J Sci Teacher Educ (2011) 22:291–312

DOI 10.1007/s10972-011-9233-4

The Progression of Prospective Teachers’ Conceptions

of School Science Content

Rosa Martı́n del Pozo • Rafael Porlán • Ana Rivero

Published online: 27 April 2011

 The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2011

Abstract The purpose of the present work is to describe the progression in the
conceptions of prospective primary teachers about school science content while they
were participating in three teacher education courses following the same con-
structivist oriented strategy. The participants’ written output was analyzed in var-
ious categories—selection of content, types of content and their relationships, levels
of complexity, and presentation of content to pupils. There was evidence for some
progress in their conceptions of the content from a traditional view to another that
we termed intermediate since it did not reach the vision that we consider to be the
most complex. Finally, we present a General Itinerary of Progression on school
content that could serve as a referent for initial teacher education.

Keywords Teachers’ conceptions
Professional knowledge

School science content

As a research group in science teacher education, our focus has been on the study of
teachers’ educational and epistemological conceptions (Porlán and Martı́n del Pozo
2002, 2004; Porlán et al. 1998), and the design and development of proposals for

R. Martı́n del Pozo (&)

Departament of Science Education, Faculty of Education, University Complutense of Madrid,
C/Rector Royo Villanova s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain
e-mail: rmartin@edu.ucm.es

R. Porlán
A. Rivero
Departament of Science and Social Sciences Education, Faculty of Education,
University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain
e-mail: rporlan@us.es
A. Rivero
e-mail: arivero@us.es

123
292 R. Martı́n del Pozo et al.

professional knowledge (Porlán et al. 1997; Rivero and Porlán 2004). Following the
lead of other workers (Gustafson and Rowell 1995; Hewson and Hewson 1987;
Watters and Ginns 2000; Zembal-Saul et al. 2000), our aim was to study the
progression of the conceptions of prospective teachers participating in teacher
education courses of a constructivist orientation. We here present the results of
different samples as they relate to school science content.
To say that the school knowledge of science and scientific knowledge itself are
different may seem a truism. Nonetheless, there is little reflection on this idea in
initial teacher education, and this apparent deficiency in their courses has a notable
influence on how prospective teachers view the content that they are going to teach.
One can cite as an example the study of Haefner and Zembal-Saul (2004) in which
more than half of their sample of prospective teachers had difficulties in
distinguishing school science from scientists’ science. Many future teachers very
simply identify school science content with scientific knowledge, and think they
should teach it directly without giving any importance whatever to their pupils’
existing knowledge. We believe therefore that it is necessary to investigate
prospective teachers’ conceptions of school science content in general, and not just
their conceptions about given parts of the content (Martı́n del Pozo 2001a) and their
specific pedagogical content knowledge (Martı́n del Pozo and Porlán 2001).
We share with Watts and Jofili (1998) the view that school knowledge is
epistemologically different from everyday and scientific knowledge, and that its
purpose is to enrich and make more complex the everyday thinking of primary
education pupils. In other words, school knowledge is not a cut-down and simplified
version of scientific knowledge, but has its own identity. Let us consider some basic
questions in this connection.
Is scientific knowledge the only referent for school knowledge? There is no
question but that it is a primary referent, not just for its conceptual dimension, but
also for its contextualized and evolving nature, and for the procedures and attitudes
which are its characteristics (Hodson 1994). But for children at the primary level, it
can not be the only referent. Everyday knowledge, which is present in their social
surroundings and in their own ideas, has also to be taken into account in formulating
school knowledge.
Does the content have just one level of complexity? If the aim is to enrich the
pupils’ conceptions, and not merely replace them by some alleged ‘‘true
knowledge,’’ then school knowledge cannot have a single formulation, but must
have various formulations of increasing degrees of complexity. We call this
hierarchy of formulations Itineraries of Progression of school content. Several
authors have discussed this idea under different names: conceptual trajectories
(Driver 1989), pathways to learning (Scott 1992), and hypotheses of progression
(Prieto et al. 2002).
Should the content be presented to pupils as a sequence of topics? In our view,
content in primary education should take the form of problems, projects, or centres
of interest that are relevant to the pupils’ present and future lives. It has to have
meaning for them beyond the list of topics or the textbook. These problems and
projects are a means to integrate and relate information from diverse epistemolog-
ical sources: the everyday, scientific, social, etc. (Watts and Jofili 1998).

123
Progression of Conceptions about School Science Content 293

Does school content have to be organized hierarchically? In our view, this is

indispensable. The teacher must organize the content to better understand the
relationships and hierarchies that exist between its elements. Moreover, we believe
that at the levels of compulsory education (6–16 years), certain elements of
metadisciplinary knowledge should be regarded as forming general organizers of
the rest of the content. Some examples in the field of conceptions would be: unity—
diversity, organization, interaction, system, change, etc. In the field of procedures,
research-type strategies allow the organization of more specific procedures, and in
the field of attitudes, the critical perspective constitutes a general frame of reference
for the development of the scientific spirit. Metadisciplinary knowledge thus
facilitates the transfer of specific content from one context to another, and is an
important tool in the selection and organization of content. For instance, consider
the case of a topic such as ‘‘food’’. A metadisciplinary approach such as that
indicated above would help recognize which elements of food are common and
which are diverse, the interactions between types of food, lifestyles and health, the
change between their grandparents’ diet and that of today, and the dramatic
differences in diet between the first and the third worlds (critical perspective). This
organizational dimension of the content needs to be made explicit by representing as
concept maps or diagrams (Novak and Gowin 1984).
In sum, for us, school knowledge is differentiated knowledge that is generated
and applied in the school context. It has its basis in other forms of knowledge, but its
purpose is to enrich what the pupils already know and to be useful for their everyday
life. This alternative vision is thus far from the traditional view of school content as
a mere simplification of scientific knowledge. Table 1 summarizes these two visions
which, as we shall see, constitute the points of departure and arrival of the Itinerary
of Progression that we present as a hypothesis for our study of prospective teachers’
conceptions about school science content.

Table 1 Characteristics of school science knowledge in the traditional and alternative views
Categories Traditional school science knowledge Alternative school science
knowledge

1. Sources for the design Scientific knowledge is the fundamental Diversity of sources (scientific,
and development of source and is selected in the textbook everyday, technological
content knowledge, etc.)
2. Types of content Of concepts Of concepts, procedures, attitudes,
and values
3. Relationships between There is hardly any interrelation of the The content items are linked as
topics of the content content, or if so it is hierarchical networks and in relation to meta-
knowledge
4. Levels of complexity The content is formulated at a single The content is formulated at
of the content level of complexity that which the aim different levels of increasing
is to teach complexity
5. Presentation of the The content is presented as a list of The content is presented as
content to the pupils topics similar to that of the textbooks problems, projects, or centres of
interest

123
294 R. Martı́n del Pozo et al.

Methods

Research Problem

This study investigated the following two questions: What conceptions do different
samples of prospective teachers have concerning school content? And how do these
conceptions progress during a given teacher education course? Specifically, our
intention was to determine:
• What sources do these prospective teachers beginning their teacher education
use for the design and development of science related content?
• What types of content do they consider?
• What relationships do they establish between the types of content?
• How many levels of complexity do they have in their design? and
• How do they think the content should be presented to primary pupils?
In turn, each school content category implicit in these five questions was
considered at three levels of increasing complexity (Table 2). The first level (N1)
reflects our expectation of the participants’ conceptions at the beginning of the
course. It was based on previous studies which showed the predominance of a
traditional view of the content (Porlán and Martı́n del Pozo 2004; Porlán et al. 1997)
(see Table 1). The second level (N2) describes the conceptions that we anticipated
at the end of the initial teacher education course. It was based on our experience as
teacher educators, in particular, our observation year after year that what is
achievable in practice does not always coincide with what is desirable. In this
respect, we agree with Flores et al. (2000) that it is necessary to moderate the
expectations of teacher education programs. The last level (N3) is that of greatest
complexity. It corresponds to the alternative vision of school science content
reflected in Table 1, and is the level we consider to be desirable, even though it
might not always be attainable. These three levels of progression (N1, N2, and N3)
constitute what Zembal-Saul et al. (2002) referred to as ‘‘levels of representation’’
of the prospective teachers’ knowledge.

Research Context

The study was conducted throughout a course based on the expression and
discussion of the participants’ ideas. We took into consideration different teacher
education proposals of a constructivist orientation, such as those of Gustafson and
Rowell (1995), Watters and Ginns (2000), and Zembal-Saul et al. (2000). These are
based on activities in which the prospective teachers express and question their
conceptions regarding the practical problems of the curriculum relevant to their
future careers: what content to teach and to what end, what tasks to set in the
classroom, and how to monitor the progress of the group and of each pupil. This
course strategy requires bringing into play reflexive processes in which social
interaction and metacognition are essential. Its aim is to foster the development of
professional knowledge (Peterson and Treagust 1998) that is far removed from the
more traditional patterns (quite common in the students’ initial conceptions) and

123
Progression of Conceptions about School Science Content 295

Table 2 Possible Itinerary of progression of conceptions about school science content

Categories Levels of complexity of the conceptions

Starting level (N1) Possible level (N2) Reference level (N3)

1. Sources for Tacit use of the disciplines Beginning to consider other The following reference
the design and as the sole source of reference sources, mainly sources are considered:
development reference, although there the pupils’ ideas and the scientific disciplines
of content may be adoption of some interests (conceptually,
principles of the type: attitudinally, and
near-far, general-specific, procedurally), popular
simple-difficult culture, social,
environmental, and
cultural issues, and the
culture of the pupils’ age
(their interests, starting
levels, usefulness for their
lives, etc.), all in relation
to meta knowledge
2. Types of Only formulation of Beginning to understand Formulates content related
content conceptual content, and consider content to concepts, procedures,
although the existence of related to procedures and and attitudes in an
other types of content attitudes integrated form and
may be acknowledged consistent with the meta
knowledge
3. Relationships The content is structured Recognition of the need to The content is organized as
between linearly and additively establish relationships a network that connects
topics of the without any relationship between the content’s concepts, procedures,
content between its topics topics. Various attitudes, problems, etc.,
hierarchical relationships and in accordance with
are established (between the meta knowledge
concepts and/or
problems, and between
these and procedures and/
or attitudes). Beginning to
recognize horizontal
interactions
4. Levels of The content is formulated Recognition of the need to School science content is
complexity of at a single level, and formulate the content at formulated at different
the content exclusively with its the level considered best levels of complexity
nominal expression suited to the pupils’ ideas depending on the
without definition obstacles the pupils face
5. Presentation The content is presented to Beginning to take into The pupils’ perspective is
of the content pupils following the same account the pupils’ taken into account and a
to the pupils logic that the teacher has perspective and the need different logic is followed
in his or her conception of for a different logic in to formulate the content
the material formulating the content for them, while
specifically for them, recognizing that there
based on open problems, must at the same time be
projects, centres of a connection with the
interest, etc logic of the teacher and of
the meta knowledge

123
296 R. Martı́n del Pozo et al.

closer to the alternative and complex approaches of Level N3 in Table 2. In sum, as

Hewson and Hewson (1987) and, more recently, Duit and Treagust (2003) pointed
out, initial teacher education has to have a constructivist orientation, giving the
future teachers an active role in their professional learning, helping them to compare
their ideas, experiences, and interests with other gradually more complex proposals,
working in teams with their colleagues and with the teacher educator (Liang and
Gabel 2005).
The teacher education context in which the research was conducted thus follows
a practical problem solving strategy that is similar to the teacher education cycle
proposed by Zembal-Saul et al. (2000). That cycle had three phases: planning
curricular proposals, applying them in real situations, and reflection on what
actually happened. In our case, we designed a sequence of educational activities
with three stages or moments. An Initial Moment, for the participants to activate,
gain awareness of, and further elaborate their views on the problem. An
Intermediate Moment, to stimulate reasoned reflection about their different views
and contrast them with other selected information. And a Final Moment, for the
participants to rework their initial views and explain the reasons for the changes
they introduce. Three practical problems were worked on in the course:
(1). What ideas do primary pupils (6–12 years) have about some of the school
science content?
(2). What specific content should be programmed with the pupils’ ideas taken into
account?
(3). What sequence of activities might be conducive to the evolution of the pupils’
ideas?
The results presented in this article correspond to Problem 2. However,
‘‘Appendix 1’’ describes all the activities of the course in order to facilitate
understanding.
We started the course with an analysis of primary pupils’ ideas about science-
related school content. As several authors noted (Jones et al. 1999; Meyer et al.
1999; Morrison and Lederman 2003), this is one of the principal tools for the
transformation of the prospective teachers’ knowledge. This first problem was
addressed in Activities 1–6. The prospective teachers were organized into teams,
and prepared a questionnaire to explore the ideas of 50 primary pupils (6–12 years
old) on a specific topic of the science curriculum selected freely by the teams. The
teacher educator only ensured that the subjects were really of interest, that they were
not repeated, and that they were indeed dealt with in primary education. Each
questionnaire was revised by contrasting it with other questionnaires and with a
reflection script. The ‘‘improved’’ questionnaire was then administered to the group
of primary pupils. Next, the teams prepared a first method of analysis of the
responses to the questionnaire. This was subjected to a critical review and compared
with other methods of analysis, following a second reflection script. After this
second improvement, each team applied the method to their 50 questionnaires and
drew their conclusions about the primary pupils’ ideas about the selected content.
Having detected these ideas, the teams addressed the second problem: what
content should be taught to the 50 pupils in their sample (Activities 7–9, ‘‘Appendix

123
Progression of Conceptions about School Science Content 297

1’’). They prepared a first draft (Document 7, ‘‘Appendix 2’’). Again this was
analyzed and questioned on the basis of examples from studies on innovation and
research in the teaching and learning of science. The content of some of these
examples was not only conceptual, but also included procedures and attitudes. In
others, the content was formulated at various levels of complexity, or organized in
the form of maps or networks. Finally, some examples proposed different ways of
presenting content to pupils (project work, open problems, questions, centres of
interest, etc.). In addition, each participant analyzed texts with more general
reflections on school content. As an aid to reflection, each team completed a script
(Document 8, ‘‘Appendix 1’’) which helped them relate their first content proposal
with the examples they had been given. This allowed each team to produce a second
draft of the proposal (Document 9, ‘‘Appendix 1’’). In sum, therefore, Documents 7
and 9 contain the first and second proposals on what content to teach, while the
information in Document 8 is of a declarative type concerning school content.
Finally, they tackled Problem 3 about which classroom activities could foster the
evolution of primary pupils’ ideas (Activities 10–12, ‘‘Appendix 1’’). The procedure
followed is a cycle similar to those before: drafting a first proposal; analysis,
contrast, and reflection; and improvement of the initial proposal.

Participants

The course described was developed by three educators of primary science teachers
in the Education Faculties of two Spanish state universities, which have similar
plans of study. The three courses dealt with aspects of science teaching and learning
in primary education. The courses covered one academic year (2005–2006). There
were 147 participating prospective teachers in total, between 18 and 25 years old,
mostly women (90%). These students had completed secondary education in
different fields: science, humanities, technology, or art. The previous courses they
had taken in the Education Faculties were on general aspects of psychology,
pedagogy, and the sociology of education. In no case had they yet done teaching
practices.
In each course, there were between 37 and 57 students, organized into 28 teams
(9 or 10 per course) of from 4 to 6 components. The results presented here refer to
three of these teams (A, B, and C) selected at random, one per course.
It should be recalled that in the course each team made a free selection of a topic
of the science curriculum. For the teams studied, these were: human reproduction
(A), animals (B), and the Universe (C). Table 3 summarizes the characteristics of
the participants and educational context.

Instruments and Techniques of Analysis

In this type of study, various instruments may be used for data collection:
questionnaires, the participants’ written production, classroom observations,
interviews, and so on (Bryan and Abell 1999; Gustafson and Rowell 1995; Haefner
and Zembal-Saul 2004; Weld and Funk 2005). In this study, data consisted of two
types of documents. One was free format, completely open, with no constraints of

123
298 R. Martı́n del Pozo et al.

Table 3 Participants and educational context

Case Topic selected University Program Course Complete
(duration) group

A Human Universidad Diplomature in Pupils’ vision of science 37 students

reproduction Complutense primary (Optional Subject; 4 credits; 18–22 years
de Madrid education (6 2nd semester)
(Spain) semesters) 84% $ 16%
#
(9 teams)
B Animals Universidad de Diplomature in Didactics and Curricular 57 students
Sevilla special Adaptations in the Area of 18–25 years
(Spain) education (6 Environmental Knowledge
semesters) (Compulsory Subject; 5 94% $ 6%
credits; 2nd semester) #
(10 teams)
C The Universe Universidad de Diplomature in Nature Sciences and their 53 students
Sevilla primary Didactics (Compulsory 19–23 years
(Spain) education (6 Subject; 8 credits; 3rd
semesters) semester) 92% $ 8%
#
(9 teams)

any kind (Documents 7 and 9, ‘‘Appendix 1’’). The other corresponded to the
reflection scripts, which function as open-item questionnaires to channel the teams’
discussions and decision-making (Document 8, ‘‘Appendix 1’’). Data were collected
at the three aforementioned moments: initial (at the time of setting out their first
conceptions about the problem), intermediate (at the time of comparing and
contrasting those conceptions), and final (at the time of the reasoned revision of the
conceptions). In our study, as in others (Osborne and Collins 2001; Peterson and
Treagust 1998; Tillema 2000; Tillema and Van der Westhuizen 2006; Watters and
Ginns 2000; Zellermayer and Tabak 2006), the team was the unit of analysis.
For the analysis of these documents, the procedure we followed consisted of the
following steps:
(1). Identification of the significant units of information in the three written
documents for each team.
(2). Classification of these units into the five categories of analysis. A total of 226
units of information on school science content were identified.
(3). For each team, drafting a proposition of synthesis of the units for each
category and moment (initial, intermediate, and final). The combination of
three teams, three moments, and five categories gave a total of 45 propositions
of synthesis.
(4). Assigning a level of progression (N1, N2, or N3) to each proposition. When
the propositions did not fit one of the expected levels, intermediate levels were
defined (N23 for example).
(5). Validation of the entire process by a system of triangulation in which each
team was analyzed independently by at least two researchers. There was a
greater than 90% index of agreement in all cases. The disagreements were

123
Progression of Conceptions about School Science Content 299

analyzed separately seeking consensus. When this was not possible, the
majority position was taken.
Finally, an English teacher collaborator translated the units of information, the
propositions of synthesis and the levels of progression from Spanish to English. The
three researchers confirmed and agreed with the translation of all text.

Results and Discussion

Below, we present the progression of the conceptions of each team of prospective

teachers during Problem II of the course. The presentation will be made separately
for the five categories of analysis. We will also discuss the conceptions that seem to
hinder the teams’ progress. We would recall that Documents 7, 8, and 9 from which
the data were taken are given in ‘‘Appendix 2’’, and that they were prepared during
Activities 7, 8, and 9 (‘‘Appendix 1’’).

Category 1: Sources for the Design and Development of the Content

Initially we expected the teams to use the knowledge of the discipline provided in
the textbooks as the primary source of information for their selection of content
(Level N1). The expected progression included the fact that they had begun to take
the pupils’ conceptions and interests into account in preparing their content
proposals (Level N2). As can be seen in Table 4, Teams A and B followed the
anticipated progression (N1 to N2). Team C started already from Level N2, and
reached an unforeseen intermediate level (N23) in which they took into account, in
addition to their respective discipline and the pupils, other information to prepare
the content (socio-environmental issues, elements of popular culture, etc.).
In Team A, the content initially proposed referred only to the discipline
(reproduction, reproductive tract, testicle, sperm, etc.) which is characteristic of
Level N1. Nonetheless, in their reflection script (Document 8) at the intermediate
moment they stated that: ‘‘It is necessary to take into account the children as
individuals, their needs, their contributions and previous knowledge, on which we

Table 4 Overall results

Categories Initial Intermediate Final moment
moment moment

1. Sources for the design and development of content N1 N1 N2 N2 N2 N23 N2 N2 N23

2. Types of content N1 N1 N1 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2
3. Relationships between topics of the content N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2
4. Levels of complexity of the content N1 N1 N1 N2 N2 N3 N2 N1 N2
5. Presentation of the content to the pupils N1 N1 N1 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N23
Case A B C A B C A B C

Shaded are the levels, which were in the majority the initial, intermediate, and final moments (levels N1,
N2, and also N2, respectively)

123
300 R. Martı́n del Pozo et al.

will base the content’’. And at the final moment, in the justification of their second
content proposal (Document 9), they stated that: ‘‘We do not focus on secondary
sexual characteristics because the children have already assimilated that.’’ In the
same line they indicated that: ‘‘The content (of the second proposal) corresponds to
the conclusions that we drew after analyzing questionnaires (to detect the pupils’
ideas)’’. At both moments, they were close to the level that we considered possible
(N2).
The progression in Team B was similar. The initial content proposal referred to
the differences between the living and the inert, and to different criteria for
classifying animals, without considering other sources (Level N1). At the
intermediate moment, in their reflection script they recognized the need to take
the pupils into account (Level N2): ‘‘When designing the content, you must take
into account the capabilities of the pupils, attend to and respect their maturity,
personality, and psychological characteristics’’. And in the final content proposal
there appeared the interests of the pupils, characteristic of Level N2: ‘‘The content
should be related to things the children like and that motivate them.’’
Team C as well initially proposed content that takes the pupils’ ideas into account
(Level N2). This was seen in their Document 7:
To prepare the first content proposal, we decided to remove or give less
importance to what we have seen (in analyzing the questionnaires) that the
children master better, and instead emphasize especially the topics about
which they show most lack of awareness or most misconceptions.
At the end, in their Document 9, they incorporate new sources of information
relevant to that topic, putting them at a level intermediate between 2 and 3 (N23):
The content selected with respect to popular culture, apart from the scientific
disciplines, is: (a) God and the origin of the Universe (b) different
mythological hypotheses of the origin of the Universe, and (c) popular beliefs
about the influence of the Moon on human behaviour.
Teachers in Teams A and B initially made content choices similar to teachers in
several other studies that found that many teachers used the textbook version of the
knowledge of the discipline as their basic source for the selection of content, and
only a minority incorporated content that was not strictly of the discipline (Martı́nez
et al. 2004; Pomeroy 1993; Sánchez and Valcárcel 1999; Skamp and Mueller 2001).

Category 2: Types of Content

In this category, we anticipated that the teams would only propose conceptual
content (Level N1), and that they would progress by taking content of procedures,
attitudes, and values into account (Level N2). This is the only category in which all
three teams progressed equally and according to the initial expectation (N1 ? N2)
(Table 4). In particular, the content of the first proposal is conceptual (Level N1):
Team A (reproduction, reproductive tract, testicle, sperm, etc.); Team B (living
being, vertebrate, classification of animals, etc.); and Team C (Sun, galaxies,
satellite, origin of the Universe, Moon, planets, etc.). The literature studies that were

123
Progression of Conceptions about School Science Content 301

reviewed above also found that teachers give greater emphasis to scientific concepts
than to procedures and attitudes (Manassero and Vazquez 2001; Sánchez and
Valcárcel 1999; Van Driel et al. 2005).
At the intermediate moment of the course, participants began to include
observations that showed they realized there is content related to procedures,
attitudes, and values (Level N2). In their final proposals, all the teams took this other
type of content into account (Level N2). For example: ‘‘accepting one’s own body
and respecting the opposite sex’’ (Team A), or ‘‘valuing and respecting the animal
world’’ (Team B). The proposal most fully described was that of Team C:
The chosen conceptual content is basic (the Sun as a star, galaxies, satellites,
and the Solar System), the origin of the Universe, the Solar System, Earth and
the Moon. The attitudinal content to be dealt with: A1 Value the experience of
group work. A2 Critical attitude to what is taught. A3 Active and inquiring
attitude. A4 Value the importance of cooperation and respect among
colleagues. A5 Participation. A6 Creativity. A7 Curiosity to observe and
learn about the Universe. A8 Value the need to preserve the environment. A9
Consequence and individual responsibility with respect to their actions. The
procedural content that we selected is: PR1 Knowing how to work as a team.
PR2 Handle the instruments necessary to facilitate the study and observation
of the Universe. PR3 Read critically and logically. PR4 Understand the
various motions of celestial bodies. PR5 Actively participate in the
educational process. PR6 Demonstrate creativity in the proposed tasks. PR7
Know how to draw. PR8 Know how to comment on texts about the Universe.
PR9 Intervene, comment, and ask questions.
However, despite the obvious progress, no integrated formulation of the different
types of content was arrived at, and neither was there any suggestion of the
existence of more general organizing content of a metadisciplinary nature (Level
N3).
Overall, the three teams seemed to have abandoned a hierarchical view of the
content in which the conceptual is more important, and have developed a certain
capacity to recognize and formulate procedural and attitudinal content.

Category 3: Relationships Between Topics of the Content

For this category, we expected the teams’ initial content proposals to be organized
as a list of unrelated topics (Level N1), and that they would progress towards
schemes involving relationships between the elements of the content (Level N2).
However, as shown in Table 4, the three teams that started out from the level
considered as possible (Level N2) remained at that level until the end. They
proposed from the beginning a hierarchical organization in the form of a script. At
the final moment, this script took the form of a schematic map of the content. Team
C merits especial attention, since it related the concepts with certain procedures and
attitudes, and with the problems they were intending to present to the pupils. This
result is similar to that reported by Zembal-Saul et al. (2000) who found that the

123
302 R. Martı́n del Pozo et al.

prospective teachers analyzed in their study designed interrelated content in the

second teacher education cycle they participated in.
For all three teams, and consistent with the study of Azcárate and Cuesta (2005),
the hierarchical relationships that appeared tended to reproduce the logic of the
discipline typical of many textbooks. Likewise, in the study of Martı́n del Pozo et al.
(2004), most of the 103 teachers in the sample identified themselves with the
following statement: ‘‘I organize the content as a sequence that is consistent with the
logic of the discipline’’. Overall, the organization of the content was in terms of a
criterion based on the scientific discipline itself, which, as Martı́nez et al. (2004)
observed, led to sequences that were more logical than psychological. No case,
however, managed to advance to an organization in the form of genuine networks of
content (Level N3). Linking the topics in the form of a network requires a
‘‘professionalized’’ mastery of the content, which most of the prospective teachers
acknowledged they do not have. In sum, their linear and discipline-based vision of
the content appeared to be the obstacle to further progress here.

Category 4: Levels of Complexity of the Content

In this category, we had anticipated that the teams would evolve from a content
proposal that simply gave the names of the topics, but not their significance or how
deeply they would be worked on (Level N1) to a proposal in which they would
express the significance, level, and depth they considered appropriate for primary
pupils (Level N2). As shown in Table 4, all the teams started from the expected
initial level (N1). At the final moment, however, only two teams (A and C) had
progressed towards the expected possible level (N2).
At the initial moment, none of the proposals defined the topics of the content—
they only named them. Nonetheless, at the intermediate moment there is evolution
towards Level N2 in that they state that the content should be formulated taking the
pupils’ ideas into account. For example, Case A’s reflection script observes that:
‘‘When the teacher does not try to discover what the previous knowledge is, nor fits
the explanations to the children’s previous knowledge or ideas, no meaningful
learning takes place’’. In Case C, there is even considered to be a need to formulate
the content at different levels of complexity in order to adapt it to the pupils’ level
(Level N3): ‘‘The content must be presented by means of intermediate formulations.
For the children it is better if what they work on is at a level of complexity that is
appropriate for their age and abilities’’.
At the final moment, the statements of Teams A and C corresponded to Level N2,
and those of Team B had regressed to Level N1. Case A for example stated that:
‘‘The final content proposal corresponds to the conclusions we reached after
analyzing the questionnaires and the level of the pupils’’. However, Team B again
expressed only the name of each content topic without defining them, thus
regressing to the initial level (N1).
Hence, little progress was made in this category. This may reflect the difficulty
prospective teachers have in attempting to take the pupils’ ideas into account when
formulating school science content, and even more so in considering different levels
of complexity. This vision of the content based only on names of topics (nominalist)

123
Progression of Conceptions about School Science Content 303

and which takes it for granted that there is only one level of formulation—the one
regarded as ‘‘true’’—seems difficult to change. Similar results have been reported in
other studies (Martı́n del Pozo 2001b; Martı́n del Pozo and Porlán 2001).

Category 5: Presentation of the Content to the Pupils

In this category, we had anticipated that the teams would initially follow a logic of
the discipline with a list of concepts (Level N1), and that they would progress
towards a logic that made sense for the pupils (Level N2). One observes in Table 4
that the three teams indeed started at the expected level (N1), and that, at the end,
Teams A and B were at the expected level (N2) while Team C had surpassed the
level expected as possible.
At the initial moment, we found that no initial content proposal referred to any
specific design for the pupils. Instead they were limited to setting out a series of
concepts. At the intermediate moment, however, all the teams’ reflection scripts
(Document 8, ‘‘Appendix 1’’) began to consider the need for a logic closer to the
pupils. For example, Team B stated:
It is necessary to present the content as problems to solve, because in this way
the pupils are interested in the topic, giving meaning to both the theoretical
content and the subsequent practice; because it makes it possible to explain
and question the pupils’ conceptions about the topic, giving rise to
restructuring if it is necessary; because it avoids starting from a base that is
too academic, too abstract; because it allows the content to be fitted to their
intellectual level and to the pupils’ characteristics. (Team B)
At the final moment, two teams (A and B) had progressed to the level considered as
possible (N2), since they include the pupil’s perspective. For example, Team A
indicated:
To present the content to the pupils, we start from a preliminary question even
though at this age the topic itself is sufficient motivation: Do you know what
happens between two adults when they want to have children? Each group is
then asked to reach a conclusion, taking into account what they know or have
heard outside of class, because afterwards there will be a debate to share what
they know. The teacher’s role is to observe and moderate the debate,
indicating on the blackboard the possible responses. (Team A)
Team C was again the one that made the most progress (N1 ? N23) in considering
that a link has to be made between the two types of logic (the pupils’ logic and the
discipline’s logic):
With respect to how the content is to be presented, we chose the following
problems or projects, indicating for each one which concepts we must work on
to solve those problems. P1: Has the Universe always been like it is now? P2:
What is there in the Universe? P3: How are things organized in the Universe?
P4: Make a model of the solar system. P5: What is the Earth like? P6: Make a
wall-poster on why there are seasons. P7: Why is it sometimes day and

123
304 R. Martı́n del Pozo et al.

sometimes night? P8: Imagine that you went to the Moon. What would you
find? P9: Do we always see the moon as round? P10: Does the Moon affect
our lives? (Team C)
What we might call a teacher- and academic discipline-centered perspective seems
to be the obstacle underlying the difficulty in progressing from Level N1. As many
studies of expert and novice teachers have suggested, the concern of novice and
prospective teachers tends to be more about themselves than about the pupils, while
the more experienced teachers (at least, the good experienced teachers) are
principally concerned about helping their pupils to learn (Zembal-Saul et al. 2000).
Indeed, according to those authors, the most interesting changes have to do with the
incorporation of the pupil perspective.
In overall terms, the majority trend of the progression of the conceptions about
school science content basically corresponded to that anticipated for each category
(N1 ? N2). Teams A and B matched this progression closely, whereas Team C had
a somewhat different progression. In Categories 1 and 3 it started from a higher
level than originally anticipated, and in Categories 1 and 5 it surpassed the level
considered as possible. One reason for these differences may have been the different
secondary education backgrounds of the students in the teams, especially with
respect to mastery of the content.
The conceptions related to Categories 3 and 4 were those, which showed least
progress. The idea that the content can be formulated at different degrees of
complexity and the establishment of links between elements of the content are
conceptions that the teams we analyzed found difficult to construct. Perhaps this is
because they involve a more profound and relational mastery of the content. There
appeared to be less difficulty, however, in considering new sources of content,
especially the pupils’ ideas (Category 1), including procedures and attitudes
(Category 2), and the idea of presenting the content to the pupils with a logic that is
more psychological and less of the scientific discipline itself (Category 5).
Thus, the obstacles against these teams’ progress seem to be related to a narrow
view of how pupils learn (Zembal-Saul et al. 2000) and of the determining role
played by their ideas in their selection of what content to teach, and to an absolutist,
superficial, and still unprofessionalized view of the content (Davis and Petish 2005;
Meyer et al. 1999).

Conclusions and Implications

We conclude that the prospective teachers in the study progressed from a traditional
to an intermediate vision of school science content, far from the alternative vision
that we feel is desirable (see Table 1). The results enabled us to enrich our initial
hypothesis with the addition of unanticipated levels of progression (see Table 2).
We therefore propose a new and now more solidly based hypothesis of a General
Itinerary of Progression of the prospective teachers’ conceptions on science-related
school content (Fig. 1):

123
Progression of Conceptions about School Science Content 305

Fig. 1 General Itinerary of Progression about schools science content

The level of least complexity, which we call Simplification, considers school

science content to be a simplified version of the scientific concepts. The obstacle
impeding progress from this position is the belief that school knowledge should not
be influenced by factors (the pupils, the context, social and environmental problems,
etc.) other than the concepts of the sciences themselves. The transition to the
following level is connected with the fact of beginning to consider the pupils’ ideas
(Bryan and Abell 1999; Gustafson and Rowell 1995; Haefner and Zembal-Saul
2004; Meyer et al. 1999).
This next level is one of intermediate complexity, which we call Addition and
Adaptation. It considers the content (concepts, procedures, and attitudes) to be the
result of juxtaposing knowledge from the sciences and from other sources, and
adapting it to the pupils’ interests and abilities. The obstacle that seems to arise here
is the idea that school knowledge is not epistemologically differentiated from
everyday and scientific knowledge. The result is that, in constructing school
knowledge, no need is seen to re-design and integrate knowledge from different
sources. Instead it is considered enough to simply go appending one piece of
knowledge after another, as long as they are adapted to the pupils’ level.
At the level of greatest complexity, which we call Integration and Reformulation,
the content is indeed regarded as a genuine class of knowledge—one that is
generated and applied within the school context, that has its own ends, and that is
based on diverse sources and referents. This process of integration and reformu-
lation requires professionalized knowledge of the content at an expert level, not only
psycho-pedagogical knowledge, but also knowledge of the discipline or disciplines
of reference and their history and epistemology.
Firstly with respect to the implications of the present study for initial teacher
education, as teacher educators we must bear in mind how difficult it is to change

123
306 R. Martı́n del Pozo et al.

conceptions about school content in general. One of the reasons is, as observed by
Joram and Gabriele (1998), that the problem for prospective teachers is usually
control of the class and not the formulation of the content which is in the textbook
already. As we have seen, it is this that characterized the majority initial
conceptions in the present study as it has in others. Nonetheless, placing the
emphasis on the pupils, their ideas, experiences, and interests, enabled a certain
degree of progress of the participants’ conceptions about school science content.
Progression was also helped by having presented them with examples of content
very different from that of the traditional approach, and in a format closer to
professional practice than to academic theory. As Crawford (1999) pointed out, one
needs to foster the analysis of experiences that represent alternatives to the
traditional model of science teaching.
Secondly, one must insist on the need for prospective teachers to learn how to
transform their knowledge of the discipline into knowledge designed to be taught
and learnt (Davis and Petish 2005; Hewson et al. 1999). In this respect, initial
teacher education must enable prospective teachers to make their own educational
analyses of different sources of information (official curriculum, textbooks,
curricular materials, studies of the pupils’ conceptions, history of the concept,
etc.), and thus be ready to prepare proposals of school science content which are not
just uncritical reproductions of textbook presentations (Martı́n del Pozo 2001b).
Incorporating the pupils’ perspective will not be enough. One will also have to
address the underlying absolutist and academicist vision by proposing activities in
teacher education involving analysis of the content from the standpoint of the
requirements of teaching and learning science. The aim will be to foster the
construction of a body of professionalized knowledge about that content that, as
Shulman (1987) puts it, is characteristic of the profession of teacher, not that of
chemist or biologist.
In sum, we agree with Powell (1996) in that one has to facilitate the progression
from an epistemology that is objectivist (the content is the centre of the curriculum)
to one that is subjectivist (the pupils are the centre of the curriculum). The former
leads to the content being seen as a hierarchical, simplified, value-free structure
ready for transmission by the teacher to the pupils as receptors. The latter leads to
knowledge being constructed from interactions with the ideas, values, and
experiences of others.
Finally, we would note that it is necessary to go deeper in this study, analyzing
data from more teams of prospective teachers in order to verify the consistency of
the progression that we detected, and the usefulness of the proposed General
Itinerary of Progression.

Appendix 1 Sequence of Activities of Teacher Education Proposal

I: What Ideas do the Pupils Have about Some of the School Science Content?

Activity 1. Prepare a first draft of the questionnaire.

123
Progression of Conceptions about School Science Content 307

Following individual reflection, the teams draft a questionnaire to determine the

pupils’ ideas on the chosen content, indicating the logic used. Two teams present
their drafts for discussion in the large group. 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 diverse content (changes of state, human reproduction, etc.).
Analysis in the large group. The teams continue to improve their questionnaires.
Individual reading of texts on pupils’ ideas and learning. Debate within each team
about what changes to introduce in the questionnaire following this reading.
General discussion of the reading. Team response to the script: How to prepare a
questionnaire to determine the pupils’ ideas?

Activity 3. Prepare and administer the final questionnaire.

The team prepares the final version, indicating the logic used and justifying the
changes.
Two cases are presented for discussion in the large group. Conclusions on
instruments for the detection of the pupils’ ideas. Administer the questionnaire to
the group of Primary pupils.

Activity 4. Conduct a pilot study.

The teams decide on a first version of the method of analysis, and apply it to 10
questionnaires. Two teams present their choice for discussion in the large group.
The teams start to revise their method of analysis.

Activity 5. Read and discuss the contributions of educational research.

Individual response to a questionnaire on some specific content (e.g., digestion).
In the team, classify according to levels of complexity examples of ideas of
Primary pupils on that content. Describe the obstacles between levels. Do the
same with their responses to the above questionnaire. Compare the pupils’
responses theirs. Debate on: school and spontaneous ideas, level of formulation,
and obstacles. Presentation of examples of analysis of pupils’ ideas. Debate in the
large group. The teams continue to improve their method.
Team response to the script: How to analyze the pupils’ ideas?

Activity 6. Perform the complete study.

The teams decide on the final version of the method and apply it to the entire
sample.
Two teams present their analysis and the results they are getting for discussion in
the large group. The method of analysis is revised. Conclusions on the analytical
method. Results and educational consequences.

123
308 R. Martı́n del Pozo et al.

II: What Specific Content Should be Programmed with the Pupils’ Ideas Taken
into Account?

Activity 7. Prepare the first content proposal.

Following individual reflection and taking the above results into account, each
team drafts a content proposal for the chosen content topic. Two teams make a
presentation to the large group. The content proposal begins to improve.

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
teams continue to improve their content proposal. Individual reading of texts on
school content. Debate within each team what changes to introduce in the content
following this reading. General discussion of the reading. Team response to the
script: What content to teach? (Appendix 2)

Activity 9 Prepare the final content proposal.

The team prepares the final content proposal. Conclusions about the content
(sources, types, organization, formulation, and presentation to the pupils).

III: What Sequence of Activities Might be Conducive to the Evolution

of the Pupils’ Ideas?

Activity 10. Draft the first version of the plan of activities.

Following individual reflection and taking into account the foregoing, draft the
first version of the plan of activities. Two cases are presented to the large group,
and analysis of the underlying methodological model. The plans of activities
begin to be modified.

Activity 11. Read and discuss the contributions of educational research.

Analysis of their proposals. Presentation of examples of activities, sequences,
methodological models, etc. The plans of activities continue to improve.
Individual reading of texts on methodology. Debate within each team about
what changes to introduce in the plan of activities following the reading. General
discussion of the reading. Team response to the script: What plan of activities to
prepare?

Activity 12. Draft the final plan of activities.

Draft the final version. Two cases are presented to the large group. General
conclusions on teaching methods (activity, sequence of activities, methodological
models, etc.).

123
Progression of Conceptions about School Science Content 309

Appendix 2: Educational Activity Documents

Document 7. Prepare a first draft of the content.

(a) Taking into account the results of the study on the ideas of your pupils and
without consulting any reference material, draw up, first individually and then
as a team, an initial proposal of the content that you believe appropriate to
approach with them.
(b) Explain in detail all the steps that as a team you took in drawing up this
proposal.

Document 8. Reflection Script II: What content to teach?

Note: Each ‘‘case study’’ will use the examples that the instructor/researcher
deems appropriate.
(1). Are there different kinds of content? If so, what kinds do you know? Give two
examples of each.
(2). Imagine a primary class and another in the Biology Faculty. Both are dealing
with ‘‘respiration’’. Will there be differences in their content? If so, what kind
of differences?
(3). Imagine two pupils in the same primary class. One of them (child A)
considers that ‘‘respiration is taking in and expelling air’’, and the other (child
B) that ‘‘respiration is a pulmonary process by which oxygen in the air reaches
the blood and carbon dioxide is expelled to the exterior’’. The teacher,
meanwhile, has planned to explain what happens in the cells due to the
oxygen that the blood has transported to them, and the formation of carbon
dioxide (cellular respiration), skipping everything else.
Assume that child A is fully attentive during class. Is there likely to be
meaningful learning in child A? Why? It is very important that you give detailed
arguments for your answers.
What do you consider to be the specific learning needs of child A with respect to
this topic of the content? Why?
Are these needs suitably addressed by the teacher’s programming of the content?
Why?
Assume now that child B is fully attentive during class. Is there likely to be
meaningful learning in child B? Why? It is very important that you give detailed
arguments for your answers.
What do you consider to be the specific learning needs of child B with respect to
this topic of the content? Why?
Are these needs suitably addressed by the teacher’s programming of the content?
Why?
In designing and programming content, would certain conditions have to be met
that would be conducive to good learning? If so, what would those conditions be?
Why do you believe that they would help to achieve good learning?

123
310 R. Martı́n del Pozo et al.

(4). Typically, content is generally organized and presented to the pupils as lists of
topics. From your point of view, how should the content be organized, and
why? (Explain the reasons in detail.)
Similarly, how should it be presented to the pupils, and why? (Explain the
reasons in detail).
(5). Typically, school science content is a simplified version of some important
concepts of the discipline (Geography, Mathematics, Biology, History, etc.).
From your point of view, do there exist other types of knowledge as well as
that of the discipline itself which should influence how the content is selected
and prepared? If so, what are they? And why do you believe that they should
have that influence?

Document 9. Prepare the second draft of the content.

(a) Taking into account the conclusions of the previous activity, and using any
information that you consider necessary, draw up a second proposal of the
content that you as a team consider appropriate to approach with the pupils in
order to achieve good learning.
(b) Explain in detail the basic steps that you took to improve the first draught.
(c) Explain with the support of arguments the changes that were made (what was
eliminated, what was added, what was kept, and what was modified).
(d) Draw up a set of educational principles that reflect the team’s opinion about
programming the content, and that content’s role in the teaching–learning
process.

References

Azcárate, P., & Cuesta, J. (2005). El profesorado novel de secundaria y su práctica. Estudio de un caso en
las áreas de ciencias. [The junior high school teachers and their practice. A case study in the areas of
science]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 23, 393–402.
Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach
elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 121–139.
Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom?
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 175–194.
Davis, E., & Petish, D. (2005). Real-world applications and instructional representations among
prospective elementary science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 263–286.
Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science
Education, 11, 481–490.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science
teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671–688.
Flores, F., López, A., Gallegos, L., & Barojas, J. (2000). Transforming science and learning concepts of
physics teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 197–208.
Gustafson, B. J., & Rowell, P. M. (1995). Elementary preservice teachers: Constructing conceptions
about learning 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’
developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International
Journal of Science Education, 26, 1653–1674.

123
Progression of Conceptions about School Science Content 311

Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching: Implications for
teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 425–440.
Hewson, P. W., Tabachnick, B. R., Zeichner, K. M., & Lemberger, J. (1999). Educating prospective
teachers of biology: Findings, limitations, and recommendations. Science Education, 83, 373–384.
Hodson, D. (1994). Hacia un enfoque más crı́tico del trabajo de laboratorio. [Towards a more critical
laboratory work]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 12, 299–313.
Jones, M., Carter, G., & Rua, M. (1999). Children’s concepts: Tools for transforming science teachers’
knowledge. Science Education, 83, 545–557.
Joram, E., & Gabriele, A. (1998). Preservice teachers’ prior beliefs: Transforming obstacles into
opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 175–191.
Liang, L. L., & Gabel, D. L. (2005). Effectiveness of a constructivist approach to science instruction for
prospective elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1143–1162.
Manassero, M. A., & Vazquez, A. (2001). Actitudes de estudiantes y profesorado sobre las caracterı́sticas
de los cientı́ficos. [Attitudes of students and teachers about the characteristics of scientists].
Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 19, 255–268.
Martı́n del Pozo, R. (2001a). Prospective teachers’ ideas about the relationships between concepts
describing the composition of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 353–371.
Martı́n del Pozo, R. (2001b). Lo que saben y lo que pretenden enseñar los futuros profesores sobre el
cambio quı́mico. [What we know and what they purport to teach future teachers in the chemical
change]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 19, 199–215.
Martı́n del Pozo, R., & Porlán, R. (2001). Spanish prospective teachers’ initial ideas about teaching
chemical change. Chemistry Education Research and Practice in Europe, 3, 265–283.
Martı́n del Pozo, R., Martı́nez, M., Rodrigo, M., & Varela, P. (2004). A comparative study of the
professional and curricular conceptions of the secondary education science teacher in Spain:
Possible implications for ongoing teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27,
193–215.
Martı́nez, M., Martı́n del Pozo, R., Rodrigo, M., Varela, P., Fernández, P., & Guerrero, A. (2004). >Qué
pensamiento profesional y curricular tienen los futuros profesores de ciencias de secundaria? [What
professional thinking and curriculum is the future of secondary science teachers]. Enseñanza de las
Ciencias, 19, 67–87.
Meyer, H., Tabachnick, R., Hewson, P., Lemberger, J., & Park, H. (1999). Relationships between
prospective elementary teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of Biology and of
Teaching Science. Science Education, 83, 323–346.
Morrison, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Science teachers’ diagnosis and understanding of students’
preconceptions. Science Education, 87, 849–867.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
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, 441–467.
Peterson, R., & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning to teach primary science through problem-based learning.
Science Education, 82, 215–237.
Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of the teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of the
beliefs of scientist, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77,
261–278.
Porlán, R., & Martı́n del Pozo, R. (2002). Spanish teachers’ epistemological and scientific conceptions:
Implications for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 25, 151–169.
Porlán, R., & Martı́n del Pozo, R. (2004). The conceptions of inservice and prospective primary school
teachers about the teaching and learning of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15,
39–62.
Porlán, R., Rivero, A., & Martı́n del Pozo, R. (1997). Conocimiento profesional y epistemologı́a de los
profesores I: Teorı́a, métodos, e instrumentos. [Professional knowledge of teachers and epistemol-
ogy I: Theory, methods, and tools]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 15, 155–171.
Porlán, R., Rivero, A., & Martı́n del Pozo, R. (1998). Conocimiento profesional y epistemologı́a de los
profesores II: Estudios empı́ricos y conclusiones. [Professional knowledge of teachers and
epistemology II: Empirical studies and conclusions]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 16, 271–288.
Powell, R. (1996). Epistemological antecedents to culturally relevant and constructivist classroom
curricula: A longitudinal study of teachers’ contrasting worldviews. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 12, 365–384.

123
312 R. Martı́n del Pozo et al.

Prieto, T., Blanco, A., & Brero, V. (2002). La progresión en el aprendizaje de dominios especı́ficos.
[Domain specific learning progression]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 20, 3–14.
Rivero, A., & Porlán, R. (2004). The difficult relationship between theory and practice in an inservice
course for science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1223–1245.
Sánchez, G., & Valcárcel, M. V. (1999). Science teachers’ views and practices in planning for teaching.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 493–513.
Scott, P. H. (1992). Pathways in learning science: A case study of the development of one student’s ideas
relating to the structure of matter. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in
physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 203–224). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations for the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57, 1–22.
Skamp, K., & Mueller, A. (2001). Student teachers’ conceptions about effective primary science teaching:
A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 331–351.
Tillema, H. H. (2000). Belief change towards self-directed learning in student teachers: Immersion in
practice or reflection on action. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5–6), 575–591.
Tillema, H. H., & Van der Westhuizen, G. J. (2006). Knowledge construction in collaborative enquiry
among teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12, 51–67.
Van Driel, J. H., Bulte, A. M. W., & Verloop, N. (2005). The conceptions of chemistry teachers about
teaching and learning in the context of a curriculum innovation. International Journal of Science
Education, 27, 303–322.
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, 301–321.
Watts, M., & Jofili, Z. (1998). Towards critical constructivist teaching. International Journal of Science
Education, 20, 173–185.
Weld, J., & Funk, L. (2005). ‘‘I’m not the science type:’’ Effect of an inquiry biology content course on
preservice elementary teachers’ intentions about teaching science. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 16, 189–204.
Zellermayer, M., & Tabak, E. (2006). Knowledge construction in a teachers’ community of enquiry: A
possible road map. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12, 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 in Science Teaching, 37, 318–339.
Zembal-Saul, C., Haefner, L. A., Avraamidou, L., Severs, M., & Dana, T. (2002). Web-based portfolios:
A vehicle for examining prospective elementary teachers’ developing understandings of teaching
science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 283–302.

123