Research in Science Education, 1994, 24, 11-20

STUDENTS' LEARNING IN SCIENCE LESSONS: TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING THE LEARNING PROCESS

Ken Appleton & Warren Beasley Central Queensland University University of Queensland

ABSTRACT

Constructivist views of learning have been applied to science education largely as a response to attempts to understand the origins of students' misconceptions in science, and therefore the learning process. As part of this effort to understand learning in science lessons, Appleton (1989) pro- posed a learning model drawn mainly from Piagetian (1978) ideas and generative learning theory (Osborne & Wittrock, 1983). This paper explores the development and evolution of the learning model as other constructivist views were applied, and as the model was tested against students' respons- es in science lessons. The revised model finally arrived at is then examined. It was found to be a useful means of describing students' learning processes during a science lesson.

INTRODUCTION Attempts in recent years to understand the origins of students' misconceptions in science and by implication, the learning process in science lessons (see Pfundt & Duit, 1991 for a comprehensive bibliography), have led to the application of constructivist views of learning to science classrooms (Freyberg & Osborne, 1985; Tobin, 1990). Early emphasis was placed o n

the constructs and processes seen to be internal to the learner (Freyberg & Osborne, 1985), but more recently the significance of the social context has been emphasised (O'Loughlin, 1992; Tobin, 1990). Some years ago, Appleton (1989) proposed a learning model for science education drawn largely from Piaget (1978) and Osborne and Wittrock (1983). This paper describes a later version of the learning model resulting from consideration of other constructivist views of learning and classroom trials (Appleton, 1993a). The final model proved an effective means of following the learning progress of students during science lessons.

THE BEGINNING A learning model based on selected constructivist views (Osborne & Wittrock, 1983; Piaget, 1978) was proposed and explored in terms of Year 6 students' investigations into the topic Floadng and Sinking (Appleton, 1989). For a full explanation of the model see Appleton (1989). This model highlighted the importance of the learner's existing ideas in determining which schema were recalled and used to make sense of a learning situation, and the possible pathways a learner might take during a lesson, based around Piaget's notion of disequilibrium. While this was a simplified representation of the learning process, it formed a powerful basis for making decisions about science teaching (Appleton, 1990a, 1993b).

FURTHER THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT This initial learning model underwent considerable revision as a number of other aspects of constructivism were included. These involved theoretical considerations from Kelly (1955), Claxton (1990), Carey (1985), Bruner (1985), Bruner and Haste (1987), and Festinger (1957). In the initial model, the importance of the learning context was not emphasised (Claxton, 1990, Kelly, 1955) sufficiently, particularly with respect to its influence on the selection of

12

memories to be recalled in response to the learning encounter. That students might opt out of learning, or rote learn answers was also presented in a very narrow framework in the initial model. From Kelly and Claxton, a more general basis for understanding why students might take these actions was identified. For instance, these reactions could be seen as learned responses to the learning context, based on past experiences of trying to cope with the demands of lessons. Bruner (1985) showed, using Vygotsky's (1978) work, the importance of the social context. The social circumstances of the learning context were therefore identified as an area under-emphasised in the model. Bruner also discussed the significance of language, a part of the social context, for achieving cognitive change through the process of scaffolding. Scaffolding occurs when the teacher identifies a child's current understanding of a concept, and by a sequence of questions and statements, helps the child reach a deeper understanding which is mutually constructed by child and teacher. This aspect was not evident in the model.

Another shortcoming of the model was identified from Festinger's Cognidve Dissonance Theory (1957). When the state of disequilibrium (dissonance in Festinger's terms) is reached, he suggested that a common response is for people to seek further information. Consequently an information seeking phase could be expected as an intermediate step prior to accommodation being reached. To a limited extent, this incorporated Bruner's idea about scaffolding as well. Dissonance theory also introduced the notion that a learner may not perceive the learning encounter as relevant and therefore ignore it altogether. Further, it showed that there were multiple pathways possible in the model, rather than the initial simpler pathways portrayed.

As well, closer analysis of Piaget's (1978) discussion of disequilibrium and accommodation introduced the possibility, not considered earlier, that an open-minded state may be achieved as a result of cognitive restructuring. That is, two ideas might be held juxtaposed by the learner, and no choice made between them.

A revised model incorporating all these theoretical positions was developed. This made the model more comprehensive, but at a cost of introducing greater complexity.

A TRIAL OF THE REVISED MODEL

Since the revised learning model was based on theoretical constructs, it was tested in several science lessons to ascertain how well it allowed students' progress through a lesson to be documented. The model had as its basis the notion of cognitive conflict generated from an encounter experienced by a student, so a lesson which began with a phase designed to generate cognitive conflict was used. A discrepant event (Suchman, 1966), where the students are confronted with an unexpected outcome from an experiment, was chosen from several suggested by Suchman and others (Friedl, 1986; Liem, 1987). In three classes of eleven year-olds, the discrepant event was presented in different ways, such as using a teacher demonstration and student activity in small groups. A group of four students in each class was videotaped, and each student interviewed after the lesson using the videotape to stimulate their recall of their thinking during the lesson. The videotapes and transcriptions of the interviews were used to map the students' progress on the learning model, during the lesson. The students' cognitive processes were inferred inductively from the data, and then matched to the model.

Results of the trial It became obvious as the trial progressed that the model as revised was inadequate, and could not document many aspects of the students' thinking and learning processes during the lesson. This necessitated a further revision of the learning model to account for the

13

observations and inferences about the students' thinking. The newly modified model retained the essential features of the earlier theoretically derived model, but was redrawn to simplify the visual appearance of the model and to incorporate the issues identified in the trials. It still portrayed the student's learning progress as essentially a linear sequence. While this was obviously not the case in the trials, it was accepted as a limitation of the model.

FURTHER TRIALS OF THE LEARNING MODEL

The newly modified learning model was subjected to a series of further trials to test the accuracy of its representation of a student's learning progress during a science lesson. The trials were conducted in a similar manner as before, with three classes of 12 to 13 year-olds. Three different discrepant events were used with each class this time, resulting in nine lessons. Two students from each class were interviewed after each lesson, and their progress through the learning model inferred from the interview and videotape data.

Results of the second tria! This third version of the learning model proved to be robust, and allowed adequate descriptions of students' learning progress during the observed lessons in the trials. Although the learning model was now able to be used to document the students' cognitive progress during the lessons observed, some problems were still experienced in using the model, particularly in three areas. The first was in relation to the types of information used by students. The three incorporated into the model (the teacher providing the answer, engaging with the encounter, and consulting books and peers) were not sufficiently comprehensive. For example, it was found that students used contextual cues from the lesson and the teacher's behaviour as information sources. A student, Denise, reported how, in a lesson, she deduced a possible answer to the discrepant event from the questions the teacher did no__jt ask. Other cues used were the content from previous lessons, and non-verbal signals from the teacher.

The second problem area identified with the model was related to the influence of the attitudes, feelings and expectations of the students during the lesson. Aspects of these were implied in the overall social context in which the model operated, but they were found to influence the students' responses (for example, see Appleton, 1993a, 1993b) to such an extent that they needed to be made more explicit. The third problem area was to do with the structural organisation of the model. The only pathways represented after information was obtained were confusing and not clearly or logically portrayed. For example, during a lesson, it was noted that students continuously evaluated information, and used it in different ways depending on the information and the context at the time. The type of information processing which occurred varied between students, but even the same student would process information differently during different parts of the lesson. Such diverse pathways were not easily shown on the model. As well, the model had become very complex, and needed to be simplified.

THE FINAL MODEL REVISION

To revise the model, either minor changes could be made to incorporate as many of the above problem areas as possible, or the model could be totally restructured, particularly with a view to simplifying its structure. Although a minor restructuring was considered, the model was totally reorganised, as shown in Fig. 1. During the major restructuring, a further theoretical construct to differentiate between levels of cognitive processing was considered a useful addition, as different levels of processing had been evident in the students' responses. At a simple level, notions of surface and deep processing (Biggs, 1987; Biggs & Moore, 1993) provide a suitable distinction. Biggs described three approaches to learning in tertiary and secondary students: the surface approach, deep approach and achieving approach. Students

14

I [

!

o

I ~ I I ~ . ~ .I I ~ l

I g ~ . ~ l ~.~~.

i

|

~.~= ~ a

~_ ~ ~ ~'~.~ ~_.~

I

!

0 0 ~.s 0..0 ~ } i l

amO~o@mQ

~ ' |

I V~

15

who use the surface approach try to avoid both working too hard, and failing in assessments. The main strategy employed is rote learning, where students focus on what appear to be the important points, and try to reproduce them. Those who use the deep approach are intrinsically motivated, and are interested in the task. They use strategies to help them understand the task, such as trying to relate it to what they already know, and deriving hypotheses to explain it. The motivation for students using the achieving approach comes from "the ego trip that comes from achieving high marks" (Biggs & Moore, 1993, p. 313). They choose strategies which will give the best rewards from the teacher and the highest marks, so strategies will vary depending on the task and situation. There is always an element of efficiency in their choice, which can involve either deep or surface approaches.

To simplify the model, it was considered necessary to omit portions which were not evident in any of the trials. The restructured model in Fig. 1 shows only one exit, and caters more readily for the iterative nature of cognitive processing during a lesson. The model still has limitations in that the contextual social aspects are represented in a limited way. For example, Biggs' (1987) Achievement orientation is not directly represented on the model, yet it is the student's desire to achieve which, in part, determines whether deep processing or surface processing occurs. The final revised version represents cognitive processing pathways in science lessons, rather than a general learning model.

An explanation of the model The whole process described in the model is influenced by the Overall Classroom Context, and in particular, the student's perception of that context. Student bring to the classroom their own set of ideas, feelings and so on. A New Encounter such as a discrepant event causes students to sort through memories to recall those perceived as relevant. The (non-conscious) choice of memories is influenced by the students' EyJsting ideas, their perceptions of the Classroom Context, consequential Observed aspects of the encounter and Cues provided by lesson and teacher. Each student tries to arrive at a "Best fit* idea by processing the information from all these sources. The type of processing which occurs depends on the students' Exisdng ideas and abilities in processing, their perceptions of the demands of the Overall Classroom Context, and the level of challenge (interest and cognitive demand) presented by the New Encounter (Baird, 1992). If the students' perception of the school situation is such that they wish to achieve at school, and they have the ability (part of the Existing ideas cognitive structure) to perform Deep Processing, then they can choose the most appropriate type of processing for the situation as they perceive it. Students without the ability for Deep Processing have no alternative other than to use Surface Processing.

Following the Processing of information, there are three possible pathways. In the first, the students would consider that they have found an Iden~cal fit of the encounter to exis~ng ideas. The most likety consequence is for such students to Ex/t the learning process, believing that they know what is being taught. However, it is possible that, if they attend to continuing parts of the lesson, they encounter some new information which forces them to Re- examine the idea. This effectively constitutes a New Encounter for such students, and the process begins again.

In the second pathway, students might find that the Encounter makes an approximate fit with existing ideas. That is, many aspects of the vague or tentative idea may appear similar, although there might be some differences. Some students may then assume that the similarities are sufficient to allow the Vague idea to be accepted as an adequate answer. They would therefore Ex/t the learning process, or may later Re-examine the idea as described earlier. Alternatively, students may Accept the vague idea as a possible answer, but try to confirm it or clarify aspects of the idea which appear unclear. Students who do this would join those who took the third pathway by Seeking Information.

16

In the third pathway, students would find themselves in an Incomplete Fit state, with resultant Cognitive Conflict. A consequence of Cognitive Conflict is for students to Seek Information. In a classroom situation, there are many sources of information, but access to these is controlled by the Classroom Context, and in particular, the teaching strategy used by the teacher. Each teaching strategy has associated with it a particular physical and social setting (Appleton, 1993a) which may open some sources of information, but close others. Students' willingness and ability to use available information sources also depend on the Classroom Context. Students may have learned particular personal strategies for coping with some classroom contexts which they find boring or threatening, and these may be automatically "triggered" by a similar context (Appleton, 1993a). The coping strategy used may well prevent students from accessing some information even if it is available to them.

The possible information sources available in classroom contexts are:

Exploring the materials associated with the New Encounter indirectly. If the encounter were presented as a teacher demonstration, for example, then the students' exploration would be limited to visual experiences mediated by the teacher's actions and words.

Exploring the materials associated with the New Encounter directly. This is only possible in a hands-on type of lesson, whether organised as individual work, small group work, or students taking turns at manipulating the materials. Other materials such as books or audiovisual material may be explored if available.

Using ideas from the teacher. The teacher usually talks fairly constantly in most lesson types, so this is a common source of information. The teacher-talk may be supplemented by other forms of communication such as non-verbal cues, teacher- prepared notes, chalk board summaries and the like.

Using ideas from peers. In some lesson contexts, student talk is permitted. Such talk may be directed at the teacher, or may be student to student, depending on the teaching strategy used. In most classes, there are students who are recognised by peers as knowledgeable, and who are seen as useful sources of information. Information can, of course, be obtained from any student who contributes verbally, but the information offered by those with status as "clever" tends to be valued more highly (Appleton, 1993a).

Waiting for the answer to be revealed is sometimes the only means of obtaining information which is available to students. This is again determined by the teaching strategy and Classroom Context. In such contexts, it is usually the teacher who ultimately reveals the answer - either directly, or indirectly from other students or books. It seems that an implicit "rule" of schooling understood by both teachers and students is that if the students are unsuccessful at finding an answer, then the teacher will ultimately reveal it. In some contexts, this may be a valid and efficient means for students to obtain information.

Using teacher and lesson structuring cues. All teachers structure their lessons in logical ways to maximise student learning. Students aware of this can use such structuring as an information source. For example, if the previous lesson dealt with air pressure, then "the answer" to the current lesson might have something to do with air pressure. Other more subtle cues can be provided by the teacher simply by what he/she says, does, and does not say. For example, if students are engaged in a laboratory investigation using batteries, instructions to attach a wire and bulb to the

17

battery might be interpreted by a student unaware of the purpose of insulation on wires that no electric current is flowing in the wire, because the teacher would not tell them to do something unsafe.

Using information from any number of these sources, the students then Seek a "best fit" idea by Processing the Information, using either Deep Processing or Surface Processing or both. The cycle begins again, and continues until the lesson ends and/or the students Exit with either an Identical Fit or an Approximate Fit. Implicit in the model is the assumption that all students will exit the lesson with some notion of at least an Approximate Fit. The possibility exists, however, that some students may finish the lesson totally confused, with no idea of an answer. Since the model was attempting to portray cognitive processing in lessons, it was considered simpler to omit on the model any exit associated with little or no cognitive processing.

Some examples To exemplify how the learning model was used, the classroom actions and learning progress of two students through the model are outlined below. The phrases in italics refer to sections of the model.

The first student, Denise. The discrepant event used in this lesson was adapted from The Diving Bottle (Suchman, 1966). A small glass bottle was upturned in a tall glass cylinder of water, and adjusted so that it only just floated. A sheet of rubber was fastened over the top of the cylinder, and pushed gently. The bottle sank to the bottom of the cylinder, and remained there even when the rubber sheet was removed. When the rubber sheet was pulled upwards gently, the bottle rose to the surface. The discrepant event was introduced as a teacher demonstration with explanations of the materials, and presented with an air of mystery:. "1 wonder what's going to happen?" (after Hem, 1987). The teacher explained the event using the materials as an aid, and drew the students' attention to key observations. Examples which the students could relate to were provided. The teacher involved the students in working through ideas using a normal classroom interaction pattern (teacher question -- student response -- teacher response). All student interaction was directly with the teacher, with no student-student discussion.

A student in the class, Denise, was interviewed after the lesson and her progress through the learning model during the lesson inferred. When the discrepant event was presented as a New Encounter, Denise Sorted Through Recall to find appropriate memories to help make sense of the event. The lesson and teacher cues, what she noticed about the event, and the memories she retrieved were Processed at a Deep Level, as Denise is highly Achievement oriented. Although she retrieved some possible schema which might provide an explanation for the discrepant event, she failed to reach an adequate explanation for what was happening. She therefore moved rapidly to an Incomplete Fit state, and began Seeking Information which may help her clarify the ideas which she was entertaining as possibilities. To do this, she Explored the Materials Indirectly from where she sat, and Used Ideas from the Teacher extensively, and to a lesser extent, Ideas from Peers. The information obtained was used to Seek a "best fit• Idea by further Deep Processing. This Cognitive Restructuring led her to an Approximate Fit of an Idea in which she had confidence as an explanation for the discrepant event. She Accepted this Vague Idea, But Tried to Confirm It by Seeking further Information. She used the same means of obtaining information as before, also drawing on Lesson and Teacher Structuring Cues. The process of scaffolding which the teacher engaged in was of particular help to her (but is not shown specifically on the model). The new information was again processed by Restructuring of Ideas. This restructuring and information seeking became an iterative process, with Denise gaining information, processing it and making predictions which were in turn confirmed by information obtained from the teacher and other

18

sources. By the end of the lesson, she felt she had reached an IdenUcal Fit of the Encounter to her Restructured Ideas, and therefore concluded with her initial ideas changed.

The second student, Colin. The discrepant event for this lesson was based on the Double Pendulum discrepant event (Liem, 1987; Suchman, 1966). A long piece of wooden dowel was placed horizontally across two clamps about 50 cm above the bench, so that the dowel could roll freely back and forth. Two simple pendulums of the same length and weight were then suspended from the dowel, about 15 cm apart. One pendulum was set in motion. In a short time, the second pendulum began swinging as well. Before long the first pendulum had almost stopped, while the second swung in full arcs. However, within a few minutes the first pendulum again picked up its amplitude of swing, while the second diminished. The discrepant event was conducted by small groups of four students working with their own materials, following the verbal instructions of the teacher along the lines suggested by Friedl (1986). After conducting the discrepant event a few times, the students noticed that the dowel rolled backwards and forwards slightly. Following the teacher's suggestions, they examined the effects of changing various variables, such as altering the number of washers in the pendulum bob, clamping the ends of the dowel, shortening the pendulum length, and the changing the amplitude of the starting swing. Within the group and as a whole class, they tried to develop an explanation for the event.

Colin, a member of one group, was videotaped during the lesson and interviewed afterwards. While the discrepant event was being conducted, he Sorted Through Recall by observing aspects of the encounter and linking to memories perceived as relevant. He Sought a Best Fit by Deep Processing of Information, but was unable to find a satisfactory explanation. By the end of the first experience of the discrepant event, he had reached an Incomplete Fit state, and began to Seek Information. He did this as part of the group, by Exploring the Materials Directly, and by watching others in the group (that is, he Explored the Materials Indirectly). He also Used Ideas from his Peers, particularly when some one noticed that the rod was moving on the c lamps. He interpreted this movement as a sliding motion, and (Surface) Processed the New Information to arrive at an Approximate Fit. He was satisfied that this was an adequate explanation, so Accepted the Vague Idea as an Adequate Answer.

However, as others in the group challenged his assertion that the dowel was sliding, Colin was forced to Re-examine the Idea. The information that the dowel was rolling rather than sliding served as a New Encounter for him, causing him to search for other Memories Perceived as Relevant, Process the Information and again arrive at an Incomplete Fit state. As the group explored the variables influencing the event under the guidance of the teacher, he continued to Seek Information through the materials, peers, and teacher structuring cues. He used Deep Processing to arrive at another Approximate Fit (His idea was that wind from the moving pendulum caused the second to move), which he again Accepted as an Adequate Answer. When his group tested this idea by placing a sheet of cardboard between the pendulums, he again Re-examined His Idea and went through to an Incomplete Fit again.

Colin repeated his cycling through several ideas as his group continued to test effects of changing the various variables. When the effect of the rolling motion of the dowel was tested by clamping its ends, he accepted this as an Approximate Fit, but continued to Try to Confirm/Clarify the Idea by Seeking Further Information. Some clarification of the idea occurred late in the lesson, but he was unable to conclude with an Identical Fit situation. He recognised that his explanation was an Approximate Fit, but had to Exit at the end of the lesson with the Vague Idea as an Adequate Answer. However, during the lesson, there had been several occasions when he had been involved in Cognitive Restructuring through Deep Processing.

19

CONCLUSION

The restructured learning model is the outcome of both theoretical considerations and trials in a number of science lessons. The trials included both teacher demonstrations and small group activity lessons, but were confined to lessons which included a discrepant event. The model has been demonstrated as useful in identifying students' cognitive progress through science lessons of this type. Given that the learning model evolved through a process similar to action research with an experienced teacher and science educator constructing the theory of the model from the research and his own professional knowledge, it could be applied with some confidence to other lessons (Baird, 1992).

Knowledge of students' learning progress during lessons can provide teachers with a powerful aid to planning and diagnosis of learning problems. The initial version of the learning model represented by Figure 1 was used to devise and evaluate teaching strategies in science (Appleton, 1990a, 1993b) and in teacher education (Appleton, 1990b, 1994). The final version of the model could be used in a similar way, but would provide a different perspective on the learning process. New aspects of the final version of the model which would be particularly useful are the identification of the variety of information sources potentially available to students, how the teaching strategy and social context influence which of these are actually available in any one lesson, and the iterative nature of the information seeking and cognitive restructuring processes during a lesson.

REFERENCES

Appleton, K. (1989). A learning model for science education. Research in Science Education, 19, 13-24.

Appleton, K. (1990a). A learning model for science education: Deriving teaching strategies. Research in Science Education, ~ 1-10.

Appleton, K. (1990b, July). Applying constructivist ideas to science teacher education. Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the Australian Teacher Education Conference, Adelaide, SA.

Appleton, K. (1993a). Students' learninq in science !e.ssons: Responses to discrepant events. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Central Queensland, Rockhampton.

Appleton, K. (1993b). Using theory to guide practice: Teaching science from a constructivist perspective. School Science and Mathematics, 93(5), 269-274.

Appleton, K. (1994, July). Using learning theory to guide reflection in the practicum. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Teacher Education Conference, Brisbane, QId.

Baird, J.R. (1992). S.hared adventure: A view of quality teachinCl and learninq. Second Report of the Teaching and Learning Science in Schools Project. Melbourne: Monash University.

Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student approaches to learninq and studyin.cl. Research Monograph. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J.B. & Moore, P.J. (1993). The process of learninq. (3rd ed.). Sydney:. Prentice Hall. Bruner, J.S. (1985). Vygotsky, A historical and conceptual perspective. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.)

Culture, communication and coqnition: Vyqotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brunet, J.S. & Haste, H. (1987). Makinq sense: The child's construction of the world.. London: Methuen.

Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual chanqe in childhood. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press - A Bradford Book.

Claxton, G. (1990). Teachinq to learn: A direction for education. London: CasseU. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of co.qnitive dissonance. Row, Peterson.

20

Freyberg, P. & Osborne, R. (1985). Assumptions al~out teaching and learning. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg, Learninq in science: The implications of children's science. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.

Friedl, A.E. (1986). Teachin.q science to children: An inte.qrated approach. New York: Random House.

Kelly, G.A. (1955). The psycholoqy of personal constructs. New York: Norton. Liem. T.K. (1987). Invitations to science inquiry (2nd edn). Lexington, MA: Ginn Press. O'Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward

a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research-in Science Teachin.q, 29 (8), 791-820.

Osborne, R. & Wittrock, M. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Educa- tion, 67 (4), 489-508.

Piaget, J. (1978). The development of thou.qht, translated by Arnold Rosin. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Pfundt, H. & Duit, R. (1991). Biblioqraphy: Students' alternative frameworks and science education (3rd ed.). Kiet, Germany: Institute for Science Education, University of Kiel.

Suchman, J. (1966). Inquiry development pro.qram in physical science: Teacher's .quide. Chicago: SRA.

Tobin, K. (1990). Social constructivist perspectives on the reform of science education. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36 (4), 29-35.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of hiqher psycholo.qical processes. London: Harvard University Press.

AUTHORS

DR KEN APPLETON, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Q. 4702. Specializations: primary teacher education, teaching strategies in science, c.ognitive change and learning theories.

DR WARREN BEASLEY, Senior Lecturer, Graduate School of Education, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Q. 4072. Specializations: secondary science teacher education, chemical education.