Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Teachers Scientific Epistemological views-TSAI
Teachers Scientific Epistemological views-TSAI
Epistemological Views:
The Coherence with Instruction
and Students’ Views
CHIN-CHUNG TSAI
Graduate School of Technological and Vocational Education, National Taiwan University
of Science and Technology, Taipei 106, Taiwan
DOI 10.1002/sce.20175
Published online 19 September 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
INTRODUCTION
Many contemporary science educators have asserted that developing adequate under-
standings about the nature of science is one of the important goals for science education
Correspondence to: Chin-Chung Tsai; e-mail: cctsai@mail.nctu.edu.tw; cctsai@mail.ntust.edu.tw
This work was conducted under the author’s faculty term at National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.
Contract grant sponsor: National Science Council, Taiwan.
Contract grant numbers: NSC 92-2511-S-009-013 and NSC93-2511-S009-006.
This paper was edited by former Editor Nancy W. Brickhouse.
C 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
TEACHERS’ SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWS 223
(Bartholomew, Osborne, & Ratcliffe, 2004; Millar & Osborne, 1998; Sandoval, 2005). “Na-
ture of science,” in general, refers to epistemology of science, which addresses the issues
regarding the philosophical assumptions, values, developments, and conceptual inventions
in science, consensus making in scientific communities, and features of scientific knowl-
edge (Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992; Tsai & Liu, 2005). Understanding students’ scientific
epistemological views (SEVs), then, has become a major concern for science educators
(Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002; Huang, Tsai, & Chang, 2005; Lederman, 1992;
Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004). More importantly, scholars have explored the inter-
play between students’ SEVs and their science learning. Numerous research findings have
suggested that students’ SEVs may guide the acquisition of scientific knowledge (Songer
& Linn, 1991; Tsai, 1998a), and shape their orientations to learning science or decision
making in science-related issues (e.g., Bell & Lederman, 2003; Edmonson & Novak, 1993;
Tsai, 2000a; Wallace, Tsoi, Calkin, & Darley, 2003). For example, Tsai (1998a, 1998b,
1999a, 2000b) and Wallace et al. (2003) have found that, when compared to students ex-
hibiting the belief that scientific knowledge is discovered from totally objective observation
and experimentation (i.e., positivist-oriented SEVs), students who believe that science is
constructed on the basis of scientists’ agreed paradigm, evidence, and negotiation (i.e.,
constructivist-oriented SEVs)1 tend to (1) develop more integrated knowledge structures
in science, (2) employ more meaningful approaches when learning science, (3) have bet-
ter attitudes and more appropriate learning beliefs toward school science, and (4) display
stronger preferences for constructivist-based learning environments.
Despite the fact that many studies have been conducted to explore the role of students’
SEVs on science learning, relatively less research has focused on the role of teachers’ SEVs
on science instruction and student science learning. Teachers’ SEVs are often considered
as an important factor that frames their teaching beliefs, and these views may be related to
instructional practice (Hammrich, 1997, 1998; Lederman, 1992; Nott & Wellington, 1995).
Some studies displayed good coherence between teachers’ SEVs and their science in-
struction. For instance, through observing and interviewing three secondary science teach-
ers with very diverse views of science over several months, Brickhouse (1989) concluded
that teachers’ SEVs were consistent with their teaching manners in which demonstrations
were used, science–technology–society (STS) instruction, word usage, and instructional
goals in the actual classrooms. As well, Linder (1992) used interview data to illustrate
that a reflection of metaphysical realism in physics classes could encourage (1) students’
rote learning of physics, (2) the association of conceptual understanding with an ability
to solve stereotypical tutorial problems, (3) a learning style which incorporates rapid in-
struction to cover prodigious amounts of curricula, and (4) the discouragement of coherent
understanding (p. 112). Although the study did not directly show that teachers’ SEVs in-
fluenced their instructional orientations, it supported that teacher-reflected epistemology
of metaphysical realism (ontological positivism) was a source of conceptual difficulty for
students’ science learning. A similar study completed by Tsai (2002a), who interviewed 37
science teachers in Taiwan, revealed that 21 of them showed closely aligned views toward
SEVs, teaching science, and learning science, called “nested epistemologies” by the re-
searcher. Hashweh (1996), through the use of questionnaire and survey data obtained from
35 science teachers, revealed that teachers having constructivist-oriented SEVs were more
1
In this paper, “constructivism” or “constructivist” is used to refer to both epistemological views and
teaching approaches. Some researchers may argue that constructivist epistemology is not equivalent to and
does not necessarily stem from constructivist pedagogy, and there is some distinction between these two
(e.g., Duschl, Hamilton, & Grandy, 1990; Matthews, 1994). The position of this paper, as that proposed by
Staver (1998), asserts that “constructivism” provides a sound theory to explicate the practice of science as
well as the practice of science teaching.
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
224 TSAI
As well, Aikenhead (1987) and Tsai (2002b) conclude that teachers do not have adequate
knowledge to implement STS (science, technology, and society) instruction if they lack
the knowledge regarding the epistemological and sociological nature of science. Roehrig
and Luft (2004) also perceive limited understanding of SEVs as one main constraint that
impacts teachers’ enactment of inquiry-based science instruction. Abd-El-Khalick (2005)
further asserts that the research about how teachers’ SEVs translate into actual classroom
practice remains a crucial issue. Therefore, the relationship between teachers’ SEVs and
their science teaching is still worth investigating. Also, most of the studies regarding such
relationship reviewed above were conducted in western countries, while little research about
this has been undertaken in eastern countries. This study would explore this relationship
on some Taiwanese science teachers.
This study was carried out to examine the coherence between teachers’ SEVs and their
science instruction. The relationships between science teachers’ SEVs and their teaching
beliefs as well as instructional practices were investigated. In addition to interviewing
teachers and observing classroom instruction (such as Lederman, 1999), this study also
gathered research data from the students. More importantly, this study examined the co-
herence between teachers’ SEVs and students’ SEVs. By investigating this coherence,
educators can acquire more insights about how science teachers’ SEVs may play a role on
those of their students. Moreover, by doing these, the present study has been situated in a
significant context of nature of science research literatures in science education. Abd-El-
Khalick, Bell, and Lederman (1998) have proposed three theoretical assumptions guiding
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
TEACHERS’ SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWS 225
educational research about nature of science or SEVs. Two of them have been perceived as
those of particular importance by this study, which are (1) teachers’ SEVs were significantly
related to their students’ SEVs and (2) teachers’ SEVs automatically translate into their
instructional practices. The conduct of this study can carefully examine these assumptions,
and make contributions to relevant theories and research literatures.
Furthermore, this study would assess students’ perceptions about their science learning
environments, and then the coherence between teachers’ SEVs and these perceptions was
examined. These perceptions could represent, at least to a certain extent, how their teachers
actually implemented science instruction in classrooms. In addition, research has indicated
that students’ SEVs are related to their perceptions of learning environments (Tsai, 2000a),
and this study would further examine how teachers’ SEVs may also play a role on their
students’ perceptions toward their learning environments.
In sum, through gathering research data and classroom observations from four Taiwanese
science teachers and their students, this study was undertaken to examine four sets of
coherences:
1. The coherence between teachers’ scientific epistemological views and their teaching
beliefs.
2. The coherence between teachers’ epistemological views toward science and actual
instructional practice in science classrooms.
3. The coherence between science teachers’ epistemological beliefs toward science and
those of their students.
4. The coherence between teachers’ scientific epistemological views and the science
learning environments perceived by their students.
METHOD
Participants
The teachers were selected by an SEV instrument (Tsai & Liu, 2005; described later)
from a pool of more than 40 science teachers. This study tried to explore teachers with
maximum variations of SEVs; hence, the researcher chose the teachers with quite different
responses on the SEV instrument for possible investigation. Similar to the “maximum
variation sampling” method for qualitative research (Patton, 1990, p. 172), this study
selected one teacher who attained top 20% total scores of the SEV instrument, one from
the bottom 20% group, and two from the rest of the teachers (average group). By inquiring
of the possibility of further research from the teachers, this study included four junior high
school science teachers, who were invited to volunteer to participate in the research. Their
background information is presented in Table 1, and all of the names are pseudonyms. Two
of them were female (Betty and Cindy), and three of them had a master’s degree (Andy,
Cindy, and David); in particular, David majored in science education in his master study.
Andy was from the bottom 20% SEV score group, Betty and Cindy from the average group,
while David from the top 20% group.
All of the four case teachers taught eighth-grade “physical science” course. The students
in their eighth-grade classes (called Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D, respectively)
were also surveyed about their SEVs and perceptions toward actual science classrooms.
The eighth-grade students surveyed were just under the instruction of one of the selected
teachers at the time of the conduct of the study. The students had been under one of the
case teachers’ science instruction for at least 8 months. The number of students in Class A,
Class B, Class C, and Class D was 45, 47, 44, and 44, respectively. All of the students were
surveyed.
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
226 TSAI
TABLE 1
The Background Information for the Case Teachers
Teacher
1. The theory-laden quality of scientific exploration (e.g., Does theory play a role on
scientists’ exploration or observations? How? Do scientists have any expectation
before undertaking the research work? Why?)
2. The invented and creative nature of science (e.g., Do scientists “discover” or “invent”
scientific knowledge? Why? How does creativity play a role in science?)
3. The changing and tentative feature of science knowledge (e.g., After scientists have
developed a theory, does the theory ever change? Does the development of scientific
knowledge involve the change of concepts? How?)
4. The role of social negotiation in science community (e.g., Is one scientist’s research
work influenced by other scientists? Or science is a process of individual exploration,
mainly depending on personal efforts? How? How do scientists examine others’
research findings?)
5. The cultural impacts on science (e.g., Do different cultural groups of people have
different types of “science”? How? Do cultures affect the development of scientific
knowledge? How?)
The interview with each teacher was conducted in Chinese by a trained research assis-
tant. All of the interviews were audiotaped, and were later transcribed by the assistant.
The researcher (author) marked significant sentences that represented each teacher’s SEVs
in each dimension, and another researcher validated the marked sentences. Cross-case
or cross-interview analyses were undertaken for the questions in each dimension. Then,
the researchers conducted the analysis similar to “axial coding” for qualitative research
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 123). That is, for each SEV dimension, each teacher’s in-
terview responses were classified as a position ranging from positivist to constructivist
perspective. By doing this, this study did not make the simplistic positivist/constructivist
dichotomy; rather, this study believed that a teacher might display different SEV positions
across various SEV dimensions. Therefore, multiple SEV dimensions were employed for
investigation. In addition, based upon past research experiences (Tsai, 2002b), teachers’
SEVs, if being divided into a specific SEV dimension, can be effectively represented by
a spectrum (or an axis) from positivist to constructivist views. Again, this did not suggest
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
TEACHERS’ SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWS 227
Instrument for Assessing Student SEVs. This study used the instrument developed by
Tsai and Liu (2005), which suggested a multidimensional framework of representing student
SEVs. By adopting multidimensional framework of SEVs, it was anticipated to describe
students’ different aspects of SEVs in more details. The five subscales (dimensions) of the
instrument are exactly the same as the teacher interview dimensions, with a sample item
provided:
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
228 TSAI
Each of these subscales contained three to six items (Tsai & Liu, 2005). All of the instrument
items were presented in a 1–5 Likert scale. Students’ responses were scored below to
represent their SEVs. For the constructivist-oriented perspective items (e.g., the sample
items of the first four subscales), a “strongly agree” response was assigned a score of 5
and a “strongly disagree” response assigned a score of 1, whereas the items stated in a
positivist-aligned view (e.g., the sample item of the last subscale) were scored in a reverse
manner. Tsai and Liu (2005) reported that the alpha reliability coefficients for each subscale
ranged from 0.60 to 0.71. The same coefficients calculated from the students in this study
were around 0.65, statistically acceptable for analysis. The item analyses indicated that the
part –whole correlation coefficients for each subscale ranged from 0.64 to 0.78, supporting
the adequate use of the summed scores of the items in a subscale to represent students’
ideas (Spector, 1992). By the scoring manner, students having strong beliefs regarding the
constructivist view for a certain dimension (i.e., subscale) thus attained higher scores on
the subscale; on the other hand, students with positivist-aligned SEVs for a certain subscale
would have lower scores.
1. Student negotiation subscale: Measuring perceptions of the extent to which there are
opportunities for students to interact, negotiate meaning, and build consensus with
others. Sample item: In this class, I ask other students about their ideas.
2. Prior knowledge subscale: Assessing perceptions of the extent to which there are
opportunities for students to meaningfully integrate prior knowledge and experiences
with the newly acquired knowledge, and to have enough time to construct ideas.
Sample item: In this class, I get to think about interesting, real-life problems.
3. Autonomy subscale: Investigating perceptions of the extent to which there are op-
portunities for students to practice deliberate and meaningful control over learning
activities, and to think independently of the teacher and others. Sample item: In this
class, I find my own way of doing investigations.
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
TEACHERS’ SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWS 229
The CLES also employed the 1–5 Likert scale from “always” (score 5) to “never” (score
1). Taylor and Fraser (1991) reported the alpha reliability to be 0.79, 0.74, 0.72, and 0.61
for each subscale of actual form of CLES. The Chinese version of CLES was used in an-
other study with 1176 Taiwanese high school students (Tsai, 2000a). Tsai (2000a) reported
the reliability of CLES to be around 0.75 for each subscale. The reliability coefficients
calculated from the sample students of the present study ranged from 0.68 to 0.78, quite ac-
ceptable for statistical analysis. The item analyses indicated that the part –whole correlation
coefficients for each subscale ranged from 0.73 to 0.83, supporting the proper use of the
summed scores of the items in a subscale to represent students’ perceptions. By the scoring
method, students who showed closer perceptions for a certain type of constructivist learning
environments would gain higher scores on a related subscale of CLES, while students who
experienced traditional way of teaching were expected to have lower scores for the same
subscale.
RESULTS
Teachers’ SEVs
The participant teachers’ SEVs were explored by interviews. The interview, conducted
with each individual teacher, consisted of the following five SEV dimensions: theory-laden
exploration, the invented and creative reality, changing and tentative feature, the role of
social negotiation, and cultural impacts. For each SEV dimension, each teacher’s inter-
view responses were analyzed and coded into a position in the spectrum from positivist to
constructivist views. In some cases, teachers’ interview responses were clear in their SEV
positions. For example, when asked about the dimension of “theory-laden exploration,”
David stated that: “I think scientists have certain expectations when undertaking experi-
ments, and their theories will guide them how to perform the experiments.” He clearly held
a constructivist position. On the other hand, Andy replied that: “Scientists can make totally
objective observations, which are not affected by their existing theories or conceptions,”
showing his positivist position in this SEV dimension. As another example, when asking
changing and tentative feature of scientific knowledge, Cindy responded that “all of scien-
tific knowledge might be changed; even basic concepts in science might be challenged and
changed eventually.” Her responses clearly displayed a constructivist position. However, in
many cases, the teachers expressed “mixed” positions, which often referred to a combina-
tion of constructivist and positivist ideas. Typical responses for the mixed position are as
follows:
• Some scientific explorations are theory-laden, and some are not. It depends on the
explorations (Cindy, for the dimension of “theory-laden exploration”).
• I believe that scientists conduct research very objectively, quite free of their personal
theories. But, I think, in some special cases, their theories influence the research
(Betty, for the dimension of “theory-laden exploration”).
• Some scientific knowledge is discovered, but some is invented. For example, I think
Kepler’s laws are discovered, but Einstein’s relativity theory is invented (David, for
the dimension of “invented and creative reality”).
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
230 TSAI
• Most scientific knowledge is discovered, but a little is invented by people for the ease
of explaining natural phenomena (Cindy, for the dimension of “invented and creative
reality”).
• The scientific knowledge, though not always representing the truth, is quite ap-
proaching the truth; therefore, not much change will occur (Betty, for the dimension
of “changing and tentative feature”).
• I believe the social negotiation is quite important. But, some personal discoveries in
science, without the help of social negotiation, are still very important (Andy, for the
dimension of “the role of social negotiation in science community”).
• I think scientific knowledge ideally should be culture-free, and really much of it
is (culture-free). However, some scientific knowledge is affected by contemporary
cultures. Copernican theory is a good example about this (Cindy, for the dimension
of “cultural impacts”).
The teachers’ interview responses were analyzed and then their SEV positions were mapped
in Figure 1. An example about how teachers’ qualitative responses were coded as posi-
tivist, mixed, and constructivist is presented in the Appendix. In particular, this map was
constructed and validated by two independent researchers, and certainly it was finalized
by discussion. Also, each case teacher agreed the representations of his/her SEVs in Fig-
ure 1 after knowing the categorization framework. Figure 1 showed that there were still
some variations for the mixed position. For instance, in the dimension of theory-laden
exploration, Betty, though she expressed some ideas about theory-laden exploration by
scientists, still believed in the total objectivity of scientific research (based on the interview
responses presented earlier). Therefore, her SEV position in this dimension was more ori-
ented to the positivist view. A similar situation could be found on the interview responses
of Cindy for the “cultural impacts” dimension. Again, it should be emphasized that this
study did not make the positivist/constructivist dichotomy; rather, this study believed that
a teacher might display different SEV positions across various SEV dimensions. That is, a
teacher’s SEVs might differ by various dimensions, with all possibilities from positivist to
constructivist views, as shown in Figure 1. Certainly, there might be other views that could
not be explained by this way, but they were not found in this study probably because of the
limited sample of teachers involved and the interview questions used.
According to Figure 1, Andy held more positivist-oriented SEVs and David possessed
constructivist-aligned SEVs in many SEV dimensions. Betty showed different positions
across different SEV dimensions; for instance, she expressed positivist perspectives for
the “invented and creative reality” and “cultural impacts,” but she was a constructivist in
“the role of social negotiation.” And for the rest of the dimensions, she held mixed views.
Although Cindy expressed constructivist positions in the dimensions of “changing and
tentative feature” and “the role of social negotiation,” for the rest of the dimensions, she
was perceived as having a mixed position. In fact, among the four teachers involved in this
study, none of them was absolutely a positivist or a constructivist. This finding was quite
consistent with that revealed by previous studies (Tsai, 2002b; Tsai & Liu, 2005) that people
might display various SEV positions across different SEV dimensions. It could only be
concluded that David (and possibly Cindy) showed relatively more constructivist-oriented
SEVs, while Andy displayed relatively more positivist-aligned SEVs and Betty’s SEVs
were comparatively mixed. For the ease of presenting and interpreting the findings revealed
in this study, this paper would describe these teachers’ SEVs in these general terms, such
as constructivist-oriented, positivist-oriented, or mixed. However, it should be kept in mind
that these teachers’ SEVs were complex as displayed in Figure 1, and these terms did not
suggest the positivist/constructivist dichotomy.
I would bring my students to laboratory, sometimes just because they needed to actually per-
form some experiments for answering some test questions. Allocating more time on direct
lectures and more tutorial problem practice is quite effective for enhancing their test scores.
TABLE 2
Case Science Teachers’ Views About Learning, Teaching, and Their Teaching Strategies
Teacher
In terms of Andy’s and Betty’s interview responses, their beliefs about teaching and learning
as well as their instructional strategies probably implied a rote approach to science learning,
as they highlighted the use of direct lectures and more tutorial problem practices to help
students attain high scores in science. By such, they might implicitly encourage student
memorization or rote practice about science concepts. In fact, Andy responded that:
In science, there are a lot of formula and definitions. If students cannot memorize them
carefully, they will experience great difficulties in solving science problems. . . Then, they
cannot attain high scores.
Andy’s view suggested rote learning in science by meticulously memorizing formula and
definitions. On the other hand, both Cindy and David emphasized that students needed to
learn how to apply scientific knowledge (as their responsibilities). David, again, strength-
ened the view that the learner should develop understanding, not memorization, about
scientific knowledge. For instance, he stated that:
The major duty of science student is to construct a true understanding about the scientific
knowledge he or she learned. He (she) cannot just memorize some scientific facts; rather, he
(she) needs to truly understand them. Then, he (she) can apply science to real-life situations.
When asked about how they taught science, Cindy and David had the following responses:
Cindy: I think, in addition to regular lecture class, the use of laboratory work or small-group
learning activity is important for science students. By laboratory work, they can know how
to apply scientific knowledge. By small-group learning activity, they can learn how to solve
a problem and how to communicate with others. These will help a lot when they are in job
market, no matter they are in science-related career or not.
David: Students often have some “misconceptions” in science. The use of some instruc-
tional approaches to challenging their prior knowledge is very important. Some interactive
discussion or questioning activities may be helpful about this. Also, it is important for
students to develop a better understanding for scientific knowledge in classrooms. I think
some inquiry activities are helpful for this. By open-ended inquiry, they will think and
apply the scientific knowledge thoroughly, thus constructing a better understanding.
Again, Cindy showed a pragmatic view about science instruction. David expressed his con-
cerns about students’ “alternative conceptions” (Tsai & Chang, 2005; Wandersee, Mintzes,
& Novak, 1994) and tried to utilize some teaching strategies to overcome these conceptions.
In sum, teachers with relatively positivist-aligned SEVs (e.g., Andy and possibly Betty)2
tended to highlight the importance of acquiring correct knowledge and attaining better
grades for science learning. They thought themselves as information providers and often
used lectures, tutorial problem practices, and examinations in classrooms. On the other
hand, the constructivist-oriented SEV teacher (e.g., David) tended to focus more on the
understanding of scientific concepts for science learning, and use inquiry activities or
interactive discussion to challenge students’ prior knowledge or alternative conceptions.
The teacher with constructivist-oriented SEVs tended to show more constructivist ideas
about science teaching and learning. The coherence between teachers’ SEVs and their
teaching beliefs was revealed in this study, consistent with that concluded in previous
studies (Hashweh, 1996; Tsai, 2002a). For example, Hashweh (1996) found that teachers
2
Again, readers are encouraged to refer back to Figure 1 for a better understanding of each teacher’s
SEVs, but for the ease of presenting findings and discussions, this paper used such brief labels.
TABLE 3
Case Teachers’ Instructional Activities by Classroom Observations
Teacher
3
Based on Cohen’s criteria, Eta2 = 0.0099–0.0588 indicates small effect size, Eta2 = 0.0588–0.1379
medium effect size, and Eta2 beyond 0.1379 large effect size (p. 283).
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
236
TSAI
TABLE 4
Follow-up ANOVA Analyses of Students’ SEVs Across the Classes Involved in the Study
Class A Class B Class C Class D
(n = 45) (n = 47) (n = 44) (n = 44) Post hoc
SEVs (mean, SD) (mean, SD) (mean, SD) (mean, SD) F (ANOVA) Eta2 Effect Size (Scheffe Test)
Theory-laden 3.61 (0.82) 3.81 (0.78) 3.75 (0.85) 4.09 (0.75) 2.85∗ 0.046 Small D>A
exploration
Invented and 3.84 (0.58) 3.86 (0.69) 3.89 (0.67) 3.92 (0.55) 0.13 0.002 –
creative reality
Changing and 3.93 (0.67) 4.11 (0.64) 4.42 (0.55) 4.39 (0.58) 6.50∗∗∗ 0.100 Medium C > A; D > A
tentative feature
Social negotiation in 3.65 (0.40) 3.69 (0.38) 3.70 (0.40) 3.79 (0.35) 0.96 0.016 –
the community
Cultural impacts 3.31 (0.71) 3.52 (0.93) 3.55 (0.84) 3.85 (0.90) 3.03∗ 0.049 Small D>A
Note: The mean score indicates students’ average score per item.
∗
p < .05, ∗∗∗ p < .001.
stronger perceptions that their science teacher encouraged autonomous learning than Class
C students, and finally Class D students also believed that their science learning environ-
ments were more student-centered than those in Class A. The results strongly indicated
that Class D, by comparing to other classes (particularly Classes A and B), was guided
more thoroughly by all constructivist instructional principles as assessed by CLES. Class C
students also showed higher agreement for some constructivist ideas toward actual science
learning environments than Class A or Class B students, such as fostering student negotia-
tion and highlighting prior knowledge. As illustrated in Figure 1, teachers in Class D, and
perhaps Class C (i.e., David and Cindy) had comparatively constructivist-oriented SEVs.
In terms of research findings and the large effect sizes revealed, the coherence between
teachers’ SEVs and the perceptions of learning environments held by their students was
strong. This study suggested that teachers’ constructivist-oriented SEVs would foster the
development of more constructivist-oriented learning environments. These findings also
advanced our understandings about students’ perceptions toward learning environments.
Research reported that learners’ SEVs were related to their perceptions toward learning en-
vironments (Tsai, 2000a), and this study further suggested that teachers’ SEVs also played
an essential role in shaping science students’ learning environment perceptions.
be conducted to explore more about the intricacies between teachers’ SEVs and teaching.
In particular, by using multidimensional SEVs, researchers can acquire more insights about
how a specific SEV dimension may play a role on a particular aspect of science teaching.
Therefore, the relationship between science teachers’ SEVs and their teaching can be more
fully understood.
versus positivist) for elaborating teachers’ SEVs (Tsai, 2002b, p. 27). In addition to using
two theoretical positions, the researchers also categorized the teachers’ qualitative responses
by cross-case comparisons with “axial coding” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 123), and then
to denote each teacher’s SEVs in this particular dimension into a position ranging from
positivist to constructivist views. Based on the interview responses, both of the researchers
coded Andy as having a positivist view while David clearly expressed a constructivist
perspective. However, in the cases of Betty and Cindy, the researchers believed that they
displayed a combination of positivist and constructivist views, so they were viewed as
having a mixed position in this SEV dimension. This study further differentiated these two
teachers’ SEVs by the use of axial coding. Based on the interview results, the researchers
believed that Cindy, though in a mixed position, expressed her ideas a little more ori-
ented to the constructivist view, as she claimed that most of scientific research work was
theory-laden. On the other hand, Betty, though still in a mixed position, believed that most
investigations in science were theory-neutral while theory-laden exploration occurred only
in special cases. Therefore, the researchers marked Betty in a position between construc-
tivist and positivist views, but more oriented to the positivist. Therefore, in Figure 1, for
this SEV dimension, Andy, Betty, Cindy, and David, respectively were marked along the
axis from positivist to constructivist.
The categorization was analyzed and validated by two researchers, which was finalized
by discussion. The use of axial coding, concurring with that proposed by Strauss and Corbin
(1998), was based not only on actual responses by each teacher but also on the researchers’
conceptualizations of them. As the interview questions were very specific to each SEV
dimension, teachers’ qualitative responses could be categorized quite effectively by this
way, and then be mapped into the positions displayed in Figure 1.
The author thanks all of the teachers, students, and researchers involved in this study. The author also
expresses his gratitude to the Editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments in
the further development of this paper.
REFERENCES
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy
of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of
Science Education, 27, 15 – 42.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development
of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785 – 810.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice:
Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417 – 436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward
valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39, 497 – 521.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of
nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057 – 1095.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1987). A module for teaching scientific decision making. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and
Society, 7, 137 – 145.
Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study of a
fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1025 – 1049.
Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & McDuffie, A. R. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary
teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43,
194 – 213.
Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students—“Ideas-about-science”: Dimensions of
effective practice. Science Education, 88, 655 – 682.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science
and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352 – 377.
Benson, G. D. (1989). Epistemology and science curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21, 329 – 344.
Brickhouse, N. W. (1989). The teaching of the philosophy of science in secondary classrooms: Case studies of
teachers’ personal theories. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 437 – 449.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Duschl, R. A., Hamilton, R. J., & Grandy, R. (1990). Psychology and epistemology: Match or mismatch when
applied to science education? International Journal of Science Education, 12, 220 – 243.
Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers’ decision making models for planning
and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 467 – 501.
Edmondson, K. M., & Novak, J. D. (1993). The interplay of scientific epistemological views, learning strategies,
and attitudes of college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 547 – 559.
Hammrich, P. L. (1997). Confronting teacher candidates’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 8, 141 – 151.
Hammrich, P. L. (1998). Cooperative controversy challenges elementary teacher candidates’ conceptions of the
“nature of science.” Journal of Elementary Science Education, 10, 50 – 65.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 33, 47 – 63.
Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser &
K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 199 – 218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Huang, C. M., Tsai, C.-C., & Chang, C.-Y. (2005). An investigation of Taiwanese early adolescents’ views about
the nature of science. Adolescence, 40, 645 – 654.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331 – 359.
Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that
facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916 – 929.
Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really
influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71, 721 – 734.
Linder, C. J. (1992). Is teacher-reflected epistemology a source of conceptual difficulty in physics? International
Journal of Science Education, 14, 111 – 121.
Matthews, M. R. (1989). A role for history and philosophy in science teaching. Interchange, 20, 3 – 15.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Mellado, V. (1997). Preservice teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of the nature of science. Science
Education, 6, 331 – 354.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.
Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1995). Probing teachers’ views of the nature of science: How should we do it and
where should we be looking. Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching
Conference, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN (pp. 864 – 872).
Palmquist, B. C., & Finley, F. N. (1997). Preservice teachers’ views of the nature of science during a postbac-
calaureate science teaching program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 595 – 615.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, U. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in
implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 3 – 24.
Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science
Education, 76, 559 – 580.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in
response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387 – 409.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through
inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634 – 656.
Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and
intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 205 –
236.
Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761 – 784.
Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory of explicating the practice of science and science teaching.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 501 – 520.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, P. C., & Fraser, B. J. (1991, April). CLES: An instrument for assessing constructivist learning environments.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake
Geneva, WI.
Tsai, C.-C. (1998a). An analysis of Taiwanese eighth graders’ science achievement, scientific epistemological
beliefs and cognitive structure outcomes after learning basic atomic theory. International Journal of Science
Education, 20, 413 – 425.
Tsai, C.-C. (1998b). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eighth
graders. Science Education, 82, 473 – 489.
Tsai, C.-C. (1999a). “Laboratory exercises help me memorize the scientific truths”: A study of eighth graders’
scientific epistemological views and learning in laboratory activities. Science Education, 83, 654 – 674.
Tsai, C.-C. (1999b). The progression toward constructivist epistemological views of science: A case study of
the STS instruction of Taiwanese high school female students. International Journal of Science Education, 21,
1201 – 1222.
Tsai, C.-C. (2000a). Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of construc-
tivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42, 193 – 205.
Tsai, C.-C. (2000b). The effects of STS-oriented instruction on female tenth graders’ cognitive structure outcomes
and the role of student scientific epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1099 –
1115.
Tsai, C.-C. (2002a). Nested epistemologies: Science teachers’ beliefs of teaching, learning and science. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 24, 771 – 783.
Tsai, C.-C. (2002b). A science teacher’s reflections and knowledge growth about STS instruction after actual
implementation. Science Education, 86, 23 – 41.
Tsai, C.-C. (2006). Reinterpreting and reconstructing science: Teachers’ view changes toward the nature of science
by courses of science education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 22, 363 – 375.
Tsai, C.-C., & Chang, C.-Y. (2005). Lasting effects of instruction guided by the conflict map: Experimental study
of learning about the causes of seasons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 1089 – 1111.
Tsai, C.-C., & Liu, S.-Y. (2005). Developing a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemolog-
ical views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1621 – 1638.
Wallace, C. S., Tsoi, M. Y., Calkin, J., & Darley, M. (2003). Learning from inquiry-based laboratories in nonmajor
biology: An interpretive study of the relationships among inquiry experience, epistemologies, and conceptual
growth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 986 – 1024.
Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D.L
Gable (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177 – 210). New York: Macmillan.