teacher beliefs about theteaching process, American Educational Research Journal, 6, pp. 7–30.

STRIKE, K., GERTOZOG, W., HEWSOM, P., HOAGLAND, G., NUSSBAUM, I. & POSNER, G.(1981) The Cornell Assessment of Scienti� c Beliefs (CASB): A Report on QuestionnaireDevelopment, Research Report 10 (New York, Departament of Education, CornellUniversity, Ithaca).

STUBBS, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistics Analysis of natural Language(Oxford, Basil Blackwell) (Trad. cast. Lenguaje y escuela: Analisis sociolingu õ stico dela ensenanza, Madrid, Cincel).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013


TOULMIN, S. (1972) Human Understanding. Vol. I: The Collective Use and Evolution ofConcepts (Princeton University Press).

WODLINGER, M.G. (1985) Entry beliefs of � rst-year preservice teachers, The AlbertaJournal of Educational Research, 31, pp. 54–69.

Correspondence: Rafael Porlan Ariza, Departamento de Didactica de las Ciencias,Facultad de Ciencias de la Educacion, Avda. Ciudad Jardõ n, 22, 41005 Sevilla, Spain.Tel: 95 4645002; Fax: 95 4645861; E-mail: [email protected].

Rosa Mart õ n del Pozo, Departamento de Didactica de las Ciencias Experimentales,Facultad de Educacion, C/Rector Royo Villanova s/n., 28040 Madrid, Spain. Tel: 913946249; Fax: 91 3956288; E-mail: [email protected].

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 12:

56 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

spanish teachers' epistemological and scientific conceptions: implications for teacher...

Documents