See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228027639

The classroom practice of preservice teachers and their

conceptions of teaching and learning science

Article  in  Science Education · April 1998

DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199804)82:2<197::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-9

CITATIONS READS

162 1,579

1 author:

Vicente Mellado
Universidad de Extremadura
188 PUBLICATIONS   2,210 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Diseño de metodologías para mejorar las competencias STEM en maestros en formación View project

Didactic Guides for Experimental Sciences, Chemistry. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vicente Mellado on 19 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

SCIENCE TEACHER
EDUCATION
Thomas Dana and Julie Gess-Newsome, Section Editors

The Classroom Practice of Preservice

Teachers and Their Conceptions of
Teaching and Learning Science

VICENTE MELLADO
Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, University of
Extremadura, Avenida de Elvas, 06071 Badajoz, Spain; e-mail: vmellado@unex.es

Received 5 March 1996; revised 9 July 1997; accepted 25 November 1997

ABSTRACT: The present article describes research carried out with four student teachers of primary
and secondary science education. The preservice teachers’ conceptions of the learning and teaching
of science were analyzed and compared with their classroom practice when teaching science lessons.
The data gathering procedures included a questionnaire and interviews, both analyzed by means of
cognitive maps, and classroom observations during the participants’ practice teaching. The results
did not allow a general correspondence to be established between preservice teachers’ conceptions
about teaching and learning science and their classroom behavior. The implications of the research
for teacher education are discussed. 䉷 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 82:197– 214, 1998.

INTRODUCTION
The factors that are involved in teaching are multiple and complex (Kemmis, 1987) and, in
working toward the improvement of teaching, one has to consider it from a global perspective in
which these factors are interrelated. Nevertheless, there are results (Mitchener & Anderson, 1989;
Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994) which indicate that the one factor key to the success or failure of
putting any curricular innovation into practice is the teacher.
The study of the teacher has changed from a paradigm (methodological framework) of technical
rationality, which was dominant up to the 1970s, to one of “teacher thinking” (Marcelo, 1987).
Here, teachers, instead of being technicians who apply instructions, are constructivists who process
information, make decisions, generate routines and practical knowledge, and have beliefs that in-
fluence their professional activity (Shavelson & Stern, 1981). To a great extent as a consequence

Correspondence to: V. Mellado

short
䉷 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/98/020197-18 standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

198 MELLADO

of Shulman’s (1986) work on pedagogical content knowledge, the teacher thinking paradigm has
evolved recently toward a greater degree of compromise with the specific content that teachers
actually teach (Anderson & Mitchener, 1994; Marcelo, 1993).
Shulman (1986, 1993) considers that, together with general psychopedagogical knowledge and
knowledge of the subject matter, teachers develop specific knowledge, which Shulman termed
pedagogical content knowledge, concerning the form of teaching their subject. The teacher is the
mediator who transforms content into depictions comprehensible to the students. Teachers’ edu-
cational strategies depend very much on the material being taught, and their classroom practice and
activities on the subject (Stodolsky, 1991) — the reason being that any given material has certain
associated beliefs and traditions about how best to teach and learn it.
From the constructivist viewpoint (Hewson & Hewson, 1989), in analogy to studies of student
conceptions of scientific concepts, science teachers are considered to have inherited from their own
years in school deeply rooted conceptions of scientific concepts, of the nature of science, and of
the way to teach and learn it. The study of science teachers’ beliefs or conceptions thus takes on
special importance as a first step toward generating in the teachers themselves conceptions and
practices better suited to the currently proposed curricular objectives (Gil, 1993; Hewson, 1993).
The term teachers’ educative conception or belief has had different connotations in its use in
research (Pajares, 1992). In our study, beliefs or conceptions imply a conviction or a value judgment
about something (Koballa & Crawley, 1985), and in them important roles are played by the social
and affective components, viability, and willingness to act (Tobin et al., 1994).
In the paradigm of teacher thinking it is assumed that how teachers behave is influenced by how
they think, and Munby (1982) even stated that if investigations find no relationship between the
beliefs and classroom behavior of a teacher, it is because the choice of model or methodology being
used is poor and inappropriate. However, previous studies with science teachers (Lederman 1992;
Mellado, 1997) have shown us that we cannot always establish correspondence between the teach-
ers’ conceptions of the nature of science and their classroom behavior when teaching science,
because there are other factors involved in the complexity of the classroom.
The aim of the present work is to analyze whether the conceptions of prospective teachers about
the teaching/learning of science and their classroom practice when teaching science are related.

RESEARCH ON TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS OF THE TEACHING AND

LEARNING OF SCIENCE
One of the difficulties we face in reviewing the research literature is that, because the various
investigations use very different methodologies, it is difficult to establish comparisons between
them. Another difficulty, pointed to by Koulaidis and Ogborn (1995), is the differing philosophical
evaluation the investigators make of the methodological instruments they use.
When prospective teachers start their university education, they bring to it ideas, conceptions,
and attitudes about science teaching/learning (Shaw & Cronin-Jones, 1989), which are the fruit of
the many years they themselves had spent in school (Briscoe, 1991; Gunstone, Slattery, Bair, &
Northfield, 1993; Gustafson & Rowell, 1995; Hewson & Hewson, 1989; Wallace & Louden, 1992;
Young & Kellogg, 1993), accepting or rejecting the roles of their own school science teachers.
These beliefs have been steadily forming since their school years, and have become more stable
the longer they have been a part of each person’s belief system (Pajares, 1992), and in many respects
do not change significantly during the university education program (Aguirre & Haggerty, 1995;
Marcelo, 1995).
There are many works that study teachers’ conceptions about science teaching/learning (Aguirre,
Haggorty, & Linder, 1990; Ballenilla, 1992; Gustafson & Rowell, 1995; Gunstone et al., 1993;
Hashweh, 1996; Pomeroy, 1993; Porlán, 1989; Smith & Neale, 1991; Spear, 1984), although they short
do not determine the relationship between conceptions and classroom teaching behavior. standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

PRESERVICE TEACHERS AND THEIR CONCEPTIONS 199

Several studies have found a relationship between science teachers’ conceptions and their class-
room practice. Tobin and Espinet (1989), in a case study of a secondary science teacher, noted that
the teacher’s beliefs are consistent with the classroom practice. This teacher’s aims were to cover
the programmed material transmitting knowledge by means of verbal explanation. Mitchener and
Anderson (1989) and Cronin-Jones (1991) also showed that secondary science teachers’ beliefs and
curricular values influence their classroom practice. Science teachers put into practice those curric-
ular innovations that are compatible with their beliefs and values. Cornett, Yeotis, and Terwilliger
(1990) made a case study of the practical theories of a novice science teacher and affirmed that the
theories detected significantly affect the teacher’s instructional and curricular decisionmaking. For
Lorsbach, Tobin, Briscoe, and Lamaster (1992), beliefs about assessment also influence the class-
room practice of expert secondary teachers. Dillon, O’Brien, Moje, and Stewart (1994) analyzed
the influence of the beliefs of three expert secondary teachers on the use they make in class of
explanations and of textbooks and other written materials, and concluded that the teachers’ con-
ceptions of science teaching are closely related to classroom instruction. In a case study of expert
primary teachers, Appleton and Asoko (1996) found there to be coherence between their construc-
tivist view of science teaching/learning and their planning and practice of teaching. Lee and Porter
(1993) started from the idea that reality is very complex and humans build simplified models of it.
Their results indicate that a teacher built a mental model of teaching based on her perceptions,
beliefs, emotions, and feelings about her students, and her classroom behavior was highly consistent
with this model. In McRobbie and Tobin (1995), experienced secondary teachers constructed a
mental model coherent with their beliefs concerning traditional-type chemistry teaching/learning
and their classroom behavior. This is a very stable model because of its congruence not only with
the teachers’ beliefs, but also with their goals, and with the beliefs and actions of the students
constructed in the context of the classroom.
Other studies have only found a partial relationship, with frequent contradictions, between edu-
cational conceptions and classroom teaching behavior (López, 1994). Such is the case of the expert
primary teacher studied by Louden and Wallace (1994), whose constructivist principles are contra-
dicted by a teacher-centered teaching of science. Even expert primary teachers with strong philo-
sophical commitments to constructivism and conceptual change (Abell & Roth, 1995) recognize
contradictions between their beliefs concerning science teaching/learning and their classroom teach-
ing behavior.
Curricular directives involve conflict between secondary science teachers’ beliefs and classroom
practice (Gallard & Gallagher, 1994). Bol and Strage (1996) also found contradictions between the
curricular goals of in-service biology teachers and how those teachers assess their students, where
they rather emphasize basic knowledge. One explanation of this contradiction is the pressure the
students exert to have the cognitive demands of classroom tasks reduced.
These studies indicate that there is more consistency between beliefs and classroom practice in
experienced teachers than in novice and prospective teachers who can present remarkable contra-
dictions between their implicit theories and those they have to expound on, and usually have more
traditional teaching behavior than that manifested in their previous conceptions (Pavón, 1996).
Nevertheless, the consideration of the complexity of the classroom has led some researchers to
add caveats to this influence of teachers’ conceptions; that is, they do not necessarily predict the
teachers’ classroom behavior (Huibregtse, Korthagen, & Wubbels, 1994). It has also led some
investigators to highlight the importance of practical knowledge.
For Freire and Chorão (1992), the practical principles of action of most of the secondary physics
teachers they studied have common characteristics separate from their beliefs. The teachers’ con-
ceptions of teaching seem to act as factors that affect the transformation of the “formal” into a
“real” curriculum, and the different types of conceptions identified can be associated with the
different positions of the teachers in what the investigators described as the dialectic interaction short
between the functional and in-progress paradigms. In any case, they underscored the complexity standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

200 MELLADO

of both the conceptions and the models of classroom action of their science teachers. Also, Duffe
and Aikenhead (1992) maintained that teachers’ selection of assessment methods is based almost
exclusively on their practical knowledge.
In the complexity of the real classroom, teachers construct simplified models with which they
are comfortable and that they find nonconflictive and permit them to act (Wallace & Louden, 1992).
There may be no transfer of science teachers’ conceptions of science into classroom practice (Gess-
Newsome & Lederman, 1993) if the teachers lack schemes of practical action that are coherent
with their beliefs (Tobin, 1993).
Another line of research in which there have been numerous studies published is the relationship
between beliefs, metaphors, and classroom practice of science teachers (Grant, 1991; Gurney, 1990;
Powell, 1994; Ritchie, 1994; Tobin et al., 1994). The metaphors with which teachers conceptualize
their roles affect their teaching practice in the classroom (Tobin & Fraser, 1989), and the construc-
tion of new metaphors can help teachers change their pedagogical practices (Tobin, 1990). Teachers’
metaphors influence their actions regarding assessment, and, for teachers to be able to carry out
changes in their assessment methods, there has to be a consistency between beliefs, metaphors, and
classroom practice (Briscoe, 1993). For Lorsbach et al. (1992) and Tobin (1993), their teacher may
change her beliefs and not change her classroom practice; however, change did occur when she
constructed new metaphors.

METHODOLOGY
The methodologies associated with the technical rationality paradigm were mainly experimental
and statistical. The more recent ethnographic or naturalist paradigms (Goetz & Lecompte, 1988;
Guba, 1983; Woods, 1987), or teacher-thinking paradigms (Marcelo, 1987), have more qualitative
methodological premises and methods of investigation. We feel it should not be necessary to con-
front, in a reductionist manner, qualitative and quantitative methods (Estebaranz, 1992; Woods,
1987), but rather that it should be possible to use a combination of various methods (Marcelo,
1992). The case study as the examination of an example in action (Walker, 1983) has been gaining
particular importance in research about the teaching community.
Our investigation was a case study of four science teachers at the end of their initial training at
the University of Extremadura during the 1992 – 1993 academic year. Two of them are prospective
primary school teachers (maestros) specializing in sciences in their last year of their teaching di-
plomatura course (3 university years with courses in science and mathematics, psychology, general
teaching methods, science teaching, mathematics teaching, and teaching practice), and two are
science graduates, one in physics and the other in biology (5 university years of specific studies
basically in physics or biology, with no pedagogical material), during a brief postgraduate course
on pedagogy.
Spain is currently undertaking a process of educational reform, one result of which is that both
science specialist maestros and science graduates will be teaching natural sciences in the first cycle
of obligatory secondary education (13 – 14 year olds). One of the objectives of our research program
(Mellado, 1995) is to discover what conceptions about the teaching and learning of science the two
groups of teachers (science maestros and science graduates) have, and what influence there is on
their behavior in the classroom when giving a science class.
For the selection of participants, all maestros and graduates who carried out the aforementioned
studies during the 1992 – 1993 academic year at the University of Extremadura in Badajoz were
informed of the investigation. From an initial broad sample of volunteer preservice teachers, the
final selection of the four participants was made taking into account that there were two maestros
and two graduates of different specialities (physics and biology) who had adequately completed
the data gathering protocols and the teaching practices course, and who had a high expressivity and short
motivation for the production of qualitative data. standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

PRESERVICE TEACHERS AND THEIR CONCEPTIONS 201

First, the subjects participated in a videotaped microteaching session aimed at gathering specific
data for the preparation of individualized initial interviews and as a preliminary field study to aid
in sharing meanings. The data gathering procedures we used to study the teachers’ preconceptions
were the questionnaire and the semistructured interview (Fig. 1). The questionnaire used to deter-
mine the teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science and science teaching/learning was the
INPECIP (Inventory of Teachers’ Scientific and Pedagogical Beliefs), designed and tested by Porlán
(1989) at the Universidad de Sevilla. The INPECIP consists of 56 items that can be scored from 1
to 5 according to the degree of agreement or disagreement. The semistructured interview given
previously to each participant consists of more than 200 questions concerning academic background,
the nature of science, the science teacher, the science curriculum, and the teaching and learning of
science.
To study the behavior of the teachers in the classroom, we used their personal planning documents
and classroom observations during their videotaped teaching practices, and stimulated recall inter-
views. We did not include the teaching practice diaries, because, in earlier studies (Mellado &
Bermejo, 1995), we observed that the diaries focused on general questions and not on specific
problems of the teaching and learning of science. Throughout the investigation, the participants
were kept informed about the analyses and results by the investigator and were given the opportunity
to comment on the results.
The four participants, whom we shall call David (physics graduate), Miguel (biology graduate),
Ana (science specialist maestra), and Julio (science specialist maestro), carried out their teaching
practice in the province of Badajoz. Classroom sessions were recorded in the following levels and
subjects: David in “physics and chemistry.” of second BUP (secondary school, 15-year-old boys
and girls); Miguel in “natural sciences” of first BUP (14-year-old boys and girls); Ana in “natural

short
Figure 1. Data gathering and analysis. standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

202 MELLADO

sciences” of sixth EGB (primary school, 11-year-old boys and girls); and Julio in “natural sciences”
of eighth EGB (13-year-old girls). At the time of the recorded session, the four participants had
already been teaching for 2 or 3 weeks in their respective classes. The nonparticipant classroom
observation was made on the subject “Energy and Environment,” which, being interdisciplinary,
allowed each participant to take a specific orientation in accord with their own educational training
and the level of the class. One or two classroom sessions were recorded for each participant,
according to the time into which each had structured the topic. The investigator was present as a
nonparticipating observer. Each lesson was recorded by two video cameras to capture both the
prospective teacher’s and the students’ reactions.
In a qualitative investigation, the process of analyzing the data was related simultaneously to its
collection, reduction, and representation (Miles & Huberman, 1984). In our case, the questionnaire
and the initial interview were analyzed by means of cognitive maps (Mellado, 1996). These are an
extension of the conceptual maps developed by Novak and Gowin (1988) for graphical scientific
representation of concepts and extensively convalidated (Ontoria et al., 1992) and used in research
of science teachers (Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993; Hoz, Tomer, & Tamir, 1990; Markham,
Mintzes, & Jones, 1994; Shymansky et al., 1993). Llinares (1992) gave the maps a different ori-
entation, using them to display prospective teachers’ belief structures on mathematics teaching. The
resulting cognitive maps relate, in a partially hierarchical and idiosyncratic manner, units of infor-
mation in a broader sense than the concepts used in conceptual maps, and permit an unfragmented
overall picture of teachers’ beliefs concerning the teaching of sciences.
To construct a teacher’s cognitive maps from the questionnaire, we classified the responses to
the items by ascribing them to an orientation. Then, in each group of responses, the phrases of the
more general and inclusive items were linked to those more specific, forming a cognitive map of
beliefs in a technique that is analogous to that used by Novak and Gowin (1988) for concepts.
To construct a map from the interview, each phrase implying a unit of information was coded,
followed by classification into five categories: (a) academic history; (b) the science teacher (the
profession, professional knowledge, and teacher education); (c) the nature of scientific knowledge
and the school science curriculum; (d) the learning of science; and (e) the teaching of science
(planning, organization of the class, classroom instructional tasks, resources, and assessment). Then
the information units of each category or subcategory were related graphically, forming the cog-
nitive map. For example, David’s response to question 163 was classified into 11 information units:

D-163: What importance do you give to explanation by the teacher?

David’s response: [Explanation is unavoidable because the student has to be told things that he does
not know].1 [It is the teacher who knows these things and has to transmit them.]2 Therefore [the
exposition of content is unavoidable],3 but I think that [there are teachers— and this you see in
secondary centers— who come in: “topic such-and-such, blah, blah, blah . . . ,” and the student
writing it all down. And that’s not the thing. It’s about giving him the concepts he wants]4 . . . [not
dictating to him, but explaining the concept to him, turning it this way and that, explaining it in
various ways, looking for examples for him].5 Because also it would be very easy to come in and
say: “Topic such-and-such. Principles of dynamics. Dynamics: this is the part of physics which blah,
blah, blah,” and the student copying it down. It would be the easiest thing in the world, but to me
it is of no use, because [it is not a matter of me explaining it but of them understanding it].6 [I have
somehow to seek that the student has understood it].7 Then [you explain, and if they do not under-
stand, then go back again, and find another way to explain it].8 [Even though you have to give precise
wording at times, because there are times when you have to consider the language that is dealt with
in physics, and you have to give them the things with this language so that they become familiarized
with it, above all when they are going to do sciences].9 But also [it is a good idea to explain it in
your own way, say it with words that the student uses].10 It is fine for you to say that when a force
is exerted on a body, the body acquires a proportional acceleration, but also you should explain it short
in your own fashion. [The explanation would not be so much reading off a roll, but giving them the standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

PRESERVICE TEACHERS AND THEIR CONCEPTIONS 203

two or three concepts which they have to have and trying to show them from different angles using
their vocabulary].11

Figure 2 shows the cognitive map for David concerning explanation, drawn up on the basis of
his responses in the initial interview. The numbering corresponds to the coding of the interview
questions. The cognitive map shown is one of the 32 that we prepared for David’s preconceptions
(Mellado, 1995).
For the analysis of the classroom teaching behavior, several simultaneous viewings were made
of the recordings of the teacher and of the students, writing down the most outstanding aspects and

short
Figure 2. David’s cognitive map of teacher explanation, drawn up from the initial interview. standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

204 MELLADO

drafting a script for the final montage with the two tapes. Later, each lesson was transcribed, encoded
into units of information, and represented graphically and sequentially. In this analysis, the personal
documents contributed by each teacher in the planning and interactive teaching were also taken
into account.
Each participant was subsequently given an audio-recorded stimulated recall interview, in which
the participating prospective teachers analyzed together with the investigator their own behavior in
the classroom. The stimulated recall interview was considered by Calderhead (1988) as an appro-
priate methodology for interactive studies. Finally, each participant analyzed their respective pro-
visional final report as drafted by the investigator, and the results were discussed.

RESULTS
Preconceptions
The four teachers recall that, when they were students, most primary and secondary science
teachers followed a sequence of traditional transmissive instruction: explain: go through exercises
of applications; and ask questions. The main and, in most cases, only resource that teachers used
was the textbook.
All the teachers indicated that their ideas about the science teacher or about the teaching and
learning of science were formed principally from their own experiences as students, from what they
themselves had lived, and that these ideas had been changed very little by their university education.
All four believe that the most important thing for being a teacher, and hence to know how to teach,
is that the teacher likes teaching. For them, teachers learn by themselves to teach, taking as referents
their experience as students and, above all, their own practical experience in teaching. These results
coincide with those of the aforementioned previous work on science teachers’ opinions.
Except in their practice teaching, David, Miguel, and Julio consider that their university education
has had little influence on their learning to teach. This agrees with the results of Martı́nez, Garcı́a,
and Mondelo (1993) for science teachers. Ana, however, believes that her teacher education course
has helped her to learn to teach, but as something personal because she believes that one cannot be
taught to teach.
Metaphors serve to express their roles as teachers. For David, students see the teacher as a father,
a sage, or a judge; on the other hand, he sees himself as the leader of the teaching-how-to-learn
group. For Julio, the teacher is a father or elder brother for primary students and a friend or comrade
for secondary students. Miguel and Ana see the teacher as guide and orientor.
The four teachers reflect an apparent constructivist orientation toward learning, as active con-
struction based on the students’ existing ideas, relating new knowledge with what the student already
knows. Nevertheless, they give quite different epistemological value to the students’ ideas. Although
David and Julio consider it important to discover what the students’ ideas are, they do not ascribe
them any epistemological value, but regard them as simple mistakes that the teacher has to eliminate
when they do not coincide with those of science. Miguel, however, regards students’ ideas as true
alternative theories with the same epistemological value as those of the school curriculum. Con-
sequently, the teacher is not to change these theories, but rather to help the students reinforce them
and justify them themselves. For Ana, it is the school curriculum that has epistemological value,
and not students’ ideas. She nonetheless gives a great deal of importance to the children’s ideas
due to the fact that they are originated by the children themselves, who, for her, are the protagonists
in the classroom. Even when Ana considers that intuitive ideas are erroneous, she would not try to
tear them down because for her the acquisition of knowledge is wholly subordinate to the integral
education of the children.
In relation to conceptions about the teaching of science, we refer to orientations or dominant short
tendencies for each participant, because there exist contradictions in some aspects and we agree standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

PRESERVICE TEACHERS AND THEIR CONCEPTIONS 205

with Fernández and Elortegui (1996) in that, while establishing teaching typologies or models may
suggest trends, the usual case with a teacher is not to find the pure versions but a mixture of features
characteristic of various typologies.
According to the questionnaire, the four teachers would plan by behavioral goals, and all show
agreement with Item No. 20 of the INPECIP questionnaire:

Objectives, organized and formed into a hierarchy according to their degree of difficulty, are to be
the essential instrument directing educational practice.

However, in the interview, they reject planning by goals and defend planning by content, which
should take the children’s existing knowledge into account. Ana and Julio would also plan activities,
and David and Ana would include attitude development. The two maestros (Ana and Julio) indicate
that they would also plan the form of presenting the class, whereas the two science graduates indicate
that they would keep this aspect in mind, but would not plan it explicitly. Discrepancy between the
answers in the questionnaire and in the interview were detected in several aspects. Other studies
(Gunstone et al., 1993; Lederman & O’Malley, 1990) have already pointed to the limitations of the
questionnaire in determining teachers’ conceptions, and advocate more the use of interviews and
classroom observations.
All four teachers, in coherence with their intention to start from the basis of the students’ own
ideas, would commence the teaching sequence by attempting to discover what these preexisting
ideas are by way of questions, examples, anecdotes, etc., which would also serve the purpose of
motivation (Fig. 3). David would make the teacher’s explanations the axis of teaching, although he
would also consider a strategy of simple conceptual change based on the contradiction between the
students’ ideas and those of the curriculum. The students would make the conceptual change au-
tomatically by way of dialogue or by teacher explanation. Miguel believes that students should
debate their ideas in class to reinforce and justify their thoughts, and the teacher’s explanation is
not for the purpose of rebuttal, but rather to contribute a further element to the debate. Ana defends

short
Figure 3. Preconceptions about the instructional sequence. standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

206 MELLADO

a strategy of guided conceptual change in which the teacher should guide and orient the students
by way of dialogue, activities, and explanation, endeavoring to let it be the students’ themselves
who make the conceptual change. Julio agrees with David in that the children’s erroneous ideas
have to be eliminated by contradiction or by explanation on the part of the teacher.
The prospective teachers’ conceptions of science teaching are closely related to their conceptions
of science learning.

Teaching Behavior in the Classroom

Analysis of the personal documents showed that only Ana makes a complete and detailed plan
(Fig. 4). The other three plan by content, and do not make an explicit plan of the form in which to
give the class, although they say they do keep it in mind.
Nonetheless, in the four cases, there exists an implicit personal goal which conditions the whole
of their performance. It is not referred to in the planning, but is brought out in the final stimulated
recall interview. For David, the importance of the theme (“Energy and the Environment”) lies not
in the content but in the social implications and the generation of attitudes in the students. Miguel
aims for the students to learn the basic content on energy and the environment. For Ana, the
importance is that the children understand that energy has positive and negative aspects, and that
they gain positive attitudes toward the environment and participate and interrelate in class. Julio’s
goal is that the girls in his class become aware of the importance of the conservation of the envi-
ronment and that they participate in class.
We agree with the studies showing that teachers do not plan by behavioral objectives, but rather
by content and activities (Lederman & Gess-Newsome, 1991; Shavelson & Stern, 1981; Wallace
& Louden, 1992), and with those of Duschl and Wright (1989) and Brickhouse (1993), which
indicate that science teachers have certain personal goals or objectives that are distinct and at a
different level from the curricular objectives and that condition their performance.

short
Figure 4. Planning by the four teachers. standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

PRESERVICE TEACHERS AND THEIR CONCEPTIONS 207

Ana’s real planning corresponds in great part to her preconceptions. Although to a lesser degree,
in David, one also observes fair coherence between his real planning and his preconceptions. By
contrast, Miguel’s planning does not correspond with his preconceptions because he just tries to
transmit content without taking into account whether it is suited to the students’ ideas and
knowledge. Julio hardly plans explicitly at all: his real planning is limited to a brief and disorderly
script.
David, Ana, and Julio give the theme an orientation of “Science, Technology, and Society,”
aiming for the development of student attitudes; Miguel, on the other hand, centers on the relation-
ship between energy and living beings. The pedagogical treatment of the concept of energy is
descriptive in the case of Miguel, but begins from the definition of mechanical work for the other
three. From the pedagogical point of view, it is more suitable to commence the theme of energy in
a descriptive manner (Varela et al., 1993).
In their preconceptions, although the four teachers indicated that they would start out on the basis
of the students’ intuitive ideas, the significance of these ideas was different: mistakes that have to
be eliminated if they do not coincide with the ideas of science for David and Julio; true alternative
theories for Miguel; ideas with no epistemological, value but with pedagogical value for Ana. In
the classroom, none of the teachers makes a systematic individualized diagnosis of the children’s
ideas; therefore it is difficult to start from these ideas and monitor the learning individually. As
Neale, Smith, and Wier (1987) have indicated, novice teachers think more in overall terms about
the class as a group than as differentiated into individuals. Their initial questions fulfill more a
mission of motivation and encouragement to participate than being a step in the constructivist
strategy.
David begins by asking the students questions, and, instead of rebutting their alternative ideas,
he makes further comments on them and asks additional questions guided by a strategy of rein-
forcing those ideas he considers important. Following this phase, there is an extensive treatment of
the concept involved with the aid of the blackboard, press cuttings, and notes drawn up by the
teacher, which he gives out at the beginning to all the students. In the classroom, David uses dialogue
and, above all, teacher explanation in a basically transmissive strategy, although with student par-
ticipation. He does not employ his preconceived contradiction strategy, so his behavior may be
described as partially coherent with his preconceptions.
In Miguel’s classroom, the students are regarded as mere passive receptors of external knowledge,
contrary to his preconception of science teaching. He follows a strategy of transmission of external
knowledge, with little student participation, based exclusively on teacher explanations supplemented
by use of the blackboard and slides packed with information. His rhythm is very fast, with scarcely
any pauses, so that assimilation is difficult for the students (Tobin et al., 1994). For him, completion
of all the programmed content is more important than the students’ learning. Miguel’s classroom
behavior is completely contrary to his preconceptions, which were to reinforce the students’ alter-
native ideas through debate and not by means of teacher explanation.
In her class, Ana gives pedagogical value to the students’ ideas, although not epistemological
value. She begins by asking the students questions and, on the basis of the ideas revealed in their
answers, puts new, guiding questions to them that reinforce these ideas. Ana’s brief explanations
are for clarification and reinforcement and to relate the new ideas to ones that the children already
had. She follows a classroom strategy of guided conceptual change through dialogue, activities,
and teacher explanation. Ana’s students were the only ones who were arranged six to a table and
carried out activities in groups. Ana’s classroom behavior is quite coherent with her preconceptions
of the teaching and learning of science.
Julio begins by asking his students questions, but his questions are of a low cognitive level and
the girls’ answers contribute little information. He follows a basically transmissive classroom strat-
egy, although with student participation. He does not use the contradiction strategy noted in his short
preconceptions, and the strategy behind his questions to the students is one of motivation and standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

208 MELLADO

Figure 5. Classroom instructional sequencing of the four prospective teachers.

participation. His behavior is only partially compatible with his preconceptions. Figure 5 shows
schematically the instructional sequencing of the four prospective teachers in the study.
With respect to the relationship between metaphor and classroom behavior, this is quite marked
for David, Ana, and Julio, but there is a total contradiction between Miguel’s guide and orientor
metaphor and his classroom behavior.
The classroom behavior of the four teachers is closer to traditional models of teaching and
learning of science than to their preconceptions. Ana’s behavior is the most coherent with her
preconceptions, followed by David’s and Julio’s, which have a partial correspondence. By contrast,
there is a sharp contradiction in Miguel’s case. Thus, at least for prospective teachers, we can
establish no clear relationship between the teachers’ conceptions about the teaching and learning
of science and their classroom practice. Other factors that may have a determining influence will
have to be considered.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION

One observes in the maestros greater coherence between their preconceptions and classroom
teaching behavior. It must be noted, however, that all four prospective teachers improvised to a
great extent in how to give the class, and that even the maestros used little of their knowledge of
the didactics of science. For the graduates, this may well have been the natural consequence of
their having received very little educational training. The maestros, however, had received such
training, but they too were incapable of transferring much of the knowledge they had acquired of
science teaching into the classroom. We believe that this situation exists because the knowledge
the maestros have received concerning science education is theoretical, impersonal, and static, with
little relationship to the practical knowledge of the classroom required when giving the science
lesson.
During their initial stage of teacher education, science teachers are required to learn a body of
professional knowledge that includes knowledge of science, psychopedagogy, and theory of science short
teaching methods. We call this type of knowledge static because it is general for all prospective standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

PRESERVICE TEACHERS AND THEIR CONCEPTIONS 209

Figure 6. Components of the science teacher’s professional knowledge.

teachers and independent of the learner (in his/her facet of learning to teach science) and can be
found in written or audiovisual materials without any need for direct personal involvement. Aca-
demic, or static, knowledge is necessary for the science teacher, and the Teacher Education Center
must encourage stimulating and exemplary methodologies in learning academic knowledge, but
this knowledge is insufficient for the prospective teacher to be able to learn how to teach science
or to change their beliefs or teaching practices.
Also, when the prospective science teachers begin their university course, they already have
certain knowledge, values, beliefs, and attitudes about science, the teaching and learning of science,
the teacher, etc., which are inherited from their earlier school years; therefore, in the initial education
of both primary and secondary teachers, it is also necessary to encourage reflection on their own
conceptions about science and the teaching and learning of science as a first step toward their
generating better-suited conceptions and practices in themselves. Nevertheless, for prospective
teachers, knowledge of their conceptions about science or the teaching and learning of science does
not automatically guarantee the transfer into classroom practice if the teachers have not acquired
practical schemes of action in the classroom consistent with their beliefs.
In our opinion, there exists a professional component in science teachers’ knowledge that we
consider “dynamic” (Fig. 6) and that has a status that is different from content knowledge, general
psychopedagogical knowledge, or static knowledge of science teaching methods, even though it
starts from these three kinds of knowledge and is related to them (Blanco, Mellado, & Ruiz, 1995;
Mellado, in press). Dynamic knowledge is personal and practical (Pro Bueno, 1995), acquired from
personal teaching experiences in specific contexts (Tamir, 1991), and evolves by means of a process
of reflection – action between assimilated theory and the practical teaching of specific material. This
process allows teachers to reconsider their static knowledge and conceptions, and to modify or
reaffirm them. It is also, as noted by Wilson, Shulman, and Richert (1987) for pedagogical content
knowledge, a form of pedagogical action and reasoning. short
The dynamic component is the most specifically professional and distinguishes expert science standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

210 MELLADO

teachers from novices. The expert teacher has developed this dynamic component over years of
teaching experience, and integrates the different components of knowledge into a single structure.
We agree with Gess-Newsome and Lederman (1993), Hauslein, Good, and Cummins (1992), and
Lederman, Gess-Newsome, and Latz (1994), when they consider this single structure to be peda-
gogical content knowledge (PCK).
During their teaching practice, preservice teachers can generate their own practical schemes of
action in science teaching. Reflection during and on the practice of teaching (Schön, 1983) allows
prospective teachers to analyze, through classroom observations, their classroom behavior and con-
trast it with their preconceptions (Louden & Wallace, 1994) in a continuous feedback process. One
also permits them, through case studies in the university center, to contrast their teaching behavior
with that of expert science teachers and with that of their companions. This reflection has to be
done together with their university supervisor, cooperating teacher, and classmates. They have to
redefine their teaching strategies, contrast them with their previous beliefs, and again put them into
practice. In this process, the support they receive from their university supervisors and companions
is fundamental, because their apprenticeship includes social and personal development as well as
professional development (Bell & Gilbert, 1994). Insofar as they take these three aspects into
account, prospective teachers’ practice will be consistent with their beliefs, and both will be capable
of change. Teachers’ beliefs can, as one of many variables, influence curriculum implementation,
but the curriculum also affects teachers’ beliefs (Tobin et al., 1994).
Science teaching research has been dominated by the constructivist paradigm since the 1980s,
which has led to considerable progress in many aspects of the teaching and learning of science.
Matthews (1994) criticized the epistemological foundation of constructivism with its marked em-
piricist aspects in the individual construction of scientific knowledge in the learning of science, and
its neglect of social aspects, which, in the history of science, has meant the construction of theo-
retical concepts not coincident with personal experiences. The situation is different, however, with
respect to the way in which teachers learn to teach science, because teachers have no universal
referents available in science teaching equivalent to scientific theories. Although prospective teach-
ers are subject to a process of socialization in the profession, they learn to teach in a personal
manner and elaborate their own pedagogical content knowledge. In this sense, the constructivist
paradigm, as referent and not as a teaching method (Tobin et al., 1994), would be more applicable
to how teachers learn to teach science than to how students learn scientific concepts.
The centers that impart initial teacher education cannot limit themselves to transmitting static
propositional knowledge. They must introduce more knowledge of procedures and strategic
schemes of action — the dynamic component — so that prospective teachers can assimilate it as
something personal, in a practical teaching context, from reflection on their own conceptions and
practice (Blanco, 1994; Kagan, 1992). Lecture courses on science teaching methods have a major
role to play in this approach (Furio, Gil, Pessoa, & Salcedo, 1992; Mellado, Blanco, & Ruiz, in
press). Finally, if prospective teachers take the teachers they had during their school years as positive
or negative referents for science teaching, it is fundamental that the methodology used in the initial
teacher education centers should itself be consistent with the theoretical models of which the teacher
educators are proponents, otherwise, the prospective teachers will learn more from what they see
done in the classroom than from what they are told ought to be done (Stoddart, Connell, Stoffett,
& Peek, 1993; Tobin et al., 1994; Trumbull & Kerr, 1993).

REFERENCES
Abell, S. K. & Roth, M. (1995). Reflections on a fifth-grade life science lesson: Making sense of children’s
understanding of scientific models. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 59–74.
Aguirre, M., & Haggerty, S. (1995). Preservice teachers’ meanings of learning. International Journal of short
Science Education, 17, 119– 131. standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

PRESERVICE TEACHERS AND THEIR CONCEPTIONS 211

Aguirre, M., Haggerty, S., & Linder, C. (1990). Student-teachers’ conceptions of science teaching and learning:
A case study in preservice science education. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 381–390.
Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research in science teacher education. In D. L. Gabel (ed.),
Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3–44) New York: Macmillan.
Appleton, K., & Asoko, H. (1996). A case study of a teacher’s progress toward using a constructivist view of
learning to inform teaching in elementary science. Science Education, 80, 165–180.
Ballenilla, F. (1992). El cambio de modelo didáctico, un proceso complejo. Investigación en la Escuela, 18,
43– 68.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1994). Teacher development as professional, personal and social development. Teaching
& Teacher Education, 10, 483– 497.
Blanco, L. (1994). Initial training and teaching practice. Methodological issues in learning to teach. Paper
presented at the First Italian– Spanish Research Symposium on Mathematics. Departamento di Matemática,
Universitá di Modena, Italy.
Blanco, L., Mellado, V., & Ruiz, C. (1995). Conocimiento didáctico del contenido en ciencias experimentales
y matemáticas y formación del profesorado. Revista de Educación, 307, 427–446.
Bol, L., & Strage, A. (1996). The contradiction between teachers’ instructional goals and their assessment
practices in high school biology courses. Science Education, 80, 145–163.
Brickhouse, N. W. (1993). What counts as successful instruction? An account of a teacher’s self-assessment.
Science Education, 77, 115– 129.
Briscoe, C. (1991). The dynamic interactions among beliefs, role metaphors, and teaching practices: A case
study of teacher change. Science Education, 75, 185–199.
Briscoe, C. (1993). Using cognitive referents in making sense of teaching: A chemistry teacher’s struggle to
change assessment practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 971–987.
Calderhead, J. (1988). Conceptualización e investigación del conocimiento profesional de los profesores. In
L. M. Villar (Ed.), Conocimiento, creencias y teorı́as de los profesores (pp. 21–37). Alcoy, Spain: Marfil.
Cornett, J. W., Yeotis, C., & Terwilliger, L. (1990). Teacher personal practical theories and their influence
upon teacher curricular and instructional actions. A case study of a secondary science teacher. Science
Education, 74, 517– 529.
Cronin-Jones, L. L. (1991). Science teaching beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: Two
case studies. Journal of Research in Science Reaching, 38, 235–250.
Dillon, D. R., O’Brien, D. G., Moje, E. B., & Stewart, R. A. (1994). Literacy learning in secondary school
science classrooms: A cross-case analysis of three qualitative studies. Journal of Research in Science Teach-
ing. 31, 345– 362.
Duffe, L., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher practical knowledge.
Science Education, 76, 493– 506.
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.
Estebaranz, A. (1992). El análisis de datos cualitativos a través de tablas de contingencia. In C. Marcelo (Ed.).
La Investigación sobre la Formación del Profesorado. Métodos de Investigación y Análisis de Datos (pp.
147– 170). Buenos Aires: Cincel.
Fernández, J., & Elortegui, N. (1996). Qué piensan los profesores acerca de cómo se debe enseñar. Enseñanza
de las Ciencias, 14, 331– 342.
Freire, A. M., & Chorão, M. F. (1992). Elements for a typology of teachers’ conceptions of physics teaching.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 497–507.
Furio, C., Gil, D., Pessoa, A. M., & Salcedo, L. E. (1992). La formación inicial del profesorado de educación
secundaria: Papel de las didácticas especiales. Investigación en la Escuela, 16, 7–21.
Gallard, A. J., & Gallagher, J. J. (1994). A case study of a national science curriculum and teacher conflict.
International Journal of Science Education, 16, 639–648.
Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1993). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge structures as a function
of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Education, 77, 25–45.
Gil, D. (1993). Contribución de la historia y de la filosofı́a de las ciencias al desarrollo de un modelo de
enseñanza/aprendizaje. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 11, 197–212.
Goetz, J. P., & Lecompte, M. D. (1988). Etnografı́a y diseño cualitativo en investigación cualitativa. Madrid: short
Morata. standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

212 MELLADO

Grant, G. E. (1991). The sources of structural metaphors in teacher knowledge: Three cases. Paper presented
at the Fifth Conference of the International Study Association on Teacher Thinking, University of Surrey,
Guilford, UK.
Guba, E. G. (1983). Criterios de credibilidad en la investigación naturalista. In J. Gimeno & A. Pérez (Eds.),
La enseñanza: su teorı́a y su práctica (pp. 148–165). Madrid: Akal.
Gunstone, R. F., Slattery, M., Bair, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (1993). A case study exploration of development
in preservice science teachers. Science Education, 77, 47–73.
Gustafson, B. J., & Rowell, P. M. (1995). Elementary preservice teacher: Constructing conceptions about
learning science, teaching science and the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education,
17, 585– 605.
Gurney, B. F. (1990). Tugboats and tennis games: Preconceptions of teaching and learning through metaphor.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta,
GA.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 33, 47– 63.
Hauslein, P. L., Good, R. G., & Cummins, C. L. (1992). Biology content cognitive structure: From science
student to science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 939–964.
Hewson, P. W. (1993). Constructivism and reflective practice in science teacher education. In L. Montero &
J. M. Vez (Eds.), Las didácticas especifı́cas en la formación del profesorado (pp. 259–275). Santiago,
Spain: Tórculo.
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1989). Analysis and use of a task for identifying conceptions of teaching
science. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 191–209.
Hoz, R., Tomer, Y., & Tamir, P. (1990). The relations between disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge and
the length of teaching experience of biology and geography teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teach-
ing, 27, 973– 985.
Huibregtse, I., Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (1994). Physics teachers’ conceptions of learning, teaching and
professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 539–561.
Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational
Research, 62, 129– 170.
Kemmis, S. (1987). Critical reflection. In Widden & Andrews (Eds.), Staff development for school improvement
(pp. 73– 90). New York: Falmer Press.
Koballa, T. R., & Crawley, F. E. (1985). The influence of attitude on science teaching and learning. School
Science and Mathematics, 85, 222– 232.
Koulaidis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1995). Science teachers’ philosophical assumptions: How well do we understand
them? International Journal of Science Education, 17, 273–283.
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., & Gess-Newsome, J. (1991). Metamorphosis, adaptation, or evolution? Preservice science
teachers’ concerns and perceptions of teaching and planning. Science Education, 75, 443–456.
Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M. S. (1994). The nature and development of preservice science
teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 129–
146.
Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development,
use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225–239.
Lee, O, & Porter, A. C. (1993). A teacher’s bounded rationality in middle school science. Teaching & Teacher
Education, 9, 397– 409.
Llinares, S. (1992). Los mapas cognitivos como instrumento para investigar las creencias epistemológicas de
los profesores. In C. Marcelo (Ed.), La investigación sobre la formación del profesorado. Métodos de
investigación y análisis de datos (pp. 57– 75). Argentina: Cincel.
López, J. I. (1994). El pensamiento del profesor sobre el conocimiento de los alumnos. Investigación en la
Escuela, 22, 58– 66.
Lorsbach, A. W., Tobin, K., Briscoc, C., & Lamaster, S. U. (1992). An interpretation of assessment methods
in middle school science. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 305–317.
Louden, W., & Wallace, J. (1994). Knowing and teaching science: The constructivist paradox. International short
Journal of Science Education, 16, 649– 657. standard
long
SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

PRESERVICE TEACHERS AND THEIR CONCEPTIONS 213

Marcelo, C. (1987). El pensamiento del profesor. Barcelona: CEAC.

Marcelo, C. (1992). Dar sentido a los datos: combinación de perspectivas cualitativa y cuantitativa en el análisis
de las entrevistas. In C. Marcelo (Ed.), La investigación sobre la formación del profesorado. Métodos de
investigación y análisis de datos (pp. 13– 49). Argentina: Cincel.
Marcelo, C. (1993). Cómo conocen los profesores la materia que enseñan. Algunas contribuciones de la
investigación sobre conocimiento didáctico del contenido. In L. Montero & J. M. Vez (Eds.), Las didácticas
especı́ficas en la formación del profesorado (pp. 151–186). Santiago, Spain: Tórculo.
Marcelo, C. (1995). Investigación sobre Formación del Profesorado: El Conocimiento sobre aprender a En-
señar. In V. Mellado & L. Blanco (Eds.), La Formación del Profesorado de Ciencias y Matemáticas en
España y Portugal (pp. 3– 35). Badajoz, Spain: Diputación Provincial.
Markham, K. M., Mintzes, J. J., & Jones, M. G. (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation tool:
Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 91–101.
Martı́nez, C., Garcı́a, S., & Mondelo, M. (1993). Las ideas de los profesores de ciencias sobre la formación
docente. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 11, 26–32.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Vino viejo en botellas nuevas: Un problema con la epistemologı́a constructivista.
Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 12, 79– 88.
McRobbie, C., & Tobin, K. (1995). Restraits to reform: The congruence of teacher and student actions in a
chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 373–385.
Mellado, V. (1995). Análisis del conocimiento didáctico del contenido, en profesores de ciencias de primaria
y secundaria en formación inicial. Universidad de Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain.
Mellado, V. (1996). Concepciones y prácticas de aula de profesores de ciencias en formación inicial de primaria
y secundaria. Enseñanza de los Ciencias, 14, 289–302.
Mellado, V. (1997). Preservice teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of the nature of science.
Science & Education, 6, 331– 354.
Mellado, V. (in press). Preservice teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of the nature of science.
In B. J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Mellado, V., & Bermejo, M. L. (1995). Los diarios de prácticas en la formación de maestros. Revista Inter-
universitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 23, 121–136.
Mellado, V., Blanco, L. J., & Ruiz, C. (in press). A Framework for Learning to Teach Science in Initial
Primary Teacher Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared
craft. Educational Researcher, 13, 20– 30.
Mitchener, C. P., & Anderson, R. D. (1989). Teachers’ perspective: Developing an implementing an STS
curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 351–369.
Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers’ beliefs in research on teacher thinking and decision making, and an
alternative methodology. Instructional Science, 11, 201–225.
Neale, D. C., Smith, D. C., & Wier, E. A. (1987). Teacher thinking in elementary science instruction. Wash-
ington, DC: paper presented at AERA.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1988). Aprender a aprender. Barcelona: Martı́nez Roca.
Ontoria, A., Ballesteros, A., Cuevas, C., Giraldo, L., Martı́n, I., Molina, A., Rodrı́guez, A., & Vélez, U. (1992).
Mapas conceptuales. Una técnica para aprender. Madrid: Narcea.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research, 62, 307– 332.
Pavón, F. (1996). Conocimiento profesional de los profesores de fı́sica y quı́mica de bachillerato principiantes
y con experiencia, en la provincia de Cádiz. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Sevilla, Spain.
Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of 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. (1989). Teorı́a del conocimiento, teorı́a de la enseñanza y desarrollo profesional. Las concepciones
epistemológicas de los profesores. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Sevilla, Spain.
Powell, R. (1994). From field science to classroom science: A case study constrained emergence in a second-
career science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 273–291.
Pro Bueno, A. (1995). ¿Formación de profesores de secundaria vs. profesor tutor de pácticas de secundaria?
In L. Blanco & V. Mellado (Eds.), La formación del profesorado de ciencias y matemáticas en España y short
Portugal (pp. 293– 303), Madrid: Badajoz. standard
long
 SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

214 MELLADO

Ritchie, S. M. (1994). Metaphor as a tool for constructivist science teaching. International Journal of Science
Education, 16, 293– 303.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Shavelson, R., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers pedagogical thought, judgements, decisions, and
behaviors. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455–498.
Shaw, E. L., & Cronin-Jones, L. (1989). Influence of methods instructions on preservice elementary and
secondary science teachers’ beliefs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid–South Educational
Research Association. Little Rock, AR.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective.
In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Third handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan.
Shulman, L. S. (1993). Renewing the pedagogy of teacher education: The impact of subject-specific concep-
tions of teaching. In L. Montero & J. M. Vez (Eds.), Las didácticas especı́ficas en la formación del pro-
fesorado (pp. 53– 69). Santiago, Spain: Tórculo.
Shymansky, J. A. et al. (1993). A study of changes in middle school teachers’ understanding of selected ideas
in science as a function of an in-service program focusing on student preconceptions. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 30, 737– 755.
Smith, D. C., & Neale, D. C. (1991). The construction of subject-matter knowledge in primary science teaching.
Advances in Research on Teaching, 2, 187– 243.
Spear, M. G. (1984). Sex bias in science teachers’ ratings of work and pupil characteristics. European Journal
of Science Education, 6, 369– 377.
Stodolsky, S. S. (1991). La importancia del contenido en la enseñanza. Actividades en las clases de mate-
máticas y ciencias sociales. Madrid: Mec-Paidos.
Stoddart, T., Connell, M., Stoffett, R., & Peck, D. (1993). Reconstructing elementary teacher cantidates’
understanding of math and science content. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 229–241.
Tamir, P. (1991). Professional and personal knowledge of a teachers and teacher educators. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 7, 263– 268.
Tobin, K. (1990). Changing metaphors and beliefs: A master switch for teaching? Theory into Practice, 29,
122– 127.
Tobin, K. (1993). Referents for making sense of science teaching. International Journal of Science Education,
15, 241– 254.
Tobin, K., & Espinet, M. (1989). Impediments to change: Applications of coaching in high school science
teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 105–120.
Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1989). Barriers to higher-level cognitive learning in high school science. Science
Education, 73, 659– 582.
Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science.
In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45–93). New York:
Macmillan.
Trumbull, D. J., & Kerr, P. (1993). University researchers’ inchoate critiques of science teaching: Implication
for the content of preservice science teacher education. Science Education, 77, 301–317.
Varela, P., Favieres, A., Manrique, M. J., & Pérez, M. C. (1993). Iniciación a la fı́sica en el marco de la
teorı́a constructivista. Madrid: CIDE.
Walker, R. (1983). La realización de estudios de casos en educación. Etica, teorı́a y procedimientos. In W. D.
Dockrell and D. Hamilton (Eds.), Nuevas reflexiones sobre la investigación educativa (pp. 42–82). Madrid:
Narcea.
Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (1992). Science teaching and teachers’ knowledge: Prospect for reform of elemen-
tary classrooms. Science Education, 76, 507– 521.
Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, E. R. (1987). “150 different ways” of knowing: Representations of
knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Woods, P. (1987). La escuela por dentro. La etnografı́a en la investigación educativa. Madrid: Paidos-Mec.
Young, B. Y., & Kellogg, T. (1993). Science attitudes and preparation of preservice elementary teachers.
Science Education, 77, 279– 291.

short
standard
long

View publication stats