teachers' scientific epistemological views: the coherence with instruction and students'...

Teachers’ ScientificEpistemological Views:The Coherence with Instructionand Students’ Views

CHIN-CHUNG TSAIGraduate School of Technological and Vocational Education, National Taiwan Universityof Science and Technology, Taipei 106, Taiwan

Received 2 April 2006; revised 7 June 2006; accepted 13 July 2006

DOI 10.1002/sce.20175Published online 19 September 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

ABSTRACT: Research about the relationship between teachers’ scientific epistemologicalviews (SEVs) and science instruction is often an important issue for many science educa-tors. This study, by collecting research data from four Taiwanese science teachers, theirstudents, and classroom observations, was carried out to examine the coherences betweenteachers’ SEVs and their (1) teaching beliefs, (2) instructional practices, (3) students’ SEVs,and (4) students’ perceptions toward actual science learning environments. The findingssuggested adequate coherences between teachers’ SEVs and their teaching beliefs as wellas instructional practices. The teachers with relatively positivist-aligned SEVs tended todraw attention to students’ science scores in tests and allocate more instructional timeon teacher-directed lectures, tutorial problem practices, or in-class examinations, imply-ing a more passive or rote perspective about learning science. In contrast, teachers withconstructivist-oriented SEVs tended to focus on student understanding and application ofscientific concepts and they adopted more time on student inquiry activities or interac-tive discussion. These findings are quite consistent with the results about the coherencebetween teachers’ SEVs and students’ perceptions toward science learning environments,suggesting that the constructivist-oriented SEVs appeared to foster the creation of moreconstructivist-oriented science learning environments. Finally, although this study providedsome evidence that teachers’ SEVs were likely related to their students’ SEVs, the teachers’SEVs and those of their students were not obviously coherent. C© 2006 Wiley Periodicals,Inc. Sci Ed 91:222 – 243, 2007

INTRODUCTION

Many contemporary science educators have asserted that developing adequate under-standings about the nature of science is one of the important goals for science education

Correspondence to: Chin-Chung Tsai; e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] work was conducted under the author’s faculty term at National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.Contract grant sponsor: National Science Council, Taiwan.Contract grant numbers: NSC 92-2511-S-009-013 and NSC93-2511-S009-006.This paper was edited by former Editor Nancy W. Brickhouse.

C© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

TEACHERS’ SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWS 223

(Bartholomew, Osborne, & Ratcliffe, 2004; Millar & Osborne, 1998; Sandoval, 2005). “Na-ture of science,” in general, refers to epistemology of science, which addresses the issuesregarding the philosophical assumptions, values, developments, and conceptual inventionsin science, consensus making in scientific communities, and features of scientific knowl-edge (Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992; Tsai & Liu, 2005). Understanding students’ scientificepistemological views (SEVs), then, has become a major concern for science educators(Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002; Huang, Tsai, & Chang, 2005; Lederman, 1992;Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004). More importantly, scholars have explored the inter-play between students’ SEVs and their science learning. Numerous research findings havesuggested that students’ SEVs may guide the acquisition of scientific knowledge (Songer& Linn, 1991; Tsai, 1998a), and shape their orientations to learning science or decisionmaking in science-related issues (e.g., Bell & Lederman, 2003; Edmonson & Novak, 1993;Tsai, 2000a; Wallace, Tsoi, Calkin, & Darley, 2003). For example, Tsai (1998a, 1998b,1999a, 2000b) and Wallace et al. (2003) have found that, when compared to students ex-hibiting the belief that scientific knowledge is discovered from totally objective observationand experimentation (i.e., positivist-oriented SEVs), students who believe that science isconstructed on the basis of scientists’ agreed paradigm, evidence, and negotiation (i.e.,constructivist-oriented SEVs)1 tend to (1) develop more integrated knowledge structuresin science, (2) employ more meaningful approaches when learning science, (3) have bet-ter attitudes and more appropriate learning beliefs toward school science, and (4) displaystronger preferences for constructivist-based learning environments.

Despite the fact that many studies have been conducted to explore the role of students’SEVs on science learning, relatively less research has focused on the role of teachers’ SEVson science instruction and student science learning. Teachers’ SEVs are often consideredas an important factor that frames their teaching beliefs, and these views may be related toinstructional practice (Hammrich, 1997, 1998; Lederman, 1992; Nott & Wellington, 1995).

Some studies displayed good coherence between teachers’ SEVs and their science in-struction. For instance, through observing and interviewing three secondary science teach-ers with very diverse views of science over several months, Brickhouse (1989) concludedthat teachers’ SEVs were consistent with their teaching manners in which demonstrationswere used, science–technology–society (STS) instruction, word usage, and instructionalgoals in the actual classrooms. As well, Linder (1992) used interview data to illustratethat a reflection of metaphysical realism in physics classes could encourage (1) students’rote learning of physics, (2) the association of conceptual understanding with an abilityto solve stereotypical tutorial problems, (3) a learning style which incorporates rapid in-struction to cover prodigious amounts of curricula, and (4) the discouragement of coherentunderstanding (p. 112). Although the study did not directly show that teachers’ SEVs in-fluenced their instructional orientations, it supported that teacher-reflected epistemologyof metaphysical realism (ontological positivism) was a source of conceptual difficulty forstudents’ science learning. A similar study completed by Tsai (2002a), who interviewed 37science teachers in Taiwan, revealed that 21 of them showed closely aligned views towardSEVs, teaching science, and learning science, called “nested epistemologies” by the re-searcher. Hashweh (1996), through the use of questionnaire and survey data obtained from35 science teachers, revealed that teachers having constructivist-oriented SEVs were more

1 In this paper, “constructivism” or “constructivist” is used to refer to both epistemological views andteaching approaches. Some researchers may argue that constructivist epistemology is not equivalent to anddoes not necessarily stem from constructivist pedagogy, and there is some distinction between these two(e.g., Duschl, Hamilton, & Grandy, 1990; Matthews, 1994). The position of this paper, as that proposed byStaver (1998), asserts that “constructivism” provides a sound theory to explicate the practice of science aswell as the practice of science teaching.

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

224 TSAI

likely to consider students’ alternative conceptions, have a richer repertoire of instructionalstrategies, use more effective ways for promoting student conceptual change, and reportmore frequent use of effective teaching strategies than did teachers with positivist-orientedSEVs. In Hashweh’s terminology, there is a positive relationship between “knowledgeconstructivist” and “learning constructivist” orientations (p. 49).

However, some studies have concluded that teachers’ SEVs are not clearly related to theirinstruction or teaching. For example, through naturalistic observations of 18 senior-high-school biology teachers, Lederman and Zeidler (1987) found that only one of the 44 teachingbehavior variables was significantly correlated with their SEVs, while this variable was stillnot logically related to a teacher’s conception of the nature of science. Some variables havebeen found to constrain the coherence between teachers’ SEVs and instructional practices,such as social factors (Duschl & Wright, 1989), situational constraints (Benson, 1989), andteachers’ level of experience, intentions, and perceptions of students (Lederman, 1999).Therefore, the research work done by Mellado (1997) and Lederman (1999) has suggestedthat the correspondences between teachers’ SEVs and actual teaching practice were morecomplicated than originally assumed.

The coherence between teachers’ SEVs (or philosophical views toward science) and theirteaching orientations received some challenges in terms of some research findings. Theuncertainty of this coherence in an actual classroom setting may stem from the complexcontexts of school learning environments (Tsai, 2006). However, few can dispute theimportance of this relationship (coherence) in providing more insights to improve scienceeducation, and a better understanding about SEVs can foster science instruction. Matthews(1989) made this concern concrete:

Philosophy enhances classroom teaching. A simple lesson on mechanics can be transformedif questions are raised about the relationship of theories to evidence, about what is requiredof a good experiment, or why for example we define acceleration as change of velocitywith respect to time rather than distance. (p. 11)

As well, Aikenhead (1987) and Tsai (2002b) conclude that teachers do not have adequateknowledge to implement STS (science, technology, and society) instruction if they lackthe knowledge regarding the epistemological and sociological nature of science. Roehrigand Luft (2004) also perceive limited understanding of SEVs as one main constraint thatimpacts teachers’ enactment of inquiry-based science instruction. Abd-El-Khalick (2005)further asserts that the research about how teachers’ SEVs translate into actual classroompractice remains a crucial issue. Therefore, the relationship between teachers’ SEVs andtheir science teaching is still worth investigating. Also, most of the studies regarding suchrelationship reviewed above were conducted in western countries, while little research aboutthis has been undertaken in eastern countries. This study would explore this relationshipon some Taiwanese science teachers.

This study was carried out to examine the coherence between teachers’ SEVs and theirscience instruction. The relationships between science teachers’ SEVs and their teachingbeliefs as well as instructional practices were investigated. In addition to interviewingteachers and observing classroom instruction (such as Lederman, 1999), this study alsogathered research data from the students. More importantly, this study examined the co-herence between teachers’ SEVs and students’ SEVs. By investigating this coherence,educators can acquire more insights about how science teachers’ SEVs may play a role onthose of their students. Moreover, by doing these, the present study has been situated in asignificant context of nature of science research literatures in science education. Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, and Lederman (1998) have proposed three theoretical assumptions guiding



educational research about nature of science or SEVs. Two of them have been perceived asthose of particular importance by this study, which are (1) teachers’ SEVs were significantlyrelated to their students’ SEVs and (2) teachers’ SEVs automatically translate into theirinstructional practices. The conduct of this study can carefully examine these assumptions,and make contributions to relevant theories and research literatures.

Furthermore, this study would assess students’ perceptions about their science learningenvironments, and then the coherence between teachers’ SEVs and these perceptions wasexamined. These perceptions could represent, at least to a certain extent, how their teachersactually implemented science instruction in classrooms. In addition, research has indicatedthat students’ SEVs are related to their perceptions of learning environments (Tsai, 2000a),and this study would further examine how teachers’ SEVs may also play a role on theirstudents’ perceptions toward their learning environments.

In sum, through gathering research data and classroom observations from four Taiwanesescience teachers and their students, this study was undertaken to examine four sets ofcoherences:

1. The coherence between teachers’ scientific epistemological views and their teachingbeliefs.

2. The coherence between teachers’ epistemological views toward science and actualinstructional practice in science classrooms.

3. The coherence between science teachers’ epistemological beliefs toward science andthose of their students.

4. The coherence between teachers’ scientific epistemological views and the sciencelearning environments perceived by their students.

METHOD

Participants

The teachers were selected by an SEV instrument (Tsai & Liu, 2005; described later)from a pool of more than 40 science teachers. This study tried to explore teachers withmaximum variations of SEVs; hence, the researcher chose the teachers with quite differentresponses on the SEV instrument for possible investigation. Similar to the “maximumvariation sampling” method for qualitative research (Patton, 1990, p. 172), this studyselected one teacher who attained top 20% total scores of the SEV instrument, one fromthe bottom 20% group, and two from the rest of the teachers (average group). By inquiringof the possibility of further research from the teachers, this study included four junior highschool science teachers, who were invited to volunteer to participate in the research. Theirbackground information is presented in Table 1, and all of the names are pseudonyms. Twoof them were female (Betty and Cindy), and three of them had a master’s degree (Andy,Cindy, and David); in particular, David majored in science education in his master study.Andy was from the bottom 20% SEV score group, Betty and Cindy from the average group,while David from the top 20% group.

All of the four case teachers taught eighth-grade “physical science” course. The studentsin their eighth-grade classes (called Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D, respectively)were also surveyed about their SEVs and perceptions toward actual science classrooms.The eighth-grade students surveyed were just under the instruction of one of the selectedteachers at the time of the conduct of the study. The students had been under one of thecase teachers’ science instruction for at least 8 months. The number of students in Class A,Class B, Class C, and Class D was 45, 47, 44, and 44, respectively. All of the students weresurveyed.


226 TSAI

TABLE 1The Background Information for the Case Teachers

Teacher

A (Andy) B (Betty) C (Cindy) D (David)

Gender Male Female Female MaleMajor (Bachelor) Physics Chemistry Physics Chemistry

(Master, if having) Physics – Engineering Science educationTeaching 10 years 5 years 8 years 9 years

experience

Data Sources and Analyses

Teacher Interviews. The interview questions basically followed five SEV dimensions,including theory-laden exploration, the invented and creative reality, changing and tentativefeature, the role of social negotiation, and cultural impacts. Some major interview questions,which were mainly employed by Tsai (1998b, 1999b, 2002b) and Tsai and Liu (2005), arepresented below:

1. The theory-laden quality of scientific exploration (e.g., Does theory play a role onscientists’ exploration or observations? How? Do scientists have any expectationbefore undertaking the research work? Why?)

2. The invented and creative nature of science (e.g., Do scientists “discover” or “invent”scientific knowledge? Why? How does creativity play a role in science?)

3. The changing and tentative feature of science knowledge (e.g., After scientists havedeveloped a theory, does the theory ever change? Does the development of scientificknowledge involve the change of concepts? How?)

4. The role of social negotiation in science community (e.g., Is one scientist’s researchwork influenced by other scientists? Or science is a process of individual exploration,mainly depending on personal efforts? How? How do scientists examine others’research findings?)

5. The cultural impacts on science (e.g., Do different cultural groups of people havedifferent types of “science”? How? Do cultures affect the development of scientificknowledge? How?)

The interview with each teacher was conducted in Chinese by a trained research assis-tant. All of the interviews were audiotaped, and were later transcribed by the assistant.The researcher (author) marked significant sentences that represented each teacher’s SEVsin each dimension, and another researcher validated the marked sentences. Cross-caseor cross-interview analyses were undertaken for the questions in each dimension. Then,the researchers conducted the analysis similar to “axial coding” for qualitative research(Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 123). That is, for each SEV dimension, each teacher’s in-terview responses were classified as a position ranging from positivist to constructivistperspective. By doing this, this study did not make the simplistic positivist/constructivistdichotomy; rather, this study believed that a teacher might display different SEV positionsacross various SEV dimensions. Therefore, multiple SEV dimensions were employed forinvestigation. In addition, based upon past research experiences (Tsai, 2002b), teachers’SEVs, if being divided into a specific SEV dimension, can be effectively represented bya spectrum (or an axis) from positivist to constructivist views. Again, this did not suggest



positivist/constructivist dichotomy, and it allowed all possibilities (or variations) betweenthese two positions toward a specific SEV dimension. Therefore, each teacher’s interviewresponses on each SEV dimension were analyzed by “axial coding” above for representinghis or her SEVs, and when coding the data, two levels of interpretations were involved,including (a) the actual responses expressed by the interviewee and (b) the coder’s con-ceptualizations of these (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 126). The whole analysis and codingprocess was validated by two researchers.

In addition, the teachers were interviewed individually about their beliefs for scienceteaching and learning. The interview questions addressed their ideas about the purposeof learning and the role of teachers and students. Sample interview questions included:What do you think about the purpose of science learning? What do you think aboutyour responsibilities as a teacher? What do you think about the role of learner in scienceclassroom? How do you teach science? Describe a classroom situation in which you thinklearning really occurs.

Similarly, the above interviews were audiotaped, and were later transcribed by an as-sistant. The researcher (author) marked some significant sentences that represented theteacher’s beliefs about science teaching and learning. Then, the researcher tried to un-dertake cross-case or cross-interview analyses, and teachers’ beliefs were summarizedaround some major themes, such as the purpose of learning, the role of teacher, or therole of learner. Again, one independent researcher, who actually read the whole interviewtranscripts, validated the data.

Classroom Observations. To gather data about classroom practice, each participantteacher was observed for eight instructional periods (45 minutes each period). Two re-search assistants observed the classroom activities in each case teacher’s science class. Theinstructional topics for each teacher’s observed periods were similar, as all of them usedthe same system of science curriculum and textbook. After a pilot study of analyzing someobservation records, the instructional activities in science classrooms could be basically cat-egorized into six major types: one-way (teacher-directed) lecture, tutorial problem practice,in-class examinations, laboratory or small-group inquiry activity, interactive discussion andquestioning, and other (such as talking jokes). These types are exclusive categories. Theclassroom observations were conducted on the basis of minute-to-minute analysis. That is,the observers coded the classroom activities into one instructional type by the interval ofone minute. Then, for each teacher, the time (minutes) spent on each type was recorded anddivided by the total time observed for the teacher (about 320–340 minutes for each teacher)to get a time allocation percentage. The percentage for each instructional type was utilizedto represent each teacher’s actual instructional practice. The categorization of the instruc-tional activities was performed by the two observers, with agreement of more than 90%.The difference between observers often came from the situation that the instructional activ-ities blurred the boundaries of the established categories; however, the agreement betweenobservers was high, and the difference usually could be easily resolved upon discussion.

Instrument for Assessing Student SEVs. This study used the instrument developed byTsai and Liu (2005), which suggested a multidimensional framework of representing studentSEVs. By adopting multidimensional framework of SEVs, it was anticipated to describestudents’ different aspects of SEVs in more details. The five subscales (dimensions) of theinstrument are exactly the same as the teacher interview dimensions, with a sample itemprovided:


228 TSAI

1. “Theory-laden exploration” subscale: Scientists’ research activities will be affectedby their existing theories (constructivist-oriented view).

2. “Invented and creative reality of science” subscale: The development of scientifictheories requires scientists’ imagination and creativity (constructivist-oriented view).

3. “Changing and tentative feature of science knowledge” subscale: Contemporary sci-entific knowledge provides tentative explanations for natural phenomena(constructivist-oriented view).

4. “Social negotiation in community” subscale: Through the discussion and debatesamong scientists, the scientific theories become better (constructivist-oriented view).

5. “Cultural impacts” subscale: Scientific knowledge is the same in various cultures(positivist-oriented view, scored in reverse).

Each of these subscales contained three to six items (Tsai & Liu, 2005). All of the instrumentitems were presented in a 1–5 Likert scale. Students’ responses were scored below torepresent their SEVs. For the constructivist-oriented perspective items (e.g., the sampleitems of the first four subscales), a “strongly agree” response was assigned a score of 5and a “strongly disagree” response assigned a score of 1, whereas the items stated in apositivist-aligned view (e.g., the sample item of the last subscale) were scored in a reversemanner. Tsai and Liu (2005) reported that the alpha reliability coefficients for each subscaleranged from 0.60 to 0.71. The same coefficients calculated from the students in this studywere around 0.65, statistically acceptable for analysis. The item analyses indicated that thepart–whole correlation coefficients for each subscale ranged from 0.64 to 0.78, supportingthe adequate use of the summed scores of the items in a subscale to represent students’ideas (Spector, 1992). By the scoring manner, students having strong beliefs regarding theconstructivist view for a certain dimension (i.e., subscale) thus attained higher scores onthe subscale; on the other hand, students with positivist-aligned SEVs for a certain subscalewould have lower scores.

Questionnaire Assessing Students’ Perceptions Toward Science Learning Environ-ments. To assess students’ perceptions toward the learning environments guided bythe case teachers, a Chinese version of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey(CLES), originally developed by Taylor and Fraser (1991) and utilized by Tsai (2000a,2002b), was administered. CLES actual form (or perceived form), assessing the extentof the student agreement between actual science learning environments and constructivistlearning environments, was used in this study. The CLES responses could provide addi-tional ideas about how these teachers conducted science instruction as perceived by theirstudents. The CLES contains the following four subscales (seven items for each subscale):

1. Student negotiation subscale: Measuring perceptions of the extent to which there areopportunities for students to interact, negotiate meaning, and build consensus withothers. Sample item: In this class, I ask other students about their ideas.

2. Prior knowledge subscale: Assessing perceptions of the extent to which there areopportunities for students to meaningfully integrate prior knowledge and experienceswith the newly acquired knowledge, and to have enough time to construct ideas.Sample item: In this class, I get to think about interesting, real-life problems.

3. Autonomy subscale: Investigating perceptions of the extent to which there are op-portunities for students to practice deliberate and meaningful control over learningactivities, and to think independently of the teacher and others. Sample item: In thisclass, I find my own way of doing investigations.



4. Student-centeredness subscale: Measuring perceptions of the extent to which thereare opportunities for students to experience learning as a process of creating andresolving personally problematic experiences. Sample item: In this class, the teachersets my learning activities (stated in a reverse manner).

The CLES also employed the 1–5 Likert scale from “always” (score 5) to “never” (score1). Taylor and Fraser (1991) reported the alpha reliability to be 0.79, 0.74, 0.72, and 0.61for each subscale of actual form of CLES. The Chinese version of CLES was used in an-other study with 1176 Taiwanese high school students (Tsai, 2000a). Tsai (2000a) reportedthe reliability of CLES to be around 0.75 for each subscale. The reliability coefficientscalculated from the sample students of the present study ranged from 0.68 to 0.78, quite ac-ceptable for statistical analysis. The item analyses indicated that the part–whole correlationcoefficients for each subscale ranged from 0.73 to 0.83, supporting the proper use of thesummed scores of the items in a subscale to represent students’ perceptions. By the scoringmethod, students who showed closer perceptions for a certain type of constructivist learningenvironments would gain higher scores on a related subscale of CLES, while students whoexperienced traditional way of teaching were expected to have lower scores for the samesubscale.

RESULTS

Teachers’ SEVs

The participant teachers’ SEVs were explored by interviews. The interview, conductedwith each individual teacher, consisted of the following five SEV dimensions: theory-ladenexploration, the invented and creative reality, changing and tentative feature, the role ofsocial negotiation, and cultural impacts. For each SEV dimension, each teacher’s inter-view responses were analyzed and coded into a position in the spectrum from positivist toconstructivist views. In some cases, teachers’ interview responses were clear in their SEVpositions. For example, when asked about the dimension of “theory-laden exploration,”David stated that: “I think scientists have certain expectations when undertaking experi-ments, and their theories will guide them how to perform the experiments.” He clearly helda constructivist position. On the other hand, Andy replied that: “Scientists can make totallyobjective observations, which are not affected by their existing theories or conceptions,”showing his positivist position in this SEV dimension. As another example, when askingchanging and tentative feature of scientific knowledge, Cindy responded that “all of scien-tific knowledge might be changed; even basic concepts in science might be challenged andchanged eventually.” Her responses clearly displayed a constructivist position. However, inmany cases, the teachers expressed “mixed” positions, which often referred to a combina-tion of constructivist and positivist ideas. Typical responses for the mixed position are asfollows:

• Some scientific explorations are theory-laden, and some are not. It depends on theexplorations (Cindy, for the dimension of “theory-laden exploration”).

• I believe that scientists conduct research very objectively, quite free of their personaltheories. But, I think, in some special cases, their theories influence the research(Betty, for the dimension of “theory-laden exploration”).

• Some scientific knowledge is discovered, but some is invented. For example, I thinkKepler’s laws are discovered, but Einstein’s relativity theory is invented (David, forthe dimension of “invented and creative reality”).


230 TSAI

• Most scientific knowledge is discovered, but a little is invented by people for the easeof explaining natural phenomena (Cindy, for the dimension of “invented and creativereality”).

• The scientific knowledge, though not always representing the truth, is quite ap-proaching the truth; therefore, not much change will occur (Betty, for the dimensionof “changing and tentative feature”).

• I believe the social negotiation is quite important. But, some personal discoveries inscience, without the help of social negotiation, are still very important (Andy, for thedimension of “the role of social negotiation in science community”).

• I think scientific knowledge ideally should be culture-free, and really much of itis (culture-free). However, some scientific knowledge is affected by contemporarycultures. Copernican theory is a good example about this (Cindy, for the dimensionof “cultural impacts”).

The teachers’ interview responses were analyzed and then their SEV positions were mappedin Figure 1. An example about how teachers’ qualitative responses were coded as posi-tivist, mixed, and constructivist is presented in the Appendix. In particular, this map wasconstructed and validated by two independent researchers, and certainly it was finalizedby discussion. Also, each case teacher agreed the representations of his/her SEVs in Fig-ure 1 after knowing the categorization framework. Figure 1 showed that there were stillsome variations for the mixed position. For instance, in the dimension of theory-ladenexploration, Betty, though she expressed some ideas about theory-laden exploration byscientists, still believed in the total objectivity of scientific research (based on the interviewresponses presented earlier). Therefore, her SEV position in this dimension was more ori-ented to the positivist view. A similar situation could be found on the interview responsesof Cindy for the “cultural impacts” dimension. Again, it should be emphasized that thisstudy did not make the positivist/constructivist dichotomy; rather, this study believed thata teacher might display different SEV positions across various SEV dimensions. That is, ateacher’s SEVs might differ by various dimensions, with all possibilities from positivist to

Figure 1. Teachers’ scientific epistemological views (SEVs) across different dimensions.



constructivist views, as shown in Figure 1. Certainly, there might be other views that couldnot be explained by this way, but they were not found in this study probably because of thelimited sample of teachers involved and the interview questions used.

According to Figure 1, Andy held more positivist-oriented SEVs and David possessedconstructivist-aligned SEVs in many SEV dimensions. Betty showed different positionsacross different SEV dimensions; for instance, she expressed positivist perspectives forthe “invented and creative reality” and “cultural impacts,” but she was a constructivist in“the role of social negotiation.” And for the rest of the dimensions, she held mixed views.Although Cindy expressed constructivist positions in the dimensions of “changing andtentative feature” and “the role of social negotiation,” for the rest of the dimensions, shewas perceived as having a mixed position. In fact, among the four teachers involved in thisstudy, none of them was absolutely a positivist or a constructivist. This finding was quiteconsistent with that revealed by previous studies (Tsai, 2002b; Tsai & Liu, 2005) that peoplemight display various SEV positions across different SEV dimensions. It could only beconcluded that David (and possibly Cindy) showed relatively more constructivist-orientedSEVs, while Andy displayed relatively more positivist-aligned SEVs and Betty’s SEVswere comparatively mixed. For the ease of presenting and interpreting the findings revealedin this study, this paper would describe these teachers’ SEVs in these general terms, suchas constructivist-oriented, positivist-oriented, or mixed. However, it should be kept in mindthat these teachers’ SEVs were complex as displayed in Figure 1, and these terms did notsuggest the positivist/constructivist dichotomy.

The Coherence Between Teachers’ SEVs and Teaching Beliefs

This study conducted in-depth interviews with each of the case teachers for their beliefsabout science teaching and learning. Their interview responses are summarized in Table 2.Andy and Betty perceived the main purpose of learning science as acquisition of knowledgeand facts. For instance, Betty responded, “The goal of science instruction or science learningis to help students acquire science knowledge and know the scientific facts.” Therefore, theyemphasized that the role of science teacher should be as a good information provider. Andyalso highlighted the importance of correcting inaccurate scientific knowledge for students.On the other hand, Cindy believed that the main purposes of science learning should focuson increasing and applying scientific knowledge. David asserted that “developing a betterunderstanding about science” was the goal for science learning. Although Cindy claimedthat a science teacher should be an information provider, she also thought teacher shouldbecome a model of using scientific knowledge, concurring with her belief about the purposeof learning, that is, applying scientific knowledge. Cindy seemed to have a more pragmaticperspective for learning science. David believed that the chief mission for science teacherswas to facilitate students’ knowledge development.

When asked about the role or the responsibility of the learner, both Andy and Bettyunderlined the value of attaining good grades. Thus, they thought that students shouldstudy hard, carefully follow their teachers’ instruction, and keep attentions in classes.Consequently, they responded that they often used lectures, in-class examinations, andtutorial problem exercises in science course. Although Betty mentioned laboratory work,she still believed in direct lectures and extensive practices of tutorial problems for scienceinstruction. For example, she stated:

I would bring my students to laboratory, sometimes just because they needed to actually per-form some experiments for answering some test questions. Allocating more time on directlectures and more tutorial problem practice is quite effective for enhancing their test scores.


232 TSAI

TAB

LE

2C

ase

Sci

ence

Teac

her

s’V

iew

sA

bo

ut

Lea

rnin

g,T

each

ing

,an

dT

hei

rTe

ach

ing

Str

ateg

ies

Teac

her

A(A

ndy)

B(B

etty

)C

(Cin

dy)

D(D

avid

)

Pur

pose

ofle

arni

ng•

Acq

uisi

tion

ofkn

owle

dge

and

fact

s•

Acq

uisi

tion

ofkn

owle

dge

and

fact

s•

Incr

ease

ofkn

owle

dge

•A

pply

ing

know

ledg

e•

Dev

elop

ing

unde

rsta

ndin

g

The

role

ofte

ache

r•

Info

rmat

ion

prov

ider

•C

orre

ctst

uden

ts’

inac

cura

tekn

owle

dge

•In

form

atio

npr

ovid

er•

Mod

elof

usin

gsc

ient

ific

know

ledg

e•

Info

rmat

ion

prov

ider

•Fa

cilit

ator

ofkn

owle

dge

deve

lopm

ent

The

role

ofle

arne

r•

Fol

low

ing

teac

her’s

inst

ruct

ion

•S

tudy

ing

hard

•A

chie

ving

bette

rgr

ades

•K

eepi

ngat

tent

ions

incl

asse

s•

Acq

uirin

gkn

owle

dge

and

then

atta

inin

gbe

tter

grad

es

•F

ollo

win

gte

ache

r’sin

stru

ctio

nto

unde

rsta

ndsc

ienc

e•

App

lyin

gsc

ient

ific

know

ledg

ele

arne

d

•D

evel

opin

gun

ders

tand

ing

abou

tsci

ence

•A

pply

ing

scie

ntifi

ckn

owle

dge

tore

al-li

fesi

tuat

ions

Teac

hing

stra

tegi

es•

Lect

ure

•E

xam

s•

Tuto

rialp

robl

empr

actic

e

•Le

ctur

e•

Lab

•Tu

toria

lpro

blem

prac

tice

•Le

ctur

e•

Lab

•S

mal

l-gro

uple

arni

ng

•C

halle

ngin

gpr

ior

know

ledg

e•

Inte

ract

ive

disc

ussi

onan

dqu

estio

ning

•In

quir

yor

open

-end

edex

plor

atio

n



In terms of Andy’s and Betty’s interview responses, their beliefs about teaching and learningas well as their instructional strategies probably implied a rote approach to science learning,as they highlighted the use of direct lectures and more tutorial problem practices to helpstudents attain high scores in science. By such, they might implicitly encourage studentmemorization or rote practice about science concepts. In fact, Andy responded that:

In science, there are a lot of formula and definitions. If students cannot memorize themcarefully, they will experience great difficulties in solving science problems. . . Then, theycannot attain high scores.

Andy’s view suggested rote learning in science by meticulously memorizing formula anddefinitions. On the other hand, both Cindy and David emphasized that students needed tolearn how to apply scientific knowledge (as their responsibilities). David, again, strength-ened the view that the learner should develop understanding, not memorization, aboutscientific knowledge. For instance, he stated that:

The major duty of science student is to construct a true understanding about the scientificknowledge he or she learned. He (she) cannot just memorize some scientific facts; rather, he(she) needs to truly understand them. Then, he (she) can apply science to real-life situations.

When asked about how they taught science, Cindy and David had the following responses:

Cindy: I think, in addition to regular lecture class, the use of laboratory work or small-grouplearning activity is important for science students. By laboratory work, they can know howto apply scientific knowledge. By small-group learning activity, they can learn how to solvea problem and how to communicate with others. These will help a lot when they are in jobmarket, no matter they are in science-related career or not.David: Students often have some “misconceptions” in science. The use of some instruc-tional approaches to challenging their prior knowledge is very important. Some interactivediscussion or questioning activities may be helpful about this. Also, it is important forstudents to develop a better understanding for scientific knowledge in classrooms. I thinksome inquiry activities are helpful for this. By open-ended inquiry, they will think andapply the scientific knowledge thoroughly, thus constructing a better understanding.

Again, Cindy showed a pragmatic view about science instruction. David expressed his con-cerns about students’ “alternative conceptions” (Tsai & Chang, 2005; Wandersee, Mintzes,& Novak, 1994) and tried to utilize some teaching strategies to overcome these conceptions.

In sum, teachers with relatively positivist-aligned SEVs (e.g., Andy and possibly Betty)2

tended to highlight the importance of acquiring correct knowledge and attaining bettergrades for science learning. They thought themselves as information providers and oftenused lectures, tutorial problem practices, and examinations in classrooms. On the otherhand, the constructivist-oriented SEV teacher (e.g., David) tended to focus more on theunderstanding of scientific concepts for science learning, and use inquiry activities orinteractive discussion to challenge students’ prior knowledge or alternative conceptions.The teacher with constructivist-oriented SEVs tended to show more constructivist ideasabout science teaching and learning. The coherence between teachers’ SEVs and theirteaching beliefs was revealed in this study, consistent with that concluded in previousstudies (Hashweh, 1996; Tsai, 2002a). For example, Hashweh (1996) found that teachers

2 Again, readers are encouraged to refer back to Figure 1 for a better understanding of each teacher’sSEVs, but for the ease of presenting findings and discussions, this paper used such brief labels.


234 TSAI

holding constructivist SEVs tended to be more aware of students’ alternative conceptionsand to employ more useful teaching strategies for inducing student conceptual change,exactly the same case for David in this study.

The Coherence Between Teachers’ SEVs and Instructional Practicein Science Classrooms

This study observed each teacher’s science instruction for eight periods. The teachers’classroom practices were recorded and processed by minute-to-minute analysis, and theirtime on each type of instructional activity was tallied. How each teacher allocated time (bypercentage) on each type is presented in Table 3. This study used this time allocation as arepresentation of each teacher’s instructional practice.

Table 3 revealed that Andy spent most of his instructional time on one-way lecture(38%), practicing tutorial problem (25%), and in-class exams (24%), quite consistent withwhat he stated in interview. During the eight periods observed, Andy did not conduct anylaboratory work or small-group inquiry activity, and he rarely used discussion or questioningstrategy. Betty also relied heavily on lecture (35%) and tutorial problem practice (22%);however, laboratory and small-group activities were also observed in her class (17%).Cindy’s time allocation was similar to Betty’s, but she highlighted more laboratory andsmall-group inquiry (30%). David, clearly, was different from the other teachers, who spentmost of time on teacher-directed lecture. In contrast, he allocated most of his instructionaltime on laboratory and inquiry (26%) and interactive discussion and questioning (26%).In particular, David frequently utilized debate-like dialogues to challenge and questionstudents’ prior knowledge, which were rarely observed in the classes guided by the otherthree teachers. These results were quite consistent with their interview responses. That is,the teacher with positivist-oriented SEVs (e.g., Andy) tended to use one-lecture, tutorialproblem practices, or in-class examinations in real teaching practice, whereas the teacherwith constructivist-aligned SEVs (e.g., David) tended to allocate more time on inquiryactivity and interactive discussion by actual classroom observations. The coherence betweenteachers’ SEVs and their instructional practice was revealed in this study.

TABLE 3Case Teachers’ Instructional Activities by Classroom Observations

Teacher

A (Andy)(%) B (Betty)(%) C (Cindy)(%) D (David)(%)

One-way(teacher-directed)lecture

38 35 31 15

Tutorial problempractice

25 22 14 10

In-class exams 24 5 8 9Lab or small-group

inquiry activity0 17 30 26

Interactive discussionand questioning

2 5 6 26

Other 11 16 11 14



The Coherence Between Teachers’ SEVs and Their Students’ SEVs

This study further explored another important research question: Were teachers’ SEVsrelated to those of their students? The students under the instruction of the four teacherswere surveyed about their SEVs by using the instrument developed by Tsai and Liu (2005).Students’ SEVs were represented by five dimensions (subscales), the same as those forteachers’ interviews. MANOVA test was utilized to examine the differences of five SEVsubscale scores among the four classes. A statistically significant difference was foundamong the classes (Wilks’s Lambda = 0.844, Eta2 = 0.055, F = 2.001, p < .05), indicatinga small effect size based on the criteria of Cohen (1988).3

The follow-up comparisons for each subscale among these classes are presented inTable 4. According to Table 4, the students’ SEVs in the four classes were significantlydifferent in the dimensions of “theory-laden exploration,” “changing and tentative feature,”and “cultural impacts” (F = 2.85, 6.50, and 3.03, respectively, p < .05; effect size, small,medium, and small, respectively). Post hoc tests revealed that the students in Class D(David’s class) expressed more constructivist-oriented SEVs on the dimensions of “theory-laden exploration,” “changing and tentative feature,” and “cultural impacts” than those inClass A (Andy’s class). If referring to Figure 1, David expressed constructivist views in allof these three dimensions, while Andy showed positivist, mixed, and positivist positionsabout these, respectively. In addition, the students in Cindy’s class (Class C) also displayedsignificantly more agreement for the assertion “science is always changing and tentative”than those in Class A. According to Figure 1, Cindy’s view on this SEV dimension wasconstructivist, while Andy was mixed. This study showed some evidence between teachers’SEVs and students’ SEVs, but the effect size was often small. In sum, these research findingsimplied that the coherence between teachers’ SEVs and those of their students, though likelyexisting, was not very strong.

The Coherence Between Teachers’ SEVs and the Science LearningEnvironments Perceived by Their Students

This study finally examined the coherence between teachers’ SEVs and how their studentsperceived the learning environments fostered by these teachers. Students’ questionnaireresponses on CLES were used to represent their perceptions toward actual science learningenvironments they experienced. MANOVA test was employed to examine the differences offour CLES subscale scores among the four classes. A statistically significant difference wasfound among the classes (Wilks’s Lambda = 0.623, Eta2 = 0.146, F = 7.484, p < .001),signifying a large effect size.

The follow-up comparisons of each CLES subscale across four classes are shown inTable 5. Table 5 revealed that students’ perceptions toward actual science learning environ-ments were significantly different for all subscales of CLES (student negotiation, F = 16.34,large effect size; prior knowledge, F = 23.35, large effect size; autonomy, F = 21.53, largeeffect size; student centeredness, F = 7.41, medium effect size; all p < .001). Post hoctests showed that students in Class D tended to perceive that their learning environmentsprovided significantly more opportunities for student negotiation, exploring prior knowl-edge, and autonomous learning than those in Classes A and B. Moreover, Class C studentsperceived their learning environments as more student supportive than Class A students,and they also recognized that their science instruction was more situated in the context oftheir prior knowledge than students in Classes A and B. Class D students also displayed

3 Based on Cohen’s criteria, Eta2 = 0.0099–0.0588 indicates small effect size, Eta2 = 0.0588–0.1379medium effect size, and Eta2 beyond 0.1379 large effect size (p. 283).


236 TSAI

TAB

LE

4F

ollo

w-u

pA

NO

VAA

nal

yses

of

Stu

den

ts’S

EV

sA

cro

ssth

eC

lass

esIn

volv

edin

the

Stu

dy

Cla

ssA

Cla

ssB

Cla

ssC

Cla

ssD

(n=

45)

(n=

47)

(n=

44)

(n=

44)

Pos

thoc

SE

Vs

(mea

n,S

D)

(mea

n,S

D)

(mea

n,S

D)

(mea

n,S

D)

F(A

NO

VA

)E

ta2

Effe

ctS

ize

(Sch

effe

Test

)

The

ory-

lade

nex

plor

atio

n3.

61(0

.82)

3.81

(0.7

8)3.

75(0

.85)

4.09

(0.7

5)2.

85∗

0.04

6S

mal

lD

>A

Inve

nted

and

crea

tive

real

ity3.

84(0

.58)

3.86

(0.6

9)3.

89(0

.67)

3.92

(0.5

5)0.

130.

002

–

Cha

ngin

gan

dte

ntat

ive

feat

ure

3.93

(0.6

7)4.

11(0

.64)

4.42

(0.5

5)4.

39(0

.58)

6.50

∗∗∗

0.10

0M

ediu

mC

>A

;D>

A

Soc

ialn

egot

iatio

nin

the

com

mun

ity3.

65(0

.40)

3.69

(0.3

8)3.

70(0

.40)

3.79

(0.3

5)0.

960.

016

–

Cul

tura

lim

pact

s3.

31(0

.71)

3.52

(0.9

3)3.

55(0

.84)

3.85

(0.9

0)3.

03∗

0.04

9S

mal

lD

>A

Not

e:T

hem

ean

scor

ein

dica

tes

stud

ents

’ave

rage

scor

epe

rite

m.

∗ p<

.05,

∗∗∗ p

<.0

01.



TAB

LE

5F

ollo

w-u

pA

NO

VAA

nal

yses

of

Stu

den

ts’P

erce

pti

on

sTo

war

dA

ctu

alS

cien

ceL

earn

ing

Env

iro

nm

ents

Acr

oss

Cla

sses

Cla

ssA

Cla

ssB

Cla

ssC

Cla

ssD

(n=

45)

(n=

47)

(n=

44)

(n=

44)

Pos

thoc

CLE

SS

(mea

n,S

D)

(mea

n,S

D)

(mea

n,S

D)

(mea

n,S

D)

F(A

NO

VA

)E

ta2

Effe

ctS

ize

(Sch

effe

Test

)

Neg

otia

tion

2.66

(0.4

6)2.

79(0

.42)

3.02

(0.3

8)3.

25(0

.45)

16.3

4∗∗∗

0.21

8La

rge

D>

A,B

;C>

AP

rior

know

ledg

e2.

56(0

.40)

2.67

(0.3

6)2.

91(0

.29)

3.12

(0.3

3)23

.35∗∗

∗0.

285

Larg

eC

,D>

A;C

,D>

BA

uton

omy

2.60

(0.4

6)2.

66(0

.38)

2.83

(0.3

0)3.

20(0

.40)

21.5

3∗∗∗

0.26

8La

rge

D>

A,B

,CS

tude

ntce

nter

edne

ss2.

58(0

.27)

2.73

(0.2

8)2.

72(0

.28)

2.87

(0.3

0)7.

41∗∗

∗0.

112

Med

ium

D>

A

Not

e:T

hem

ean

scor

ein

dica

tes

stud

ents

’ave

rage

scor

epe

rite

m.∗∗

∗ p<

.001

.


238 TSAI

stronger perceptions that their science teacher encouraged autonomous learning than ClassC students, and finally Class D students also believed that their science learning environ-ments were more student-centered than those in Class A. The results strongly indicatedthat Class D, by comparing to other classes (particularly Classes A and B), was guidedmore thoroughly by all constructivist instructional principles as assessed by CLES. Class Cstudents also showed higher agreement for some constructivist ideas toward actual sciencelearning environments than Class A or Class B students, such as fostering student negotia-tion and highlighting prior knowledge. As illustrated in Figure 1, teachers in Class D, andperhaps Class C (i.e., David and Cindy) had comparatively constructivist-oriented SEVs.In terms of research findings and the large effect sizes revealed, the coherence betweenteachers’ SEVs and the perceptions of learning environments held by their students wasstrong. This study suggested that teachers’ constructivist-oriented SEVs would foster thedevelopment of more constructivist-oriented learning environments. These findings alsoadvanced our understandings about students’ perceptions toward learning environments.Research reported that learners’ SEVs were related to their perceptions toward learning en-vironments (Tsai, 2000a), and this study further suggested that teachers’ SEVs also playedan essential role in shaping science students’ learning environment perceptions.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Through gathering research data from four Taiwanese science teachers, their students,and classroom observations, this study was carried out to examine the coherences betweenteachers’ SEVs and their (1) teaching beliefs, (2) instructional practice, (3) students’ SEVs,and finally (4) students’ perceptions toward actual science learning environments. Thecoherences between teachers’ SEVs and their teaching beliefs as well as classroom practiceswere revealed. The teachers with comparatively positivist-aligned SEVs (such as Andy andBetty) were oriented to highlight students’ science scores and adopt more instructionaltime on teacher-directed lectures, tutorial problem practices, or in-class examinations,implying a more passive or rote view about learning science. On the other hand, teacherswith relatively constructivist-oriented SEVs (such as Cindy and David) tended to focus onstudent understanding and allocate more time on student inquiry activities or interactivediscussion. These findings are consistent with the results about the coherence betweenteachers’ SEVs and students’ perceptions toward classroom environments. It was foundthat students guided by the teachers with relatively constructivist-oriented SEVs tended toperceive their classroom environments as offering more opportunities for peer negotiations,exploring prior knowledge, autonomous learning, and student-centered activities than thoseinstructed by the teachers with comparatively positivist-aligned SEVs. The constructivist-oriented SEVs seemed to foster the development of more constructivist-oriented classroomenvironments. Although this study was undertaken in an eastern country (Taiwan), thecoherences revealed above were similar to those by some research work in western countries(e.g., Brickhouse, 1989; Hashweh, 1996). The coherences revealed in this study might alsocome from a careful selection of the case teachers. For example, through using an SEVinstrument (Tsai & Liu, 2005), teachers with quite different SEVs were selected for study.Thus, their variations on teaching beliefs and instructional practices might be more easilyobserved. Nevertheless, although this study provided some evidence that teachers’ SEVswere likely related to their students’ SEVs, the teachers’ SEVs and their students’ SEVs inthis study were not clearly nested. More research may be required to explore this coherencefurther.

In this study, the teacher with a master’s degree in science education (David) showedrelatively constructivist-oriented SEVs, teaching strategies, and his students displayed more



favorable perceptions toward constructivist-oriented learning environments. It is hypoth-esized that the professional training and the theoretical coverage in the graduate study ofscience education might have great impacts on the teacher’s SEVs and probably guided hisscience teaching. How teachers make theories into practices remains an essential issue forresearch.

Yet, during teacher interviews, none of the teachers, even David, explicitly mentionedabout the importance of teaching or addressing some topics relevant to the nature of sciencefor students. This finding is similar to that shown by Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998) and Duschland Wright (1989). Although many teachers in their study had adequate understandings ofseveral important aspects of SEVs, explicit references to the nature of science were rare intheir planning and instruction. The study by Schwartz and Lederman (2002) concluded thatlimited subject-matter knowledge and compartmentalized SEVs might impede teachers’implementation of nature of science topics within a traditional science content. Therefore, abetter understanding of subject-matter knowledge and SEVs may facilitate the incorporationof nature of science topics in science classrooms. Akerson and Abd-El-Khalick (2003)also found that, to implement nature of science topics in science instruction, sociallymediated support was needed at the personal level for helping science teachers activatetacit understandings about the nature of science, and a lead researcher was needed at theprofessional level for modeling explicit instruction about the nature of science.

This study found that teachers with more positivist-oriented SEVs tended to have unfa-vorable attitudes and instructional practices (e.g., highlighting test scores, using rote-like ortotally teacher-directed instruction). Previous studies (e.g., Lederman, 1992; Tsai, 2002a)also revealed that many science teachers held positivist-oriented SEVs. The subsequentlyimportant issue by science educators is how to change teachers’ positivist-aligned SEVs.Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman’s (2000) proposed that there were two major approaches ofchanging teachers’ SEVs: one was implicit, implementing science-based inquiry activities,and the other one was explicit, utilizing elements from the history and philosophy of sci-ence in the instructional process. The study by Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) andAbd-El-Khalick (2005), which assessed the influences of history or philosophy of sciencecourses on preservice science teachers’ SEVs, clearly, employed the explicit approach.On the other hand, Palmquist and Finley’s (1997) research, which illustrated that somepreservice teachers could progress toward constructivist SEVs when conceptual change,inquiry-oriented, and cooperative learning were taught, can be viewed as using an implicitapproach. Successful cases of changing SEVs by integrating both explicit and implicitapproaches for preservice and inservice science teachers have also been documented (Tsai,2006).

Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson (2004) proposed the use of conceptual change approachfor changing teachers’ SEVs, similar to the use of conceptual change for altering students’alternative conceptions (Hewson, Beeth, & Thorley, 1998), may be helpful. Science edu-cators (e.g., Akerson, Morrison, & McDuffie, 2006) further concluded that just one coursefor changing teachers’ SEVs might not be sufficient, and many teachers in their study re-verted back to their earlier SEVs 5 months after a course, which provided explicit reflectiveinstruction in nature of science. Again, this finding is also similar to that derived from theresearch about students’ alternative conceptions (Wandersee et al., 1994). Therefore, forsuccessfully changing teachers’ positivist-oriented SEVs, science educators need to haveappropriate instructional strategies as well as require more time and continuous efforts forteachers’ change.

Finally, this study employed a multidimensional SEV framework for exploring scienceteachers’ as well as students’ SEVs. By this, researchers can know more details aboutpeople’s SEVs. It is suggested that some large-scale studies with much larger sample size


240 TSAI

be conducted to explore more about the intricacies between teachers’ SEVs and teaching.In particular, by using multidimensional SEVs, researchers can acquire more insights abouthow a specific SEV dimension may play a role on a particular aspect of science teaching.Therefore, the relationship between science teachers’ SEVs and their teaching can be morefully understood.

APPENDIX: AN EXAMPLE OF ANALYZING TEACHERS’ SEVPOSITIONS

Each teacher’s SEV interview responses were analyzed by two researchers. The analysiswas conducted separately by each SEV dimension. One researcher, first, read the interviewtranscripts and marked significant sentences that represented the teacher’s SEVs for thedimension. Then, the second researcher validated the marked sentences. Discrepanciesbetween two researchers would be revolved by discussion. Take the first SEV dimension“theory-laden exploration” as an example; the following interview responses were markedby the researchers for each teacher:

Researcher: Does theory play a role on scientists’ exploration or observations? How?Andy: Scientists can make totally objective observations, which are not affected by theirexisting theories or conceptions; otherwise, we cannot have “science.” Science acquires aspecial status from its neutral and objective exploration. Researcher: Do scientists haveany expectation before undertaking the research work? Why? Andy: No, I don’t think theyhave. They “discover” scientific knowledge by objective data collection and interpretation.

Researcher: Does theory play a role on scientists’ exploration or observations? How?Betty: I believe that scientists conduct research very objectively, quite free of their per-sonal theories. But, I think, in some special cases, their theories influence the research.Researcher: Do scientists have any expectation before undertaking the research work?Why? Betty: Not really. Scientists are trying not to have expectations before conductingresearch. However, in reality, I think some of them have (expectations).

Researcher: Does theory play a role on scientists’ exploration or observations? How?Cindy: I think some scientific explorations are theory-laden and some are not. It dependson the explorations. Researcher: Do scientists have any expectation before undertaking theresearch work? Why? Cindy: I think, in many cases, they have some expectations, but notall of them. Still some research work is conducted by no particular expectations, or it is notaffected by existing theories. Researcher: Is there much scientific research work that is notaffected by existing theories? Cindy: I think there is not much research work in this type.

Researcher: Does theory play a role on scientists’ exploration or observations? How?David: Certainly, scientists’ theories play an important role on their exploration as well asobservations, I think. Scientists observe and conduct exploration based upon their existingtheories. Researcher: Do scientists have any expectation before undertaking the researchwork? Why? David: I think scientists have certain expectations when undertaking experi-ments, and their theories will guide them how to perform the experiments. Their theoriesalso help them interpret their observations. Without theories, they cannot finish the researchwork.

Then, based on the theoretical positions for the SEV dimension proposed by Tsai (2002b),the “theory-laden exploration” dimension has involved two contrasting positions: the con-structivist perspective asserts that scientific exploration is theory-laden, whereas the pos-itivist position supports that scientific is theory-independent, from objective and neutralobservations. The other SEV dimensions also had two distinct positions (constructivist



versus positivist) for elaborating teachers’ SEVs (Tsai, 2002b, p. 27). In addition to usingtwo theoretical positions, the researchers also categorized the teachers’ qualitative responsesby cross-case comparisons with “axial coding” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 123), and thento denote each teacher’s SEVs in this particular dimension into a position ranging frompositivist to constructivist views. Based on the interview responses, both of the researcherscoded Andy as having a positivist view while David clearly expressed a constructivistperspective. However, in the cases of Betty and Cindy, the researchers believed that theydisplayed a combination of positivist and constructivist views, so they were viewed ashaving a mixed position in this SEV dimension. This study further differentiated these twoteachers’ SEVs by the use of axial coding. Based on the interview results, the researchersbelieved that Cindy, though in a mixed position, expressed her ideas a little more ori-ented to the constructivist view, as she claimed that most of scientific research work wastheory-laden. On the other hand, Betty, though still in a mixed position, believed that mostinvestigations in science were theory-neutral while theory-laden exploration occurred onlyin special cases. Therefore, the researchers marked Betty in a position between construc-tivist and positivist views, but more oriented to the positivist. Therefore, in Figure 1, forthis SEV dimension, Andy, Betty, Cindy, and David, respectively were marked along theaxis from positivist to constructivist.

The categorization was analyzed and validated by two researchers, which was finalizedby discussion. The use of axial coding, concurring with that proposed by Strauss and Corbin(1998), was based not only on actual responses by each teacher but also on the researchers’conceptualizations of them. As the interview questions were very specific to each SEVdimension, teachers’ qualitative responses could be categorized quite effectively by thisway, and then be mapped into the positions displayed in Figure 1.

The author thanks all of the teachers, students, and researchers involved in this study. The author alsoexpresses his gratitude to the Editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments inthe further development of this paper.

REFERENCES

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophyof science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal ofScience Education, 27, 15 – 42.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the developmentof preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785 – 810.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice:Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417 – 436.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Towardvalid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 39, 497 – 521.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views ofnature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057 – 1095.

Aikenhead, G. S. (1987). A module for teaching scientific decision making. Bulletin of Science, Technology, andSociety, 7, 137 – 145.

Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study of afourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1025 – 1049.

Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & McDuffie, A. R. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementaryteachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43,194 – 213.

Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students—“Ideas-about-science”: Dimensions ofeffective practice. Science Education, 88, 655 – 682.


242 TSAI

Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on scienceand technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352 – 377.

Benson, G. D. (1989). Epistemology and science curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21, 329 – 344.Brickhouse, N. W. (1989). The teaching of the philosophy of science in secondary classrooms: Case studies of

teachers’ personal theories. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 437 – 449.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.Duschl, R. A., Hamilton, R. J., & Grandy, R. (1990). Psychology and epistemology: Match or mismatch when

applied to science education? International Journal of Science Education, 12, 220 – 243.Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers’ decision making models for planning

and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 467 – 501.Edmondson, K. M., & Novak, J. D. (1993). The interplay of scientific epistemological views, learning strategies,

and attitudes of college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 547 – 559.Hammrich, P. L. (1997). Confronting teacher candidates’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 8, 141 – 151.Hammrich, P. L. (1998). Cooperative controversy challenges elementary teacher candidates’ conceptions of the

“nature of science.” Journal of Elementary Science Education, 10, 50 – 65.Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 33, 47 – 63.Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser &

K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 199 – 218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer.

Huang, C. M., Tsai, C.-C., & Chang, C.-Y. (2005). An investigation of Taiwanese early adolescents’ views aboutthe nature of science. Adolescence, 40, 645 – 654.

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, 331 – 359.

Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors thatfacilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916 – 929.

Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they reallyinfluence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71, 721 – 734.

Linder, C. J. (1992). Is teacher-reflected epistemology a source of conceptual difficulty in physics? InternationalJournal of Science Education, 14, 111 – 121.

Matthews, M. R. (1989). A role for history and philosophy in science teaching. Interchange, 20, 3 – 15.Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.Mellado, V. (1997). Preservice teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of the nature of science. Science

Education, 6, 331 – 354.Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1995). Probing teachers’ views of the nature of science: How should we do it and

where should we be looking. Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science TeachingConference, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN (pp. 864 – 872).

Palmquist, B. C., & Finley, F. N. (1997). Preservice teachers’ views of the nature of science during a postbac-calaureate science teaching program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 595 – 615.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, U. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in

implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 3 – 24.Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science

Education, 76, 559 – 580.Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in

response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387 – 409.Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through

inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634 – 656.Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and

intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 205 –236.

Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761 – 784.

Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory of explicating the practice of science and science teaching.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 501 – 520.



Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Taylor, P. C., & Fraser, B. J. (1991, April). CLES: An instrument for assessing constructivist learning environments.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, LakeGeneva, WI.

Tsai, C.-C. (1998a). An analysis of Taiwanese eighth graders’ science achievement, scientific epistemologicalbeliefs and cognitive structure outcomes after learning basic atomic theory. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 20, 413 – 425.

Tsai, C.-C. (1998b). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eighthgraders. Science Education, 82, 473 – 489.

Tsai, C.-C. (1999a). “Laboratory exercises help me memorize the scientific truths”: A study of eighth graders’scientific epistemological views and learning in laboratory activities. Science Education, 83, 654 – 674.

Tsai, C.-C. (1999b). The progression toward constructivist epistemological views of science: A case study ofthe STS instruction of Taiwanese high school female students. International Journal of Science Education, 21,1201 – 1222.

Tsai, C.-C. (2000a). Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of construc-tivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42, 193 – 205.

Tsai, C.-C. (2000b). The effects of STS-oriented instruction on female tenth graders’ cognitive structure outcomesand the role of student scientific epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1099 –1115.

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

Tsai, C.-C. (2002b). A science teacher’s reflections and knowledge growth about STS instruction after actualimplementation. Science Education, 86, 23 – 41.

Tsai, C.-C. (2006). Reinterpreting and reconstructing science: Teachers’ view changes toward the nature of scienceby courses of science education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 22, 363 – 375.

Tsai, C.-C., & Chang, C.-Y. (2005). Lasting effects of instruction guided by the conflict map: Experimental studyof learning about the causes of seasons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 1089 – 1111.

Tsai, C.-C., & Liu, S.-Y. (2005). Developing a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemolog-ical views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1621 – 1638.

Wallace, C. S., Tsoi, M. Y., Calkin, J., & Darley, M. (2003). Learning from inquiry-based laboratories in nonmajorbiology: An interpretive study of the relationships among inquiry experience, epistemologies, and conceptualgrowth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 986 – 1024.

Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D.LGable (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177 – 210). New York: Macmillan.


teachers' scientific epistemological views: the coherence with instruction and students'...

Documents