The Progression of Prospective Primary Teachers’Conceptions of the Methodology of Teaching

Ana Rivero & Pilar Azcárate & Rafael Porlán &

Rosa Martín del Pozo & Joao Harres

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract This article describes the evolution of prospective primary teachers’ conceptionsof the methodology of teaching. Three categories were analyzed: the concept of activity, theorganization of activities, and the concept of teaching resources. The study was conductedwith five teams of prospective teachers, who were participating in teacher education coursesof a constructivist orientation. The results showed very different itineraries in the processesof change, and the presence of two major obstacles—the belief that teaching is the directcause of learning, and epistemological absolutism. The study allows us to deduce someimplications for initial teacher education.

Keywords Teachers’ conceptions . Pre-service teacher education .

Professional development . Methodological strategies . Activities . Professional knowledge

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769DOI 10.1007/s11165-010-9188-z

A. Rivero : R. PorlánDepartment of Science and Social Science Education, University of Sevilla, Avda. Ciudad Jardín, 22,41005 Sevilla, Spain

A. Riveroe-mail: arivero@us.es

R. Porláne-mail: rporlan@us.es

P. Azcárate (*)Faculty of Education, Deptº Didáctica, University of Cádiz, Campus Universitario del Río San Pedro,11519 Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spaine-mail: pilar.azcarate@uca.es

R. Martín del PozoDepartment of Science Education, University Complutense, Rector Royo Villanova s/n,Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spaine-mail: rmartin@edu.ucm.es

J. HarresCentro Universitario – UNIVATES, Rua Avelino Tallini, 171, Bairro Universitário,CEP 95900-000 Lajeado, RS, Brasile-mail: jbharres@univates.br

Published online: 29 September 2010

Introduction

Numerous studies have described and analyzed teachers’ conceptions of science and itsteaching and learning. These conceptions are characterized by being highly stable anddifficult to change because, in most cases, they are the result of the internalization of theirown experiences as pupils, not of their years of teacher education (Aguirre and Haggerty1995; Hashweh 1996; Mellado 1996; Yerrick et al. 1997; Joram and Gabriele 1988; Porlánand Rivero 1998; Szydlik et al. 2003; Beswick 2006). It is also generally accepted thatteacher education has to be organized around these conceptions to facilitate their evolution(Lemberger et al. 1999; Duit and Treagust 2003; Ambrose 2004; Henze et al. 2009). In thisrespect, our research team has for some time been working on three related andcomplementary areas of study:

& The study of teachers’ epistemological and pedagogical conceptions. Here we havefound there to exist a majority trend based on an empiricist-positivist view of scienceand a transmissive model of teaching, but also a certain diversity of minority tendencieswith a more relativistic view of science and greater focus on the active role of the pupil(Azcárate et al. 1998; Porlán et al. 1998a, b; Porlán and Martín del Pozo 2002, 2004,2006; Cuesta and Azcárate 2005).

& The characterization of teachers’ skills and knowledge as “professional practicalknowledge” (PPK). This knowledge is organized around “practical professionalproblems” (PPPs), and is constructed in a gradual process of overcoming epistemolog-ical and pædagogical obstacles (Porlán et al. 1996, 1997, 1998b; Azcárate 1999a, b;Harres et al. 2005).

& The design and testing of teacher education strategies that promote theconstruction of PPK. These strategies form part of a teacher education model thatwe call in Spanish “Formación de Profesores para Investigar la Práctica [TeacherEducation for Research into Practice]” (FOPIP) (Porlán and Martín del Pozo 1996;Porlán and Rivero 1998; Pizzato and Harres 2007) based on two key ideas:

◦ Organizing the teacher education process around “Professional Practical Problems”(PPPs) (Peterson and Treagust 1998; Watters and Ginns 2000). Those we considermost important for the construction of professional knowledge are practical problemsdirectly related to aspects of the school curriculum: the pupils’ ideas, the content,teaching methods, evaluation, design of teaching units, planning a complete course,and the definition of a personal model of teaching (Porlán and García 1992; Porlán andRivero 1998; Martín del Pozo and Porlán 2001; Porlán and Martín del Pozo 2006).

◦ Facilitating the construction of responses to these PPPs by means of their contrastwith both theoretical and practical information, and through processes of negotiationof knowledge in a critical and democratic environment (Watts and Jofili 1998).

With this framework as background, in recent years we have focused on studying theprogression of prospective teachers when they are taking part in teacher educationprocesses that are coherent with the FOPIP model. This is what Niedderer et al. (1992) call“studies of learning as a consequence of specific interventions”. To that end, we designed ateacher education course denominated in Spanish “Concepciones de los Alumnos eInnovación Curricular [Pupils’ Conceptions and Curricular Innovation]” (CAIC) which isan adaptation of that model to the teacher education contexts in which we are working. TheCAIC course addresses three professional practical problems (PPPs): the pupils’ ideas,school-level content, and the methodology of teaching.

740 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

This article describes and analyzes the results corresponding to one of these problems—the methodology of teaching.

The Methodology of Teaching as an Object of Study

As was noted above, numerous studies coincide in stressing that prospective teachers begintheir teacher education with a view of teaching that is coherent with a transmissiveapproach (Peterson and Treagust 1998; Meyer et al. 1999; Haefner and Zembal-Saul 2004).There have also been, although less frequently, inductive approaches which are consistentwith the idea of discovery, or even close to constructivism (Gustafson and Rowell 1995;Skamp and Mueller 2001a; Porlán et al. 1998a).

Moreover, these studies find that there often appear contradictions between whatteachers say about their approaches or educational models and what they design for theirclassrooms (Hewson and Hewson 1987), and between what they design and what theyactually do (Mellado 1996; Bryan and Abell 1999). While their statements may be farremoved from transmissive models, and indeed come close to constructivist standpoints,their actual practice remains unmoved (Haney and McArthur 2002; So and Watkins 2005;Cheng et al. 2009). These contradictions may be due to the lack of practical innovativereferents to support and guide their intention to change. The result is that prospectiveteachers end up teaching as they themselves were taught, and in practice are fairlyimpermeable to innovative ideas. Thus, Skamp and Mueller (2001b) found that the factorswhich prospective teachers indicated as being the most important in their conceptions ofwhat a good science teacher is like are their own experiences in school science classes andduring their teaching practice in pre-service education.

However, fewer studies have focused specifically on prospective primary teachers’conceptions about how to teach than on other matters—a situation which may be areflection of the conception of education itself. Traditionally, a fundamental role hasbeen granted to the content, with the methodology being a question of simpletransmission. As indicated by Contreras Palma (2010), while teachers consider itconvenient to plan their classes, in practice most plan by lessons, basically in the form ofpreparing a list of contents, goals, and times, but with very little detail of the activitiesand/or resources. From that perspective, “how to teach” is not conceived of as animportant professional problem: there are no methodological principles to guide practice,it is sufficient to master the knowledge that is to be transmitted. From our point of view,however, the methodology of teaching is an essential element of the curriculum since itprovides the answer to a key question in teaching: How can you be effective in helpingpupils learn?

The answer to this question is obviously not simple, and neither will it be unique. But ateacher’s commitment to stimulate others to construct knowledge that is more valid than atthe beginning of the process cannot be satisfied with just any action—not all options arevalid. There is today a fairly generalized consensus among researchers about some of theprinciples of education that can facilitate pupils’ learning (Watts and Jofili 1998; Duit andTreagust 2003). These are the following:

1. Make the learner the focus, i.e., move from a teacher-centred teaching process to onecentred on the pupils (their ideas, affects, interests, needs, etc.).

2. Generate a learning environment that promotes interaction (between teachers andpupils, between pupils themselves, between different types of knowledge, etc.).

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 741

3. Encourage the construction of knowledge through processes of democratic negotiation.This implies a certain epistemological relativism, and questioning the habitual powerrelationships.

In this sense, we consider particularly appropriate the methodological proposals basedon inquiry into open problems that are interesting, relevant, and close to pupils. Thetreatment of these problems in the classroom requires negotiating the meanings that providethe best solutions, and the type of activity to carry out in the classroom, considering thestudents’ interests, conceptions, and experiences so as to promote their real role as theprotagonists of their professional education.

The activities constitute the organizing element of the life of the classroom. They definethe educational interactions, the content to be worked on, specific actions, the distributionof time and space, the resources needed, etc. In a similar vein, Monereo (1998, p. 90)defines an activity as that “which has a goal, an initial and final state, and certainconditions of realization […]; it is the essence of what needs to be done in the classroom”.Likewise, Cañal (2000, p. 5) defines activities as “processes of the flow and treatment ofinformation which are guided, interactive, and organized, and are characteristic of theclassroom system”.

Other perspectives conceive of activities differently. For example, transmissiveapproaches see them as pupil-centred situations designed to check and/or apply theinformation that the teacher has transmitted to the class (Azcárate 1999b). For manyteachers, activities are just a special type of situation linked to practice (hands-on activities),characterized by being interesting and stimulating for the pupils (Appleton 2002). From theconstructivist perspective, however, as was noted above, the activity is the unit of themethodological process, and its “raison d’être” is to help the pupils in the construction ofknowledge.

To achieve this, activities have to be related to one another consistently, forming anintegrated system. While it is common for teachers to organize the temporal sequence of theclasses according to the logic of the content, from the teaching perspective that we havebeen advocating, the common thread running through the sequence of activities has to bethe evolution of the pupils’ ideas. The content is then regarded as a set of tools with whichto address the problems being investigated and to foster the development of the necessaryskills (Azcárate and Castro 2006).

Each activity requires the use of various teaching resources. We believe therefore that agreat variety of resources can be used in teaching (instruments, objects, documents, places,people, actions, etc.), and that it is very important to select those that are best suited in eachcase to facilitate the construction of knowledge.

Therefore, to characterize the different methodological options in the present study, weconsidered the following three categories: the definition and purpose of the activities, thecriterion for the organization of activities (the common thread of the sequence), and thedefinition and purpose of the teaching resources. The focus of the present work is thus todescribe and analyze the progression of prospective teachers with respect to these categorieswhen they are participating in the CAIC (“Concepciones de los Alumnos e InnovaciónCurricular [Pupils’ Conceptions and Curricular Innovation]”) course.

In the studies reviewed in the literature, the data relating to changes in future teacherswhen they take part in pre-service teacher education are disappointing. It seems that ingeneral there is significant resistance to change (Peterson and Treagust 1998), and it is noteasy to achieve the development of the methodological models that are recommended fromthe standpoint of education research and are consistent with constructivist perspectives

742 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

(Skamp and Mueller 2001a). Nevertheless, some changes are indeed detected, at least in amajor group of the sample of prospective teachers:

& Broadening of the type of activity that is taken into account (Haefner and Zembal-Saul2004).

& Positive valuation of the use of problems or questions (Haefner and Zembal-Saul 2004).& More active consideration of the pupils (encouraging them to explore the materials, to

try to uncover the ideas involved, etc.) (Skamp and Mueller 2001a).& Taking the pupils’ ideas into consideration in teaching, albeit in a rather limited sense:

as long as they reproduce what the teacher wants to hear, or in order to create a betteratmosphere in class (Meyer et al. 1999; Haefner and Zembal-Saul 2004).

& Acceptance that problems might have more than one answer, and that experimentsmight give more than one result (Skamp and Mueller 2001a).

Study Design

The method selected for the present study was qualitative in nature within an interpretivistresearch paradigm. The purpose of this type of research is mainly to understand how thesubjects experience, perceive, and interpret reality and their part in it, studying thephenomenon in the context in which it occurs (Uwe 2004). In the present study, wecontextualize the phenomenon of such a subjective reality by examining it in its naturalenvironment. Meanings are extracted from the data rather than being based on statistics,seeking not a reply but a richness of interpretation (Hernández et al. 2008).

The research was centred on an educational proposal (the CAIC course) implemented in fivedifferent scenarios. One team was selected in each of these scenarios, together forming the fivecases to be analyzed. The work to be described can be classified as an evaluative case study,since it is aimed at analyzing and evaluating the results of a specific intervention—results whichare linked to the progression of the participants’ ideas (Hernández et al. 2008; Yin 1994). In thefollowing pages, we shall characterize the research and the context in which it was conducted,the data collection instruments, and the analytical procedure.

The Research Problem and Category System

The central problem of the study was:

& How do the conceptions about methodology of different teams of prospective teachersprogress when they take part in a constructivist-oriented course and what obstaclesarise?

The study of this problem allows us to:

& Describe and analyze the progression of conceptions about the methodology ofteaching.

& Infer which are the educational and epistemological obstacles blocking the evolution ofthese conceptions.

As we noted above, to address the problem under study we selected three categories foranalysis: “the concept and purpose of the activities”, “the criterion for the organization ofactivities”, and “the concept and purpose of the teaching resources”.

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 743

We defined three levels of increasing complexity in each of these categories. Theselevels were the result of theoretical reflection, our experience in teacher education, theteacher education models in which we have been working, and contrast with thepreliminary empirical data (Porlán et al. 1996, 1998b; Porlán and Rivero 1998; Azcárate1999b; Harres et al. 2005; Azcárate and Castro 2006). They were as follows (Table 1):

& A first level (N1) reflecting our expectation of the participants’ conceptions at thebeginning of the course.

& A second (N2) describing the conceptions that we believe the participants should beable to attain by the end of a course of these characteristics. In this sense, we concurwith Flores et al. (2000) that one has to temper one’s expectations of the results ofteacher education programs.

& A third (N3) that is the theoretical referent that we consider desirable.

This therefore represents a possible Itinerary of Progression of prospective teachers’conceptions with respect to the three categories studied, including the initial, possible, andreference values. As will be seen later, as a result of interaction with the complete set ofempirical data, this basic Itinerary of Progression was subsequently enriched withintermediate levels.

The Teacher Education Context and the Sample

The basis of the CAIC (“Concepciones de los Alumnos e Innovación Curricular [Pupils’Conceptions and Curricular Innovation]”) course, is the constructivist epistemologicalreferent that inquiry-based strategies are particularly well suited both to teaching pupils and

Table 1 Itinerary of progression

Categories Level 1 (N1) Level 2 (N2) Level 3 (N3)

Concept andpurpose ofthe activities

Activities are situationswith the pupils playing theprincipal part, to checkand/or apply informationtransmitted by the teacher.

Activities are units ofprogramming to develop ateaching-learning processthat goes beyond the meretransmission-reception ofcontent

Activities are programmingunits of the teaching-learning process aimed atfostering the pupils’ con-struction of knowledge.

Criterion forthe organizationof activities

The methodologicalsequence is determined bythe logic of the content, andis aimed at transmitting thatcontent to the pupils.

The methodologicalsequence is related to thepupils’ ideas, and is aimed,more or less explicitly, atexpanding, correcting, orreplacing them with trueknowledge.

The methodologicalsequence is related to thepupils’ ideas, and is aimedat encouraging theirevolution throughprocesses of inquiry. Thecontent is seen as a set oftools with which toaddress those problems.

Concept andpurpose ofthe teachingresources

Teaching resources are allthose means that facilitatethe teaching process.

Teaching resources are allthose means that facilitatethe pupils’ learning.

Teaching resources arethose means which areparticularly well suited toencouraging the pupils’construction ofknowledge.

744 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

to teacher education. As was noted in the Introduction, the course is organized around threePPPs (Appendix A):

a) Practical Professional Problems I (PPP-I): Pupils’ spontaneous ideas (their nature,change, identification, and analysis).

b) Practical Professional Problems II (PPP-II): The school-level content (sources, types,relationships, levels of formulation, and presentation to the pupils).

c) Practical Professional Problems III (PPP-III): The teaching method (concept andpurpose of the activities, methodological sequence, and teaching resources).

The course begins with the treatment of the pupils’ ideas because, as various authorsobserve, this is a major tool for the transformation of prospective teachers’ knowledge(Jones et al. 1999; Morrison and Lederman 2003). This first identification and considerationof the pupils’ ideas helps the prospective teachers move away from the traditional model ofteaching.

The method of the course therefore revolves around the prospective teachers’ activeparticipation in constructing their professional knowledge. Overall, this approach ischaracterized by promoting analysis, critical reflection, small working group discussion,and whole group debate with all the participants involved (Park and Oliver 2008). Theinstructor’s role is mediator and advisor: he or she revises the reports, intervenes in thediscussions by posing questions, provides documents that encourage reflection and thecontrast of ideas, guides the common sessions, and prepares the final syntheses.

In PPP-I, the prospective teachers, organized into teams, investigate the ideas of 50primary education pupils (6–12 years old) on an item of the curricular content of science ormathematics that each team chooses freely in accordance with their interests (Activities 1–6).

In PPP-II, they design the content they consider appropriate for the chosen topic, takinginto account the pupils’ ideas that they had investigated previously (Activities 7–9).

Lastly, in PPP-III, they design the plan of activities that they consider appropriate tofoster the evolution of the pupils’ ideas about the selected content. The data to be presentedand analyzed in the present communication basically come from the prospective teachers’written production during their treatment of this last problem (Activities 10–12).

As one observes, each problem is addressed through a sequence of teacher educationactivities organized into three stages or “moments” (Table 2):

& Initial, for the participants to activate, gain awareness of, and develop their points ofview on the problem.

& Intermediate, to stimulate the contrast between, and reasoned reflection on, theseviewpoints and other information taken from different sources. These sources areselected in accordance with the subjects’ starting level.

& Final, to foster reconsideration of the initial viewpoints and reflection on the changesthat have occurred.

At this point, let us consider in greater detail the development of each of these threeactivities, which correspond to the third practical professional problem addressed (PPP III),related to the methodological aspects on which this article is focused:

& Activity 10. The teams draft an initial proposal of activities to use in teaching theselected content. At this stage, they do this without consulting any material, so as totake only the ideas they have at that time into account. The teams present their drafts inclass and analyze them together, considering: the activities proposed (their function and

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 745

purpose), their organization (how they are classified and sequenced, and why), and theteaching resources that are used (their function and purpose).

& Activity 11. They next present, analyze, and discuss other activity proposals taken frominnovative experiments and education research. In these proposals, the activities andteaching resources play different roles, and the sequences are established in accordancewith the methodological model behind each experiment. Subsequently, they read andanalyze texts that present different general methodological models and the pedagogicalarguments on which they are based. These are fundamentally exemplifications andtheoretical texts consistent with pupil research based methods. Finally, the teamscomplete a “reflection script” aimed at helping them relate their initial activity proposalwith the alternative examples that were presented.

& Activity 12. Finally, the teams reconsider their initial proposals, and draft a secondproposal, justifying the changes they make. They present these new proposals forcriticism in a common session with the rest of the course participants.

The CAIC course was given during one semester in different classes of initial teachereducation at five universities, whose instructors were both the researchers and the authors ofthe present article. The sample selected for study consisted of five teams/cases (A, B, C, D,and E) corresponding to one of the teams chosen at random from each context in which theCAIC course was taught. The Table 3, presents the details of the characteristics of the sample.

The subjects given prior to this course were related to teaching some specific school-level material (mathematics, nature of science, etc.) or to general psychopedagogicalcontent. In no case had the participants yet done any practice teaching. The number ofprospective teachers in each course ranged from 37 to 57. They were mostly women, andthey were between 18 and 25 years in age. Before university, they had normally completedpre-university secondary education, with no predominance of any speciality (sciences, art,technology, and humanities).

These students were organized into teams of 4–6 members, with 9 or 10 teams in each ofthe five university contexts. The reporting unit was taken to be the team and the work

Table 2 Teaching sequence

PPP Moments Educational sequence

PPPI: What ideas do thepupils have about someof the school-levelscience content?

Initial A1. Draft the first version ofthe questionnaire.

A4. Conduct a pilot study

Intermediate A2. Read and discuss thecontributions ofeducational research

A5. Read and discuss thecontributions ofeducational research

Final A3. Prepare and administerthe definitivequestionnaire

A6. Carry out the completestudy

PPPII: What specific contentshould be programmed withthe pupils’ ideas taken intoaccount?

Initial A7. Draft the first content proposal

Intermediate A8. Read and discuss the contributions of educationalresearch

Final A9. Prepare the definitive content proposal

PPPIII: What sequence ofactivities might be conduciveto the evolution of the pupils’ideas?

Initial A10. Draft the first version of the plan of activities

Intermediate A11. Read and discuss the contributions of educationalresearch

Final A12. Prepare the definitive plan of activities

746 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

produced by its members. The role of collaborative work and the construction of sharedknowledge as key pieces of professional development are theoretical referents justifyingthis choice (Tillema 2000; Watters and Ginns 2000; Osborne and Collins 2001; Tillema andVan der Westhuizen 2006; Zellermayer and Tabak 2006; Henze et al. 2009).

Instruments and Techniques of Analysis

The data were obtained at the aforementioned three moments of the course: initial (whenthe first conceptions about the problem are identified), intermediate (when they aresubjected to contrast with other views), and final (when they are re-worked in a reasonedmanner). The information gathering instruments were three of the documents produced byeach team (see Table 4).

Table 3 Characteristics of the sample

Case Topic University Program Course Students/Teams

A HumanReproduction

UniversityComplutense ofMadrid (Spain)

Diplomature inPrimary Education

Pupils’ Conceptionsof Science(Optional; 40 h; 1styear, 2nd semester)

37 students

18–22 years

84% ♀ 16% ♂(9 teams)

B Animals University ofSevilla (Spain)

Diplomature inPrimary Education

Didactics of the Areaof EnvironmentalKnowledge(Compulsory; 50 h;1st year,2nd semester)

57 students

18–25 years

94% ♀ 6% ♂(10 teams)

C Acids andBases

UNIVATES(Lajeado, Brazil)

Diplomature inPrimary ScienceTeaching

Science TeachingLaboratory I(Compulsory; 40 h;1st year, 2ndsemester)

57 students

18–25 years

94%♀ 6%♂(10 teams)

D The Earth andthe Universe

University ofSevilla (Spain)

Diplomature inPrimary Education

Nature Sciences andtheir Didactics(Compulsory;80 h; 2nd year, 3rdsemester)

55 students

20–25 years

83% ♀ 17% ♂(10 teams)

E Polygons University ofCádiz (Spain)

Diplomature in Pre-Primary Education

Development ofMathematicalThinking and itsDidactics(Compulsory; 60 h;1st year,1st semester)

50 students

18–25 years

93% ♀ 7% ♂(10 teams)

Table 4 Data collection instruments

Initial Moment (IM) Intermediate Moment (ItmM) Final Moment (FM)

Instruments Initial activity sequenceproposal (Document 10)

Reflection script on how toteach (Document 11)

Second activity sequenceproposal (Document 12)

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 747

Documents 10 and 12 are free productions in which reflection about the problem iscompletely open, without any kind of constraint (Activities 10 and 12). Document 11 is areflection script serving as an open-response questionnaire designed to direct discussionand decision-making within the team (Activity 11). The reasoning presented in thesedocuments not only organizes the groups’ learning processes, but provides keys tounderstanding their conceptions and their possible evolution. The three documents arepresented in Appendix B.

The raw data collected was converted into units of information and coded by category(1, 2, 3), team (A, B, C, D, E), document (10, 11, 12), and order of appearance in thedocument. The procedure used to treat the data was the following:

a) Identification of Units of Meaningful Information (UMIs), in the written documents.b) Coding and classification of these UMIs into the corresponding categories.c) Drafting a ‘proposition of synthesis’ (PS) of the different UMIs for each category,

moment, and case, with a low level of inference. The aim of the researchers indrafting this ‘proposition’ is to have an ordered synthesis of the views that theprospective teachers express in the different UMIs, which will then serve in eachcategory to help relate the information obtained with the previously defined stagesof progression.

d) Validation of the categorizations and draft proposals via a process of triangulation inwhich each case was reviewed independently by at least two researchers. There was agreater than 90% index of agreement in all cases. The disagreements were analyzedseparately by the entire research team, seeking consensus. When this was not possible,the majority position was taken.

The data were analyzed and discussed according to the following steps:

a) Assigning one of the levels of progression (N1, N2, or N3) already defined for thedifferent categories to the different propositions of synthesis (PS’s) constructed. Thisprocess showed the need to define intermediate levels (N01 and N12) to better reflectthe diversity present in the data.

b) From the results of the previous step, presentation of the Itinerary of Progressionidentified for each case and category.

c) In each category, formulation and analysis of the obstacles that are present in thesample, and their relationship with the teacher education activities.

d) Finally, by integrating the levels defined in each category, elaboration of the GeneralLevels of Progression with respect to methodology and their associated GeneralObstacles.

An example of a substantial part of this procedure for the processing and analysis of thedata is presented in Table 5. As one sees in this example, we identified the Units ofMeaningful Information (UMIs) for each of the five teams (all from Document 11:“Reflection Script IV: What teaching plan to prepare?”—see Appendix B: Educationalactivity documents). On their basis, we elaborated the PS corresponding to one of thecategories (criterion for the organization of activities) at one of the moments of the course(intermediate).

Different numbers of UMIs were obtained for the various teams, categories, andmoments. Altogether, we identified 249 UMIs, with which we elaborated 45 PS’s (one foreach of the five teams at each of the three moments of data collection and for each of thethree categories studied) associated with different levels of progression.

748 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

Table 5 Data processing and analysis procedure for the category “organization of activities” at theintermediate moment

Units of Meaningful Information(UMIs)

Proposition of Synthesis (PS) Level

(In the first version of the planof activities) there is nothing toexplain the order because thesequence that emerged wasrandom, with no criterion.

In our first version of the plan ofactivities there was nothing toexplain the order. The sequencewas designed at random, with nocriterion. The pupils’ ideas werenot taken into account, noproblems were proposed, nor wasany methodological orderfollowed. It only consisted ofpractical exercises.

The methodological sequence isrelated to the pupils’ ideas, andseeks, more or less explicitly, toexpand, correct, and replace themwith true knowledge. (Level 2)

(The methodological model thatwe defend at the present time is:)1. Problems. 2. Previous ideas. 3.New information. 4. Activities(motivation, application,intervention in the environment).5. Reinforcement activities.

We must introduce changes toimprove it: suggest problems, andascertain the pupils’ ideas inorder to help them relate thoseideas with what we want to teach.

We must start by putting forward aproblem that is in the children’severyday context, i.e., that isfamiliar to them. We can then seewhat ideas they have about it, andbit by bit get closer to them.Thanks to these previous ideas,we will find it easier to select theinformation to give them, so thatit is easier for them to relate thetwo. For the next point, webelieve it is best to programactivities of motivation as well asof application and intervention inthe environment. With these wewill evaluate the pupils to see ifthey have understood what weexplained to them before. If theydo the activities and some pupilsstill have not got the point, weneed to set additionalreinforcement activities.

The methodological sequence thatat present we considerappropriate is:

There is no coherence (of our newteaching plan with respect to thefirst version), since in the firstversion we neither took thepupils’ ideas into account nor didwe follow any particularmethodological order. We onlyprepared practical exercises.

1. Put forward a problem of thechildren’s everyday context,one that they find familiar.

(With respect to our first version) afirst change (that we shouldmake) is that in the first versionwe did not take into accounteither the possibility of proposing

2. Previous ideas. We can see whatideas the pupils have, and bitby bit get closer to them.

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 749

Results and Discussion

In this section, we shall present the results for the three categories, commenting in detail onthe changes that were observed in the proposals.

Results for Category 1: “The Concept and Purpose of the Activities (Act.)”

Our expectation based on previous experience was that at the beginning of the teachereducation process the prospective teachers would consider activities to be a teachingelement linked to practice rather than theory, in which the pupils would have a leading roleapplying and/or checking the information they had received from the teacher (N1). Weexpected this view to evolve during the course to one in which activities are seen asrepresenting the typical situations (an explanation by the teacher in the form of a dialogue, alaboratory practical, a debate in class, etc.) of a methodological approach that goes beyondthe mere transmission and reception of content (N2). Nonetheless, no team exactly followedthis expected progression.

As is shown in Fig. 1, only one team (A) started out from the expected initial level,although they all ended in the expected final level.

The characteristics of the initial teaching plan of three of the five teams (B, D, and E)corresponded to those of level N2. In other words, from the start they conceived of activityas being the unit of programming. These are activities of various kinds (proposingproblems, looking up information, discovery, application, etc.) whose purpose is not toimprove the transmission of the content, but to develop a more pupil-centred process that ismore concerned with fostering their learning, albeit without actually promoting genuineconstruction of meanings. Although the teams were at the same level at the end of theprocess, they had followed different itineraries.

Table 5 (continued)

Units of Meaningful Information(UMIs)

Proposition of Synthesis (PS) Level

problems or determining theirprevious ideas.

3. New information which, thanksto the previous steps, we willfind it easier to decide on. Forthe same reason, the pupils willfind it easier to relate this newinformation with theirpre-existing ideas.

4. Practical activities ofmotivation, application, andintervention in theenvironment. These will serveto evaluate the pupils to see ifthey have understood what weexplained to them before.

5. Reinforcement activities for thepupils who need them.

750 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

Team D was the only one that stayed at the same level (N2) throughout the process.

Case D:[Draft of the first version of the teaching plan] We will develop our teaching unitthrough a series of questions/problems or projects in which we will always follow thesame steps: (1) The question is set out, and the groups of pupils pool their ideas onthe topic without consulting anything. (2) The opinions of all the groups are writtenup on the board and, once completed, the teacher makes the pupils aware of thingsthat are missing or poorly expressed. (3) The pupils are given time to consult booksor other resources, asking their elders. (4) In class, in a common session we will haveall the content that we want to work with. (5) Finally, an activity will be done to putinto practice everything they have learnt, and this will be the only thing different inthe development of one question/problem or project with respect to another. (InitialMoment; Document 10)

Everything that is done in order to learn something is an activity, whether in or out ofthe class, with the intervention of the teacher, pupils, or other persons invited toparticipate in the classroom. (Intermediate Moment; Document 11)

Levels identified Initial Intermed. Final N3 Activities are programming units of the

teaching-learning process aimed at fostering the pupils' construction of knowledge.

A

E

N2 Activities are units of programming to develop a teaching-learning process that goes beyond the mere transmission- reception of content. E

D

B

D

C

A

E

D

C

B

N12 Activities are situations with the pupils playing the principal part, to check and/or apply information transmitted by the teacher, together with situations aimed at the pupils' greater involvement in the process (looking up information, brainstorming, etc.).

B

N1 Activities are situations with the pupils playing the principal part, to check and/or apply information transmitted by the teacher.

A

N01 No activities are formulated. C

Fig. 1 Concept and purpose of the activities

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 751

[The 2nd teaching plan] We will always follow the same steps: (1) The question/problem or project is set out, and the groups of pupils pool their ideas on the topicwithout consulting anything. (2) The opinions of all the groups are written up on theboard and, once completed, the teacher asks questions to make the pupils reflectabout the things that are missing or poorly expressed. (3) The pupils are given time toinvestigate on their own behalf, consult books, other resources, or ask their elders.(4) In class, there will be a common session on what was researched into, and so wewill have all the content that we want to work with. (5) Another activity will be doneto put into practice everything they have learnt, and this will be the only thingdifferent in the development of one question/problem or project with respect toanother. (Final Moment; Document 12)

Team B, however, underwent a certain regression between the initial and theintermediate moments. At the beginning, they recognized that teaching must in some waytake the pupils into account (we must start by proposing a problem that is within thechildren’s everyday context, in other words, that they are familiar with; Document 10), andthat there can be different types of activities (we think it is best to program activities ofmotivation, application, intervention in the environment, reinforcement,…; Document 10).Nevertheless, in Document 11 they are now seeing activities as primarily having the role ofchecking what the teacher has taught (N12). Between this intermediate moment and thefinal moment they again progress to level N2, seeing activities as being the unit ofprogramming (the teacher’s explanation is just one more activity), and recognizing that thepurpose of the activities is not just to apply in practice the information that has beentransmitted by the teacher.

Case B:In drawing up a teaching plan, we must start by proposing a problem that is withinthe children’s everyday context, in other words, that they are familiar with. (2) Inrelation with this problem, we will identify and discuss the previous ideas that thepupils have. (3) Thanks to this step, we can move on to the next point: eliminating theerroneous ideas that the pupils had previously, and going on to strengthening the newknowledge with various types of activities, of observation, experimentation,explanation, motivation, reflection. (4) Finally one does a kind of check to seewhether the pupils have assimilated the new knowledge. This check or evaluation canbe carried out in different ways; by means of an examination, a test, and, of course,by means of the observation every day in class… (FM; D12)

Team E underwent progression between the initial moment and the intermediate momentwhen it stood out that they thought the activities should make it easier for pupils toconstruct knowledge (N3). At the final moment, however, no allusion to this idea appears intheir written output. Instead, they state that the function of activities is to facilitate thepupils’ reflection on the content they are learning. Indeed, the sense of the activities theypropose is really to try to get the pupils to “discover” the predetermined content.

Case E:We believe that activities are normally a means used by the teacher aimed at enablingthe children to acquire certain knowledge. Although this is the most comfortableposition to take, and the one to which we are unconsciously inclined, it is not the bestsuited for the pupils’ construction of knowledge, a major aspect of our proposal [atthis moment]. (ItM; D11)

752 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

Activity 8: We shall give out sheets with big squares to the children. Individually, theywill draw on the sheet a rectangle of whatever size they want. Taking each square asa unit, they will have to find the number of squares the rectangle contains inside it.The area will be the number of squares that the rectangle contains on the squaredsheet. Now the children are asked something else: How do we find the area withouthaving to count all the squares?After several checks, the children will discover that if they multiply the squares of thebase (the line at the top or at the bottom, because they still do not know what basemeans) by the height (the line on either side), you will get the same result as if youcounted the squares one by one. In this way, they will find without realizing it theformula for the area of a rectangle: base × height… These activities allow reflectionon the content that the child is learning, why, how, for what purpose, etc. (FM; D12)

Team Awas the only one that started from the level that we had expected (N1). Betweenthe initial and the intermediate moments, they underwent a major progression, evolvingfrom proposing explanations by the teacher and verification activities to consideringactivities as programming units, recognizing that they can be of different types and with theclear intention of making it easier for their pupils to construct meanings (N3). Nonetheless,at the final moment one perceives a certain regression since they consider the purpose of theactivities is for the pupils to learn what has to be learnt.

Case A:Activity 2: Explanation of each organ’s functions by means of the “bust” [theanatomical model that can be disassembled and reassembled], films, and comparisonwith everyday objects, so that the pupils can have a closer idea of reality (IM; D10)

We believe that activities should be motivational, adapted to their age and thecontent, and incite them to investigate (…): they exchange previous ideas, come closeto reality, linking their previous knowledge with the new, compare what they havelearnt with each other… [There should be included:] motivational activities,activities to pool ideas, experimental activities, activities of the teacher’s explanation,activities applying what they have learnt (ItM; D11)

[Activity 2 of the second version of the teaching plan is:] When the pupils have donetheir surveys (about how babies are born), they will be asked to put the informationtogether in a bar chart. This will be done in groups of 3. After drawing the charts, thepupils will be told to give their work a title, such as “Reproduction”. From here, theteacher indicates that some of the responses they have obtained correspond to whatreproduction is, and that they should identify them. (FM; D12)

Nonetheless, we cannot be sure whether or not the changes detected in teams A and Ebetween the intermediate and final moments corresponded to a genuine regression. Theycould be simple incoherence such as has been found in other studies (Hewson and Hewson1987) when a more formal discourse (such as that the prospective teachers made at theintermediate moment) is compared with a discourse more linked to action (such as thatpervading the sequence of activities at the final moment). This would be an example that“knowing” something is not synonymous with “knowing how to do it” (Porlán and Rivero1998), or that changes in discourse are easier than changes in action (Flores et al. 2000).

Finally, at the initial moment, team C proposed a set of general principles or ideas, butwithout particularizing them in activities (N01). There then occurred a major progression up

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 753

to the intermediate moment, since this team went from not considering activities at all toregarding them as key elements in planning, allocating them various roles unconnected withthe transmission and reception of information (N2). They were still at this level at the finalmoment.

Case C:The plan of activities: Experimental practical classes: acids and bases; Classroomarrangements: opinion of the pupils; Relationships with everyday life: vinegar, fruits,cleaning products, etc. (IM; D10)

Our opinion is that every teaching plan will consist of activities. There are no ways oforganizing teaching without an activity proposal.The activities should allow one to identify the previous ideas (…), to correct distortedideas, increase their knowledge and understanding (debates and practical classes)(…) and verify that there had been growth in the content that was dealt with (test).(ItM; D11)

Considering the overall results for this category, one can say that there emerged verydifferent situations and new, unforeseen levels (N01 and N12). The teams that started fromthe simplest levels (considering no activities in their teaching plan, or seeing activities assituations with which to apply or check what the teacher has transmitted) underwentsignificant progression (the activities are units of pupil-centred programming rather thanthe programming being centred on the transmission of information).

The teams that started from a more complex level than we expected initially did notundergo significant and lasting changes. At the end of the course, they were at thesame level as at the beginning. All the teams ended at the level (N2) that we thoughtpossible in our hypothetical Itinerary of Progression, regardless of their level ofdeparture and the path they took. The belief that activities are the direct cause of thepupils’ learning what the teacher wants them to is, in our view, the obstacle thatprevents prospective teachers from understanding activities as facilitators of the pupils’construction of meanings. In part, these results are similar to those reported by Yerricket al. (1997). The context of that study was a two-week summer school course formiddle-grade science teachers who chose to participate in a curriculum implementationplan. The participants began the course including as an activity the checks andapplications of what the teacher had transmitted (a view which had little presence inour sample). By the end of the course, they acknowledged that there were different typesof research-based activities, and were willing to use them. They were convinced,however, that the correct scientific information would simply emerge spontaneously fromdoing these activities. Likewise, Appleton (2002) finds that some of the primary schoolteachers who were studied expected that the pupils would learn straight away the pre-established content in the activities that were proposed to them. Indeed, if an activity didnot produce the expected results, it was considered to be unsuitable.

Results for Category 2: “The Criterion for the Organization of Activities (Org.)”

Neither in this category did we find the expected progression from level N1 to level N2 (seeFig. 2). Indeed, at the initial moment only one team (Case A) organized the methodologicalsequence in accordance with the logic of the content, and with the aim of facilitating itstransmission to the pupils. Case E started from a similar situation (N12), since the sequence

754 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

was organized around the content, but with the intention that the pupils should discover thatcontent for themselves. The rest of the teams (B, C, and D) started either from a level that weconsidered to be simpler since there was no criterion with which to organize the proposedactivities (N01), or from a more complex level with the sequence organized on the basis ofthe pupils’ ideas. As in the previous category, the initial data led us to define two new levels(N01 and N12) that were not included in the expected itinerary of progression.

Let us first consider the progressions that were detected.Between the initial and the intermediate moments, teams A and E underwent a major

change. From organizing the sequence in terms of the content, they progressed to anorganization that was designed to encourage the evolution of pupils’ ideas by means ofprocesses of inquiry (N3). Nonetheless, as in the previous category, there was a regressionby the final moment, from Level 3 to Level 2. The sequence of the final activity proposal

Levels identified Initial Intermed. Final

N3

The methodological sequence is related to the pupils' ideas, and is aimed at encouraging their evolution through processes of inquiry (proposing problems, formulating hypotheses, contrasting them with other information, drawing conclusions, and reflecting on what has been learnt). The content is seen as a set of tools with which to address those problems.

E

A

N2

The methodological sequence is related to the pupils' ideas, and is aimed, more or less explicitly, at expanding, correcting, or replacing them with true knowledge.

D D

B

C

E

A

D

B

C

N12 The methodological sequence is determined by the logic of the content, and is aimed at expanding the pupils' ideas, correcting the conceptual errors, and replacing them with true knowledge.

E

N1 The methodological sequence is determined by the logic of the content, and is aimed at transmitting that content to the pupils.

A

N01 The methodological sequence is additive. B

C

Fig. 2 Criterion for the organization of activities

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 755

was designed to replace the pupils’ initial ideas with those the teacher considered correct.This is seen, for example, in the sequence designed by team A:

Case A:The order [of the situations proposed in the teaching plan] is: First, make thedistinction between the male and female reproductive systems, using the detachable“bust”. Second, explain the functions of each organ using the bust, films, andeveryday objects. Third, explain the concept of fertilization by means of a diagram orcomparison with [other] animals. (IM; D10)

[The new teaching plan must consist of:] Activities of motivation, offering the childproposals of inquiry into something close to him or her.Activities of pooling ideas with the rest of the class on the subject of inquiry (in thisway they exchange their previous ideas with their peers).Experimental activities with which they approach reality. Activities of explanation bythe teacher, linking previous knowledge with the new, relating together everythingthat had been done since the beginning of the motivation activity, the ideascontributed by the pupils in the discussion, and showing them what they have learntthrough their inquiry, suggesting ideas to them, etc.Activities of application of what they have learnt, including application exercises thatalso serve to compare the ideas they had before with those they have elaboratedthroughout the process.Activities in common for them to compare with one another what they have learnt, tomake contributions to the whole group, and to reach a conclusion that responds tothe starting activity and that can also justify whether the process has been of any useto them. (ItM; D11)

1st. The pupils are asked: “Do you know what happens between two adults when theywant to have children?” Each group (of three pupils) is then asked to reach aconclusion, taking into account what they know or have heard outside of class. Adebate is held in a common session. The teacher’s role is to observe and moderate thedebate, indicating on the blackboard the possible responses. At the end of the debate,the teacher will announce to the pupils that the initial conclusions will be put up on aposter on the wall of the classroom, the idea being that there will be a review of theseconclusions at the end of the subject of reproduction.2nd. It is put to them that, in groups of 3, they could do a survey to investigate thecauses for which people have children. Question: Why is a baby born? This survey isapplied to family, neighbours, etc.3rd. When the pupils have done their surveys, they will be asked to put theinformation together in a bar chart. This will be done in groups of 3 (as initially).4th. After the recognition that in reproduction two sexes are involved, we shall try toget the pupils to identify the differences between them. For this purpose, we go to thelaboratory and let them use the “busts” of the different sexual organs so thatmanipulating them helps the pupils to internalize the content we are teaching. Theywill be given roughly 10 min to freely and spontaneously observe the differences…5th. Back in the classroom, they will work in their groups (3 by 3, as initially). Theteacher will provide them with the different organs (male and female) in the form ofcut-outs. They will work with them, painting them and constructing a mural of eachof the reproductive systems (the silhouette will already be drawn on each mural

756 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

backing card). The teacher will always be ready to give all the information andclarifications the pupils need and to answer their doubts, resolve conflicts, etc.,whenever the pupils ask for help. (FM; D12)

As one sees, at the intermediate moment this team proposed an inquiry-based sequence ofactivities, during which the pupils could approach closer to reality, linking new knowledge withwhat they knew already, compare with each other what they had learnt, etc. Nonetheless, in thesequence corresponding to the final moment of the course, these prospective teachers gavesignificant value to checking the correctness of their pupils’ ideas.

Teams B and C at the initial moment followed no criterion to organize activities (there isnothing to explain the order because the sequence we designed emerged at random, with nocriterion; we only based our proposal on using many practical activities, because these areactivities that the children love; Case B, Document 11). At the intermediate moment, theirproposal organized the sequence of activities on the basis of the pupils’ ideas. Both of theseteams indicated, more or less explicitly, that the purpose of this sequence is to replace thepupils’ ideas with true knowledge (N2).

Case C:[Our methodological model at this moment is]:—Previous ideas: existing knowledgeof the content that is to be studied;—Explain the mistakes: correct distorted ideas,increase knowledge, understand the content with discussions and practicals;—Test:check whether there has been growth in the content dealt with. (ItM; D11)

Lastly, (as was the case in the previous category) team D maintained the same level at allthree moments: initial, intermediate, and final. This level was the one we believed to bepossible to attain by the end of the teacher education course (N2). From the beginning, theirproposal was more centred on the pupils than on the teacher because the pupils’ ideasconstituted the foundation of their methodological sequence. As they stated at theintermediate moment, this consideration of the pupils’ ideas is so as to be able to correctthem.

Case D:We will develop our teaching unit through a series of questions/problems or projectsin which we will always follow the same steps: (1) The question is set out, and thegroups of pupils pool their ideas on the topic without consulting anything. (2) Theopinions of all the groups are written up on the board and, once completed, theteacher makes the pupils aware of things that are missing or poorly expressed. (3)The pupils are given time to consult books or other resources, asking their elders. (4)In class, in a common session we will have all the content that we want to work with.(5) Finally, an activity will be done to put into practice everything they have learnt,and this will be the only thing different in the development of one question/problem orproject with respect to another. (IM; D10)

[In the first version of the teaching plan, the order of activities is conditioned by:] thepupils’ previous ideas, in the sense that one roughly follows a sequence of the form:determining the previous ideas, providing information to correct the errors and gapsidentified, and checking whether the ideas have changed.[The methodological model that we have done now] is virtually the same [as the firstversion], the only difference is that one of the final activities is not in the frameworkof a question or specific project, but is general for the entire syllabus. (ItM; D11)

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 757

Working with the first problem: (1) We ask the following question: Has the universealways been like it is now? The groups of pupils pool their ideas on the topic withoutconsulting anything. (2) The opinions of all the groups are written up on the boardand, once completed, the teacher asks questions to make the pupils reflect about thethings that are missing or poorly expressed. (3) The pupils are given time toinvestigate on their own behalf, consult books, other resources, or asking their elders.(4) In class, there will be a common session on what was researched into, and so wewill have all the content that we want to work with. (5) Another final activity will bedone to put into practice everything they have learnt: this is a debate on the subject.Working with the second problem: (1) We ask the following question: What is there inthe universe? The groups of pupils pool their ideas on the topic without consultinganything. (2) The opinions of all the groups are written up on the board and, oncecompleted, the teacher asks questions to make the pupils reflect about the things thatare missing or poorly expressed. (3) The pupils are given time to investigate on theirown behalf, consult books, other resources, or ask their elders. (4) In class, there willbe a common session on what was researched into, and so we will have all thecontent that we want to work with. (5) Another final activity will be done to put intopractice everything they have learnt: the children get together one night in the schoolplayground to observe the sky. (…). (FM; D12)

As one sees, although this team includes important elements of a pupil-inquiry basedmethodological approach—posing questions, formulating hypotheses, contrast with otherinformation, etc.—they believe that the search for information that they propose for thepupils will be so fruitful that it will enable the children to learn all the content that theteacher wants them to work on.

In sum, we can say that in this category, except for one case in which there were nodetectable changes, there did exist progression between the initial and final moments.Indeed, the progressions that were identified were of some significance, since in generalthey went from a methodological sequence that was either disorganized or organized simplyon the basis of the content to a methodological sequence organized in accordance with thepupils’ ideas. Again, as in the previous category, the various situations that arose during theprocess (progression, no change, regression) ended with all the teams being at the level weconsidered possible (N2).

Our impression seems therefore to be confirmed that, although importance is given tothe pupils and methods are adopted that are centred on their ideas, the prospective teachersfind it quite difficult to accept that those ideas can change and that pupils can constructmeanings that are intermediate between their pre-existing ideas and the new information. Inour view, this is related to two major obstacles, one pedagogical and the other moreprofound, epistemological. The first has to do with the idea that teaching is the direct causeof learning, so that pupils are expected to learn faithfully what they are taught, without anyinterference from their previous ideas. The second is epistemological absolutism, accordingto which scientific knowledge is the true and superior knowledge, and is consequently theknowledge that the pupils have to learn exactly.

Some other studies have reported results similar to ours. In the work that we havealready referred to of Yerrick et al. (1997), the participants viewed pupils as the recipientsof knowledge, with little influence on decisions about what and how to teach. These viewswere changed by the teacher education process. On redesigning their science lessons, theteachers considered the pupils’ conceptions to be an important element to take into account,

758 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

but still without renouncing the idea that there exists a predetermined set of true ideaswhich are those that have to be taught, and therefore that have to be learnt.

Meyer et al. (1999) describe a case study of the conceptions and practice of threeprospective primary teachers in a science course based on conceptual change. As in ourstudy, for one of the participants, Karen, there were some changes in her conceptions of thepupils’ ideas and of their active role in the construction of knowledge, but she did notrecognize that the end result of learning can be a mix of those old ideas and the new.Instead, she expected the pupils to replace them with the appropriate scientific knowledgeby way of the proposed activities.

The study of Lemberger et al. (1999) examines the changing conceptions of threeprospective teachers of secondary education biology when they participated in a coursebased on conceptual change. Initially, their shared vision of teaching was basicallytransmissive and organized in accordance with the logic of the content. During the course,however, they progressed to more pupil-based approaches. They all accepted theimportance of identifying the pupils’ previous ideas, although later they did not take theseideas into account. This study found the role assigned to the pupils’ ideas to be one ofaffect, aimed at creating a pleasant classroom atmosphere. In the teams that we studied here,the identification of the pupils’ ideas had the function rather of detecting gaps, mistakes,and incomplete ideas.

Other studies, however, have found results that are different from ours. Some detectedhardly any change in the sequence of activities that teachers proposed after followingcertain teacher education processes (Gustafson and Rowell 1995). The study of Lauriala(1998) examined the changing conceptions of teachers in an in-service education programbased on in situ observation of the classes of colleagues with constructivist views. At theend, the participating teachers declared that what the pupils actually learn is diverse anddoes not always coincide with what was predetermined. Likewise, in the study of Crawford(1999), a prospective teacher underwent major changes designing and implementing herteaching practice activity sequences such as those that conform with our Level 3 (thetheoretical reference level).

Results for Category 3: “The Concept and Purpose of the Teaching Resources (Res.)”

Figure 3 shows the progressions detected in the category concerning teaching resources.Four of the five teams (B, C, D, and E) made no explicit reference to resources in theirteaching plans at the initial moment, thus being at a simpler level (N01) than we expected.

At the intermediate moment, the proposals of two teams (B and C) reflected a significantdiversity of resources, assigning them an important role as support for teaching (N1). At thefinal moment, their proposals gave importance to resources not only as support forteaching, but also to facilitate the pupils’ learning, as was expected (N2):

Case B:Teaching resources are the elements, methods, or strategies that we make use of tocarry out our task of teaching.The types of teaching resources are: practicalactivities; the help of professionals in other subjects or areas; extracurricular visits/outings. (ItM; D11)

We must resort to various kinds of resources to make the child learn. (FM; D12)

The other two teams (D and E) regarded teaching resources as facilitators of the pupils’learning at the intermediate moment, and maintained this belief at the final moment:

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 759

Case E:Teaching resources are materials used by the teacher to achieve the pupils’ learning.The resources used will depend on the content being taught: the board, calculator,photography, slides, games, computer, videos,… (ItM; D11)

The child must do the same thing he or she did with the squared sheet—cover theplane—with these new resources. The pupils have to cut out, paste, check, they canask their classmates, etc., while they are learning. (FM; D12).

Team A did not start out from the same level as the rest. Instead, their level at the initialmoment was what we considered as possible to achieve by the end of the course (N2). Thus, intheir initial proposal, they already allude explicitly to the teaching resources necessary for theirproposed plan and to the role of resources as facilitators of pupils’ learning. They continued toprogress, at the intermediate moment referring expressly to the role of teaching resources asfacilitators of pupils’ construction of knowledge. In their final proposal, however, we observedthat really the role of resources was not what they had previously stated, but rather that ofproviding support for the learning of predetermined content.

Levels identified Initial Intermed. Final N3 Teaching resources are those means which

are particularly well suited to encouraging the pupils' construction of knowledge.

A

N2 Teaching resources are all those means that facilitate the pupils' learning.

A D

E

A

D

E

B

C

N1 Teaching resources are all those means that facilitate the teaching process. B

C

N01 No teaching resources are formulated.

D

E

B

C

Fig. 3 Teaching resources

760 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

Case A:The use of suitable resources is a prerequisite for good learning. (IM; D10)

Teaching resources are all kinds of explanation, activities, materials, etc., whichserve the child to construct his or her own knowledge. (ItM; D11)

The material has (mostly) to be manipulatable, so that the child can learn what it isthe intention to teach. (FM; D12)

In this category also, therefore, we detected significant progression between the initialand the final moments, although not the progression expected. Most of the teams went fromnot considering teaching resources in their initial programs to explicitly acknowledgingtheir diversity and purpose as facilitators of pupils’ learning.

Concluding Remarks

Figure 4 shows the progressions identified for the five teams (A, B, C, D, E), in the threecategories (Act—concept and purpose of the activities; Org—criterion for the organizationof activities; Res—concept and purpose of the teaching resources).

The black dots indicate the level that we allocated to the Propositions of Synthesis foreach case, category, and moment of data collection. Considering, for example, the firstcolumn of the initial moment, one observes that Case A was at Level N1 or N12 for thecategories “Concept and purpose of the activities” and “Criterion for the organization ofactivities”, and Level N2 for the category “Concept and purpose of the teaching resources”.

LEVEL CAT. INITIAL MOMENT INTERMEDIATE MOMENT FINAL MOMENT

Act

Org N3

Res

Act

Org N2

Res

Act

Org N1/ N12

Res

Act

Org N01

Res

CASOS A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E

Fig. 4 Progression in the different methodological categories

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 761

We have shaded the levels for which there was the greater concentration of PS’s at each ofthe three moments.

One observes in the figure that the expected overall progression between the initial andfinal moments (N1 to N2) was not totally fulfilled, since Level N01 had a significantpresence at the initial moment. The final level reached (N2) was as expected, however, andwith a striking uniformity. One also observes that some teams (A and E) were at thetheoretical referent level (N3) at the intermediate moment, although they did not maintain ituntil the final moment.

By integrating the levels of the same degree of complexity corresponding to the differentcategories, one can conclude by distinguishing four General Levels with respect tomethodology, and which together constitute a General Itinerary of Progression that couldguide the study of prospective teachers’ conceptions. These levels are:

& A General Level of Intuition (N01). Methodology at this level does not correspond toany articulate model. Neither activities nor teaching resources are expressly formulated,and the proposed teaching situations are not in any logical order. The underlyingobstacle is that no particular method seems to be needed to teach.

& A General Level of Transmission (N1 and N12). At this level, the logic of methodologyis subsidiary to the logic of the content that the prospective teachers want to transmit.Activities are situations that are proposed to reinforce what the teacher is trying totransmit, and the teaching resources serve to support the activities. The underlyingobstacle is the belief that the pupils and their ideas have no effect on methodology.

& A General Level of Substitution (N2). This model is more learner-centred than teacher-centred, although without renouncing the belief than there is predetermined knowledgethat has to be learnt. The teaching methodology is based on identifying the pupils’ideas, and then expanding and/or replacing them with the true knowledge. The activitiesand teaching resources serve to facilitate the pupils’ learning what it is desired that theylearn. The underlying obstacle is the belief that teaching is the direct cause of learning.In a deeper sense, a further obstacle is the influence of epistemological absolutism.

& A General Level of Inquiry (N3). This is our theoretical referent level. In it, themethodology of teaching corresponds to a logic based on inquiry into problems that arerelevant to the evolution of the pupils’ ideas. Indeed, the pupils’ ideas form the axis ofthe entire teaching-learning process. The activities, which are understood as the units ofprogramming, and the teaching resources are elements with which to facilitate theconstruction of knowledge. Two of the five teams of the study approached this model insome categories at the intermediate moment, but they did not consolidate theirattainment of this level.

Figure 5 represents this General Itinerary of Progression in the form of a staircase. Itshows the above four General Levels, and the General Obstacles that hamper progressionfrom one level to another.

Implications for Teacher Education

The data obtained in the present study confirm that change in teachers’ ideas and practicesare a slow and arduous process. Teacher education cannot ignore its own teachings andexpect to simply replace its students’ initial ideas with others that education researchconsiders more appropriate. Instead it must adopt approaches that are progressive and

762 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

constructivist, just as is proposed for the teaching of pupils in school (Duit and Treagust2003).

In this sense, we concur with Flores et al. (2000) that one has to temper one’sexpectations of change in teacher education programs. Rather than making leaps in the darkwith little chance of such unsubstantiated progress being maintained over time, the aimshould be smooth, progressive transitions, involving well consolidated advances in theteachers’ conceptions and practice—advances which the teachers themselves haveconstructed.

Organizing the teacher education curriculum around practical professional problemsendows the courses with meaning. The fact of working on situations that are related to theirfuture practice, and reflecting on how to approach them, allows prospective teachers to putthemselves in a teacher’s shoes, making decisions and reflecting on which of thosedecisions were appropriate and why. When these situations are put to them in the form ofpractical professional problems, they advance from their initial views towards morecomplex conceptions.

It is imperative that prospective teachers contrast their own visions of teaching withalternative practices, not just with theoretical information (Duit and Treagust 2003). It mustnot be forgotten that the only direct practical referents our students have are those that theythemselves experienced as pupils at school. This is the only teaching in practice that theyknow, and it therefore is their basis, even without their being aware of it, when they designand implement their teaching plans. They cannot be expected to contrast this referentagainst general theoretical ideas. Instead they will need to experience other similar ideas ofan alternative character.

Prospective teachers need to try out their new ideas, and reflect on the experience, inorder for the changes to be gradually consolidated (Watts and Jofili 1998). Reflection on the

INTUITIONThe teaching methodology isnot based on any model. Anintuitive and unintegrated setof teaching-learningsituations is proposed.

TRANSMISSION.The teaching methodology isbased on the direct transmissionof the content to the pupils. Theactivities and resources serve assupport for what is being taught.

SUBSTITUTION.The teaching methodology is basedon identifying the pupils ideas, andthen expanding them and/or replacingthem by the true knowledge. Theactivities and teaching resourcesserve as support for what is being taught

RESEARCH.The teaching methodology isbased on inquiry intosignificant problems to favourthe evolution of the pupilsideas.

Educationalactivities(A.10)

Educationalactivities

(A.11 & 12)

Educationalactivities(others)

OBSTACLE: Nomethodological model isneeded in order to teach.

OBSTACLE: The pupils do notinfluence the teachingmethodology.

OBSTACLES: Teaching isthe direct cause of learning;epistemological absolutism.

Fig. 5 Itinerary of Progression with respect to methodology

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 763

design of practice is a key strategy in teacher education programs, and indeed, as was seenin the present study, does influence prospective teachers’ ideas. But we believe that themost promising way of bringing about genuine professional development is to link thisreflection to immersion in the practice of teaching, allowing there to be direct interchangebetween the two (Tillema 2000; Zembal-Saul et al. 2000; Russell and Martin 2007;Crawford 2007). It is crucial to bridge the gap between theory and practice in order toprovoke change in prospective teachers’ beliefs and actions. Thus, Tillema (2000) notesthat the processes of reflection on practice teaching and on the beliefs that prospectiveteachers activate during this practice constitute one of the fundamental instruments forstable change or evolution in their ideas. These processes allow them to question the ideasthey internalized during their own experience as pupils at school, and to construct newreferents for their practice as teachers.

Lastly, we believe it is necessary for teachers to develop professionalized knowledgeabout the methodology of teaching. This will enable them to create contexts of authenticlearning and not just situations simulating that the teacher is teaching and the pupils arelearning. According to Abell (2007:1130), “although we emphasize inquiry-based teachingin science teacher education programs, we have little empirical knowledge of what teacherslearn. Research on teacher knowledge of inquiry-based instructional strategies has notbeen sufficiently developed. More science education research should be devoted toexamining what teachers understand about classroom inquiry strategies and scienceteaching models, and how they translate their knowledge into instruction”.

Appendix A. Sequence of Activities of the CAIC Course

PPP-I: What ideas do the pupils have about some of the school-level science content?

Activity 1. Draft the first version of the questionnaire.• After individual reflection, the teams draft a questionnaire to determine the pupils’

ideas on the content selected, indicating their reasons.• Common session, pooling ideas and information based on the presentations of two

teams. The teams start to improve their questionnaire.Activity 2. Read and discuss the contributions of educational research.• Analysis of their proposals. Presentation of examples of questionnaires and of pupils’

ideas on a variety of content (changes of state, human reproduction,…). Analysis incommon sessions. The teams continue to improve their questionnaires.

• Individual reading of texts on pupils’ ideas and learning. Team discussion about thisreading and what changes it suggests ought to be introduced into the questionnaire.General debate on the literature read.

• Team response to the script: How to construct a questionnaire to determine the pupils’ ideas?Activity 3. Prepare and administer the definitive questionnaire.• Team development of the definitive version, indicating the reasoning used and

explaining the changes.• Common session based on the presentations of two teams. Conclusions on the

instruments to use to identify the pupils’ ideas.• Administer the questionnaire to the group of Primary pupils.Activity 4. Carry out a pilot study.• The teams decide on a preliminary version of the method of analysis, and apply it to 10

questionnaires.

764 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

• Common session based on the presentations of two teams. The teams start to revisetheir methods of analysis.

Activity 5. Read and discuss the contributions of educational research.• Individual response to a questionnaire on a specific item of content (e.g., digestion).• The teams categorize by level of complexity examples of primary education pupils’

ideas on that content. They describe the obstacles between levels.• They do the same with the responses they gave to the questionnaire. Compare the

pupils’ responses with theirs. Debate on: school-level and spontaneous ideas, level offormulation, and obstacles.

• Presentation of examples of analysis of pupils’ ideas. Debate in a common session. Theteams continue to improve their method.

• Team response to the script: How to analyze the pupils’ ideas?Activity 6. Carry out the complete study.• The teams decide on the definitive version of the method, and apply it to the entire sample.• Common session based on the presentations of two teams, dealing with the analysis

and the results they were getting. The method of analysis is revised.• Conclusions on the method of analysis. Results and educational consequences.

PPP-II: What specific content should be programmed with the pupils’ ideas takeninto account?

Activity 7. Draft the first content proposal.• After individual reflection, and taking the previous results into account, the teams draft

a content proposal for the chosen topic of the content.• Common session based on the presentations of two teams. The teams begin to improve

their content proposals.Activity 8. Read and discuss the contributions of educational research.• Analysis of their proposals. Presentation of examples of content with a diversity of

types, sources, organization, levels, and presentation to the pupils. Debate. The teamscontinue to improve their content proposals.

• Individual reading of texts on school-level content. Team discussion about this readingand what changes it suggests ought to be introduced into the content. General debateon the literature read.

• Team response to the script: Which content to teach? (Appendix B)Activity 9. Prepare the definitive content proposal.• Team development of the definitive content proposal.• Conclusions about the content (sources, types, organization, formulation, and

presentation to the pupils).

PPP-III: What sequence of activities might be conducive to the evolution of thepupils’ ideas?

Activity 10. Draft the first version of the plan of activities.• After individual reflection, and taking the previous results into account, the teams draft

the first version of the plan of activities.• Common session based on two cases, and analysis of the underlying methodological

model. The teams start to modify their plans of activities.Activity 11. Read and discuss the contributions of educational research.• Analysis of their proposals. Presentation of examples of activities, sequences,

methodological models, etc. The teams continue to improve their plans of activities.

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 765

• Individual reading of texts on methods. Team discussion about this reading and whatchanges it suggests ought to be introduced into the plan of activities. General debate onthe literature read.

• Team response to the script: What plan of activities to prepare?Activity 12. Prepare the definitive plan of activities.• Prepare the definitive version.• Common session based on two cases. General conclusions on teaching methods

(activities, activity sequence, methodological models,…).

Appendix B. Educational Activity Documents

Document 10. Prepare a first draft of the content.

a) Taking into account the results of the study on the ideas of your pupils and theprogrammed content, draft, first individually and then as a team, an initialorganized teaching plan to improve the pupils’ ideas.

b) Justify the proposal and the order in which its different parts are presented.Document 11. Reflection Script IV: What teaching plan to prepare?1. As has been noted, some authors define activities as the programming units of the

teaching-learning process. Accordingly, a teaching plan would consist of a sequencedseries of activities regardless of whether in each activity the prominent part is playedby the pupil, the teacher, or both. In other words, an activity can refer to one of theteacher’s explanations, a small-group working session, a debate with the teacher, anexperiment, a field trip, etc., or to two or more of these combined. What is youropinion about this? Reason your answer in detail.

2. Now look carefully at your initial version of the teaching plan. What determines theorder in which you intend to sequence things in the classroom? Explain and justifyyour answer in detail:

a) The conceptual content, in the sense that the first thing that is done is related to thefirst concept, the following with the second, etc.

b) There is nothing to explain the order because the sequence that emerged wasrandom, with no criterion.

c) The pupils’ previous ideas, in the sense that we roughly follow a sequence of theform: determining the previous ideas, providing information to correct the errorsand gaps identified, and checking whether the ideas have changed.

d) If none of the above options satisfies you, describe your case?3. Various authors argue that behind any teaching plan there is a specific type of

“teaching methodology”. These methodological types or models are characterized byan ordered sequence of phases. For example, the following expressions reflectdifferent methodological models with changes in these phases or their order:a) “One must first explain the theory, and then do practical classes to apply it.”b) “The ideal is to start out with observation activities, then give the theory, and

finally see what they have learned by means of an examination.”c) “One must first ascertain the pupils’ ideas, then explain the errors identified, and

finally give them a follow-up test.”d) “One must start with a problem, then the pupils have to reflect on their ideas. It is

best later to include activities designed to help these ideas evolve, and finally onehas to synthesize what they have learnt.”

766 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

e) “One must begin with motivational activities, then experimental activities,followed by activities involving the teacher’s explanation, and finally activitiesto apply what has been learnt.”

As you can see, there are many possibilities. According to these same authors, a givenmethodological model reflects a certain idea about how pupils learn.

In connection with the foregoing, make a diagram outlining the methodological modelthat you would defend at the present time. Explain and justify it in writing. Is the firstversion of your teaching plan consistent with this model? Explain the differences.

4. From your point of view, what are teaching resources? List different types of teachingresources and explain the function they fulfil.

5. In light of the above, what changes do you want to make to your first version of theteaching plan? Give the reasons.

Document 12. Prepare the second version of the teaching plan.

a) Taking the conclusions of the previous activity into account, and consulting all thesources of information you deem necessary, prepare a second proposal of theteaching plan designed to improve the pupils’ ideas.

b) Draft a set of educational principles that reflect the group’s views about theprogramming and implementation of teaching-learning activities.

References

Abell, S. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on science education (pp. 1105–1149). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Aguirre, J. M., & Haggerty, S. M. (1995). Preservice teachers’ meanings of learning. International Journal ofScience Education, 17(1), 119–131.

Ambrose, R. (2004). Initiating change in prospective elementary school teachers’ orientations toMathematics teaching by building on beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 91–119.

Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: perceptions of primary school teachers. Research inScience Education, 32, 393–410.

Azcárate, P. (1999a). El conocimiento profesional: naturaleza, fuentes, organización y desarrollo. Quadrante,8, 111–138.

Azcárate, P. (1999b). Metodología de enseñanza. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 276, 72–78.Azcárate, P., & Castro, L. (2006). La evolución de las ideas profesionales y la reflexión: un binomio

necesario. Quadrante, V. XV (1 /2), 33–64.Azcárate, P., Cardeñoso, J. M., & Porlan, R. (1998). Concepciones de los futuros profesores de Primaria

sobre la noción de probabilidad. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 16(1), 85–97.Beswick, K. (2006). Changes in preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs: the net impact of two mathematics

education units and intervening experiences. School Science and Mathematics, 106(1), 36–47.Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary

science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 121–139.Cañal, P. (2000). Las actividades de enseñanza. Un esquema de clasificación. Investigación en la Escuela, 40, 5–21.Cheng, M., Chan, K.-W., Tang, S., & Cheng, A. (2009). Preservice teacher education students’ epistemological

beliefs and their conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 319–327.Contreras Palma, S. A. (2010). Las creencias y actuaciones curriculares de los profesores de ciencias de

secundaria de chile. Tesis doctoral inédita. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based clasroom?

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(3), 175–194.Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 767

Cuesta, J., & Azcárate, P. (2005). Un estudio de casos sobre las concepciones y las preocupaciones docentesdel profesorado novel de secundaria. Bordón, 57(4), 489–506.

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teachingand learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.

Flores, F., López, A., Gallegos, L., & Barojas, J. (2000). Transforming science and learning concepts ofphysics teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 197–208.

Gustafson, B. J., & Rowell, P. M. (1995). Elementary preservice teachers: constructing conceptions aboutlearning science, teaching science and the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education,17, 589–605.

Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers’ developingunderstandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 26(13), 1653–1674.

Haney, J., & Mcarthur, J. (2002). Four case studies of prospective teachers’ beliefs concerning constructivistpractice. Science & Education, 86(6), 783–802.

Harres, J. B., Pizzato, M. C., Fonseca, M. C., Henz, T., Predebon, F., & Sebastiany, A. P. (2005).Laboratórios de Ensino: Inovação curricular na formação de professores de ciências. São Paulo:ESETec Editores Associados.

Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 33(1), 47–63.

Henze, I., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2009). Experienced science teachers’ learning in the context ofeducational innovation. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 184–199. Retrieved March 20, 2009, fromhttp://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content.

Hernández, R., Fernández-Collado, C., & Baptista, P. (2008). Metodología de la investigación. México:McGraw Hill/Interamericana.

Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching: implications for teachereducation. International Journal of Science Education, 9(4), 425–440.

Jones, M., Carter, G., & Rua, M. (1999). Children’s concepts: tools for transforming science teachers’knowledge. Science & Education, 83(5), 545–557.

Joram, E., & Gabriele, A. (1988). Preservice teachers’ prior beliefs: transforming obstacles intoopportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 365–384.

Lauriala, A. (1998). Reformative in-service education for teachers (RINSET) as collaborative action andlearning enterprise: experiences from a Finnish context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 53–66.

Lemberger, J., Hewson, P., & Park, H. (1999). Relationships between prospective secondary teachers’classroom practice and their conceptions of biology and of teaching science. Science & Education, 83,347–371.

Martín del Pozo, R., & Porlán, R. (2001). Spanish prospective teachers’ initial ideas about teaching chemicalchange. Chemistry Education Research and Practice in Europe, 2, 265–283.

Mellado, V. (1996). Concepciones y prácticas de aula de profesores de ciencias, en formación inicial deprimaria y secundaria. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 14(3), 289–302.

Meyer, H., Tabachnick, R., Hewson, P., Lemberger, J., & Park, H. (1999). Relationships between prospectiveelementary teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of biology and of teaching science.Science & Education, 83, 323–346.

Monereo, C. (Coord.) (1998, 5ªed). Estrategias de enseñanza y aprendizaje: Formación del profesorado yaplicación en la escuela. Barcelona: Editorial Grao.

Morrison, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Science teachers’ diagnosis and understanding of students’preconceptions. Science Education, 87(6), 849–867.

Niedderer, H., Goldberg, F., & Duit, R. (1992). Towards learning process studies: A review of the workshopon research in physics learning. In H. Niedderer, F. Goldberg, & R. Duit (Eds.), Research in physicslearning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies. Proceedings of an international workshop. Germany:IPN, University of Kiel.

Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467.

Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): PCK asa conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38, 261–284.

Peterson, R., & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning to teach Primary Science through problem-based learning.Science Education, 82, 215–237.

Pizzato, M. C., & Harres, J. B. S. (2007). Aprendizagem significativa e transformação na convivência:aproximações e indicadores para a formação de professores de ciências. Boletín de Estudios eInvestigación Indivisa, 8, 429–439.

768 Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769

Porlán, R., & García, S. (1992). The change of teachers’ conceptions: a strategy for in-service scienceteachers’ education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(5/6), 537–548.

Porlán, R., & Martín del Pozo, R. (1996). Ciencia, profesores y enseñanza: unas relaciones complejas.Alambique, 8, 23–32.

Porlán, R., & Martín del Pozo, R. (2002). Spanish teachers’ epistemological and scientific conceptions:implications for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 25(2/3), 151–169.

Porlán, R., & Martín del Pozo, R. (2004). The conceptions of in-service and prospective primary schoolteachers about the teaching and learning of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 39–62.

Porlán, R., & Martín del Pozo, R. (2006). ¿Cómo progresa el profesorado al investigar problemas prácticosrelacionados con la enseñanza de la ciencia? Alambique, 48, 92–99.

Porlán, R., & Rivero, A. (1998). El conocimiento de los profesores. Sevilla: Díada.Porlán, R., Azcárate, P., Martín del Pozo, R., Martín Toscano, J., & Rivero, A. (1996). Conocimiento

profesional deseable y profesores innovadores: fundamentos y principios formativos. Investigación en laEscuela, 29, 23–38.

Porlán, R., Rivero, A., & Martín del Pozo, R. (1997). Conocimiento profesional y epistemología de losprofesores I: teoría, métodos e instrumentos. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 15(2), 155–171.

Porlán, R., Rivero, A., & Martín del Pozo, R. (1998a). Conocimiento profesional y epistemología de losprofesores II: estudios empíricos y conclusiones. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 16(2), 271–288.

Porlán, R., García, J. E., Rivero, A., & Martín del Pozo, R. (1998b). Les obstacles à la formationprofessionnelle des professeurs en rapport avec leurs idées sur la science, l’enseignement etl’apprentissage. Aster, 26, 207–235.

Russell, T., & Martin, A. (2007). Learning to teach science. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on science education (pp. 1151–1178). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Skamp, K., & Mueller, A. (2001a). Student teachers’ conceptions about effective primary science teaching: alongitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 331–351.

Skamp, K., & Mueller, A. (2001b). A longitudinal study of the influences of primary and secondary school,university and practicum on student teachers’ images of effective primary science practice. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 23(3), 227–245.

So, W., & Watkins, D. A. (2005). From beginning teacher education to professional teaching: a study of thethinking of Hong Kong primary science Teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 525–541.

Szydlik, J. E., Szydlik, S. D., & Benson, S. R. (2003). Exploring changes in pre-service elementary teachers’mathematical beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 253–279.

Tillema, H. H. (2000). Belief change towards self-directed learning in student teachers: immersion in practiceor reflection on action. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 575–591.

Tillema, H., & Van der Westhuizen, G. J. (2006). Knowledge construction in collaborative enquiry amongteachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 51–67.

Uwe, F. (2004). Introducción a la investigación cualitativa. Madrid: Editorial Morata.Watters, J., & Ginns, I. (2000). Developing motivation to teach elementary science: effect of collaborative

and authentic learning practices in preservice education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4),301–321.

Watts, M., & Jofili, Z. (1998). Towards critical constructivist teaching. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 20(2), 173–185.

Yerrick, R., Parker, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: the “filteringeffect” of teachers’ beliefs on understanding transformational views of teaching science. Science &Education, 81(2), 137–159.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Zellermayer, M., & Tabak, E. (2006). Knowledge construction in a teachers’ community of enquiry: a

possible road map. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 33–49.Zembal-Saul, C., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Influence of guided cycles of planning, teaching, and

reflection on prospective elementary teachers’ science content representations. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 37(4), 318–339.

Res Sci Educ (2011) 41:739–769 769