Teachers’ Scientific

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

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

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

ABSTRACT: Research about the relationship between teachers’ scientific epistemological

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

Inc. Sci Ed 91:222 – 243, 2007

INTRODUCTION
Many contemporary science educators have asserted that developing adequate under-
standings about the nature of science is one of the important goals for science education
Correspondence to: Chin-Chung Tsai; e-mail: 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

likely to consider students’ alternative conceptions, have a richer repertoire of instructional

strategies, use more effective ways for promoting student conceptual change, and report
more frequent use of effective teaching strategies than did teachers with positivist-oriented
SEVs. In Hashweh’s terminology, there is a positive relationship between “knowledge
constructivist” and “learning constructivist” orientations (p. 49).
However, some studies have concluded that teachers’ SEVs are not clearly related to their
instruction or teaching. For example, through naturalistic observations of 18 senior-high-
school biology teachers, Lederman and Zeidler (1987) found that only one of the 44 teaching
behavior variables was significantly correlated with their SEVs, while this variable was still
not logically related to a teacher’s conception of the nature of science. Some variables have
been found to constrain the coherence between teachers’ SEVs and instructional practices,
such as social factors (Duschl & Wright, 1989), situational constraints (Benson, 1989), and
teachers’ level of experience, intentions, and perceptions of students (Lederman, 1999).
Therefore, the research work done by Mellado (1997) and Lederman (1999) has suggested
that the correspondences between teachers’ SEVs and actual teaching practice were more
complicated than originally assumed.
The coherence between teachers’ SEVs (or philosophical views toward science) and their
teaching orientations received some challenges in terms of some research findings. The
uncertainty of this coherence in an actual classroom setting may stem from the complex
contexts of school learning environments (Tsai, 2006). However, few can dispute the
importance of this relationship (coherence) in providing more insights to improve science
education, and a better understanding about SEVs can foster science instruction. Matthews
(1989) made this concern concrete:

Philosophy enhances classroom teaching. A simple lesson on mechanics can be transformed

if questions are raised about the relationship of theories to evidence, about what is required
of a good experiment, or why for example we define acceleration as change of velocity
with respect to time rather than distance. (p. 11)

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

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

Gender Male Female Female Male
Major (Bachelor) Physics Chemistry Physics Chemistry
(Master, if having) Physics – Engineering Science education
Teaching 10 years 5 years 8 years 9 years
experience

Data Sources and Analyses

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

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

positivist/constructivist dichotomy, and it allowed all possibilities (or variations) between

these two positions toward a specific SEV dimension. Therefore, each teacher’s interview
responses on each SEV dimension were analyzed by “axial coding” above for representing
his or her SEVs, and when coding the data, two levels of interpretations were involved,
including (a) the actual responses expressed by the interviewee and (b) the coder’s con-
ceptualizations of these (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 126). The whole analysis and coding
process was validated by two researchers.
In addition, the teachers were interviewed individually about their beliefs for science
teaching and learning. The interview questions addressed their ideas about the purpose
of learning and the role of teachers and students. Sample interview questions included:
What do you think about the purpose of science learning? What do you think about
your responsibilities as a teacher? What do you think about the role of learner in science
classroom? How do you teach science? Describe a classroom situation in which you think
learning really occurs.
Similarly, the above interviews were audiotaped, and were later transcribed by an as-
sistant. The researcher (author) marked some significant sentences that represented the
teacher’s beliefs about science teaching and learning. Then, the researcher tried to un-
dertake cross-case or cross-interview analyses, and teachers’ beliefs were summarized
around some major themes, such as the purpose of learning, the role of teacher, or the
role of learner. Again, one independent researcher, who actually read the whole interview
transcripts, validated the data.

Classroom Observations. To gather data about classroom practice, each participant

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

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

1. “Theory-laden exploration” subscale: Scientists’ research activities will be affected

by their existing theories (constructivist-oriented view).
2. “Invented and creative reality of science” subscale: The development of scientific
theories requires scientists’ imagination and creativity (constructivist-oriented view).
3. “Changing and tentative feature of science knowledge” subscale: Contemporary sci-
entific knowledge provides tentative explanations for natural phenomena
(constructivist-oriented view).
4. “Social negotiation in community” subscale: Through the discussion and debates
among scientists, the scientific theories become better (constructivist-oriented view).
5. “Cultural impacts” subscale: Scientific knowledge is the same in various cultures
(positivist-oriented view, scored in reverse).

Each of these subscales contained three to six items (Tsai & Liu, 2005). All of the 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.

Questionnaire Assessing Students’ Perceptions Toward Science Learning Environ-

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

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

4. Student-centeredness subscale: Measuring perceptions of the extent to which there

are opportunities for students to experience learning as a process of creating and
resolving personally problematic experiences. Sample item: In this class, the teacher
sets my learning activities (stated in a reverse manner).

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

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

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

 TEACHERS’ SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWS 231

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.

The Coherence Between Teachers’ SEVs and Teaching Beliefs

This study conducted in-depth interviews with each of the case teachers for their beliefs
about science teaching and learning. Their interview responses are summarized in Table 2.
Andy and Betty perceived the main purpose of learning science as acquisition of knowledge
and facts. For instance, Betty responded, “The goal of science instruction or science learning
is to help students acquire science knowledge and know the scientific facts.” Therefore, they
emphasized that the role of science teacher should be as a good information provider. Andy
also highlighted the importance of correcting inaccurate scientific knowledge for students.
On the other hand, Cindy believed that the main purposes of science learning should focus
on increasing and applying scientific knowledge. David asserted that “developing a better
understanding about science” was the goal for science learning. Although Cindy claimed
that a science teacher should be an information provider, she also thought teacher should
become a model of using scientific knowledge, concurring with her belief about the purpose
of learning, that is, applying scientific knowledge. Cindy seemed to have a more pragmatic
perspective for learning science. David believed that the chief mission for science teachers
was to facilitate students’ knowledge development.
When asked about the role or the responsibility of the learner, both Andy and Betty
underlined the value of attaining good grades. Thus, they thought that students should
study hard, carefully follow their teachers’ instruction, and keep attentions in classes.
Consequently, they responded that they often used lectures, in-class examinations, and
tutorial problem exercises in science course. Although Betty mentioned laboratory work,
she still believed in direct lectures and extensive practices of tutorial problems for science
instruction. For example, she stated:

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

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

 232
TSAI

TABLE 2
Case Science Teachers’ Views About Learning, Teaching, and Their Teaching Strategies
Teacher

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

Purpose of • Acquisition of knowledge • Acquisition of knowledge • Increase of knowledge • Developing understanding
learning and facts and facts • Applying knowledge
The role of • Information provider • Information provider • Model of using scientific • Facilitator of knowledge
teacher • Correct students’ knowledge development
inaccurate knowledge • Information provider
The role of • Following teacher’s • Keeping attentions in • Following teacher’s • Developing understanding
learner instruction classes instruction to understand about science
• Studying hard • Acquiring knowledge and science • Applying scientific
• Achieving better grades then attaining better • Applying scientific knowledge to real-life
grades knowledge learned situations
Teaching • Lecture • Lecture • Lecture • Challenging prior
strategies • Exams • Lab • Lab knowledge
• Tutorial problem practice • Tutorial problem practice • Small-group learning • Interactive discussion and
questioning
• Inquiry or open-ended
exploration

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

 TEACHERS’ SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWS 233

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.

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

234 TSAI

holding constructivist SEVs tended to be more aware of students’ alternative conceptions

and to employ more useful teaching strategies for inducing student conceptual change,
exactly the same case for David in this study.

The Coherence Between Teachers’ SEVs and Instructional Practice

in Science Classrooms
This study observed each teacher’s science instruction for eight periods. The teachers’
classroom practices were recorded and processed by minute-to-minute analysis, and their
time on each type of instructional activity was tallied. How each teacher allocated time (by
percentage) on each type is presented in Table 3. This study used this time allocation as a
representation of each teacher’s instructional practice.
Table 3 revealed that Andy spent most of his instructional time on one-way lecture
(38%), practicing tutorial problem (25%), and in-class exams (24%), quite consistent with
what he stated in interview. During the eight periods observed, Andy did not conduct any
laboratory work or small-group inquiry activity, and he rarely used discussion or questioning
strategy. Betty also relied heavily on lecture (35%) and tutorial problem practice (22%);
however, laboratory and small-group activities were also observed in her class (17%).
Cindy’s time allocation was similar to Betty’s, but she highlighted more laboratory and
small-group inquiry (30%). David, clearly, was different from the other teachers, who spent
most of time on teacher-directed lecture. In contrast, he allocated most of his instructional
time on laboratory and inquiry (26%) and interactive discussion and questioning (26%).
In particular, David frequently utilized debate-like dialogues to challenge and question
students’ prior knowledge, which were rarely observed in the classes guided by the other
three teachers. These results were quite consistent with their interview responses. That is,
the teacher with positivist-oriented SEVs (e.g., Andy) tended to use one-lecture, tutorial
problem practices, or in-class examinations in real teaching practice, whereas the teacher
with constructivist-aligned SEVs (e.g., David) tended to allocate more time on inquiry
activity and interactive discussion by actual classroom observations. The coherence between
teachers’ SEVs and their instructional practice was revealed in this study.

TABLE 3
Case Teachers’ Instructional Activities by Classroom Observations
Teacher

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

One-way 38 35 31 15
(teacher-directed)
lecture
Tutorial problem 25 22 14 10
practice
In-class exams 24 5 8 9
Lab or small-group 0 17 30 26
inquiry activity
Interactive discussion 2 5 6 26
and questioning
Other 11 16 11 14

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

 TEACHERS’ SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWS 235

The Coherence Between Teachers’ SEVs and Their Students’ SEVs

This study further explored another important research question: Were teachers’ SEVs
related to those of their students? The students under the instruction of the four teachers
were surveyed about their SEVs by using the instrument developed by Tsai and Liu (2005).
Students’ SEVs were represented by five dimensions (subscales), the same as those for
teachers’ interviews. MANOVA test was utilized to examine the differences of five SEV
subscale scores among the four classes. A statistically significant difference was found
among the classes (Wilks’s Lambda = 0.844, Eta2 = 0.055, F = 2.001, p < .05), indicating
a small effect size based on the criteria of Cohen (1988).3
The follow-up comparisons for each subscale among these classes are presented in
Table 4. According to Table 4, the students’ SEVs in the four classes were significantly
different in the dimensions of “theory-laden exploration,” “changing and tentative feature,”
and “cultural impacts” (F = 2.85, 6.50, and 3.03, respectively, p < .05; effect size, small,
medium, and small, respectively). Post hoc tests revealed that the students in Class D
(David’s class) expressed more constructivist-oriented SEVs on the dimensions of “theory-
laden exploration,” “changing and tentative feature,” and “cultural impacts” than those in
Class A (Andy’s class). If referring to Figure 1, David expressed constructivist views in all
of these three dimensions, while Andy showed positivist, mixed, and positivist positions
about these, respectively. In addition, the students in Cindy’s class (Class C) also displayed
significantly more agreement for the assertion “science is always changing and tentative”
than those in Class A. According to Figure 1, Cindy’s view on this SEV dimension was
constructivist, while Andy was mixed. This study showed some evidence between teachers’
SEVs and students’ SEVs, but the effect size was often small. In sum, these research findings
implied that the coherence between teachers’ SEVs and those of their students, though likely
existing, was not very strong.

The Coherence Between Teachers’ SEVs and the Science Learning

Environments Perceived by Their Students
This study finally examined the coherence between teachers’ SEVs and how their students
perceived the learning environments fostered by these teachers. Students’ questionnaire
responses on CLES were used to represent their perceptions toward actual science learning
environments they experienced. MANOVA test was employed to examine the differences of
four CLES subscale scores among the four classes. A statistically significant difference was
found among the classes (Wilks’s Lambda = 0.623, Eta2 = 0.146, F = 7.484, p < .001),
signifying a large effect size.
The follow-up comparisons of each CLES subscale across four classes are shown in
Table 5. Table 5 revealed that students’ perceptions toward actual science learning environ-
ments were significantly different for all subscales of CLES (student negotiation, F = 16.34,
large effect size; prior knowledge, F = 23.35, large effect size; autonomy, F = 21.53, large
effect size; student centeredness, F = 7.41, medium effect size; all p < .001). Post hoc
tests showed that students in Class D tended to perceive that their learning environments
provided significantly more opportunities for student negotiation, exploring prior knowl-
edge, and autonomous learning than those in Classes A and B. Moreover, Class C students
perceived their learning environments as more student supportive than Class A students,
and they also recognized that their science instruction was more situated in the context of
their prior knowledge than students in Classes A and B. Class D students also displayed

3
Based on Cohen’s criteria, Eta2 = 0.0099–0.0588 indicates small effect size, Eta2 = 0.0588–0.1379
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.

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

 TABLE 5
Follow-up ANOVA Analyses of Students’ Perceptions Toward Actual Science Learning Environments Across Classes
Class A Class B Class C Class D

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

(n = 45) (n = 47) (n = 44) (n = 44) Post hoc
CLESS (mean, SD) (mean, SD) (mean, SD) (mean, SD) F (ANOVA) Eta2 Effect Size (Scheffe Test)
Negotiation 2.66 (0.46) 2.79 (0.42) 3.02 (0.38) 3.25 (0.45) 16.34∗∗∗ 0.218 Large D > A, B; C > A
Prior knowledge 2.56 (0.40) 2.67 (0.36) 2.91 (0.29) 3.12 (0.33) 23.35∗∗∗ 0.285 Large C, D > A; C, D > B
Autonomy 2.60 (0.46) 2.66 (0.38) 2.83 (0.30) 3.20 (0.40) 21.53∗∗∗ 0.268 Large D > A, B, C
Student 2.58 (0.27) 2.73 (0.28) 2.72 (0.28) 2.87 (0.30) 7.41∗∗∗ 0.112 Medium D>A
centeredness
Note: The mean score indicates students’ average score per item. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
TEACHERS’ SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWS
237
238 TSAI

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.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Through gathering research data from four Taiwanese science teachers, their students,
and classroom observations, this study was carried out to examine the coherences between
teachers’ SEVs and their (1) teaching beliefs, (2) instructional practice, (3) students’ SEVs,
and finally (4) students’ perceptions toward actual science learning environments. The
coherences between teachers’ SEVs and their teaching beliefs as well as classroom practices
were revealed. The teachers with comparatively positivist-aligned SEVs (such as Andy and
Betty) were oriented to highlight students’ science scores and adopt more instructional
time on teacher-directed lectures, tutorial problem practices, or in-class examinations,
implying a more passive or rote view about learning science. On the other hand, teachers
with relatively constructivist-oriented SEVs (such as Cindy and David) tended to focus on
student understanding and allocate more time on student inquiry activities or interactive
discussion. These findings are consistent with the results about the coherence between
teachers’ SEVs and students’ perceptions toward classroom environments. It was found
that students guided by the teachers with relatively constructivist-oriented SEVs tended to
perceive their classroom environments as offering more opportunities for peer negotiations,
exploring prior knowledge, autonomous learning, and student-centered activities than those
instructed by the teachers with comparatively positivist-aligned SEVs. The constructivist-
oriented SEVs seemed to foster the development of more constructivist-oriented classroom
environments. Although this study was undertaken in an eastern country (Taiwan), the
coherences revealed above were similar to those by some research work in western countries
(e.g., Brickhouse, 1989; Hashweh, 1996). The coherences revealed in this study might also
come from a careful selection of the case teachers. For example, through using an SEV
instrument (Tsai & Liu, 2005), teachers with quite different SEVs were selected for study.
Thus, their variations on teaching beliefs and instructional practices might be more easily
observed. Nevertheless, although this study provided some evidence that teachers’ SEVs
were likely related to their students’ SEVs, the teachers’ SEVs and their students’ SEVs in
this study were not clearly nested. More research may be required to explore this coherence
further.
In this study, the teacher with a master’s degree in science education (David) showed
relatively constructivist-oriented SEVs, teaching strategies, and his students displayed more
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
 TEACHERS’ SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWS 239

favorable perceptions toward constructivist-oriented learning environments. It is hypoth-

esized that the professional training and the theoretical coverage in the graduate study of
science education might have great impacts on the teacher’s SEVs and probably guided his
science teaching. How teachers make theories into practices remains an essential issue for
research.
Yet, during teacher interviews, none of the teachers, even David, explicitly mentioned
about the importance of teaching or addressing some topics relevant to the nature of science
for students. This finding is similar to that shown by Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998) and Duschl
and Wright (1989). Although many teachers in their study had adequate understandings of
several important aspects of SEVs, explicit references to the nature of science were rare in
their planning and instruction. The study by Schwartz and Lederman (2002) concluded that
limited subject-matter knowledge and compartmentalized SEVs might impede teachers’
implementation of nature of science topics within a traditional science content. Therefore, a
better understanding of subject-matter knowledge and SEVs may facilitate the incorporation
of nature of science topics in science classrooms. Akerson and Abd-El-Khalick (2003)
also found that, to implement nature of science topics in science instruction, socially
mediated support was needed at the personal level for helping science teachers activate
tacit understandings about the nature of science, and a lead researcher was needed at the
professional level for modeling explicit instruction about the nature of science.
This study found that teachers with more positivist-oriented SEVs tended to have unfa-
vorable attitudes and instructional practices (e.g., highlighting test scores, using rote-like or
totally teacher-directed instruction). Previous studies (e.g., Lederman, 1992; Tsai, 2002a)
also revealed that many science teachers held positivist-oriented SEVs. The subsequently
important issue by science educators is how to change teachers’ positivist-aligned SEVs.
Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman’s (2000) proposed that there were two major approaches of
changing teachers’ SEVs: one was implicit, implementing science-based inquiry activities,
and the other one was explicit, utilizing elements from the history and philosophy of sci-
ence in the instructional process. The study by Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) and
Abd-El-Khalick (2005), which assessed the influences of history or philosophy of science
courses on preservice science teachers’ SEVs, clearly, employed the explicit approach.
On the other hand, Palmquist and Finley’s (1997) research, which illustrated that some
preservice teachers could progress toward constructivist SEVs when conceptual change,
inquiry-oriented, and cooperative learning were taught, can be viewed as using an implicit
approach. Successful cases of changing SEVs by integrating both explicit and implicit
approaches for preservice and inservice science teachers have also been documented (Tsai,
2006).
Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson (2004) proposed the use of conceptual change approach
for changing teachers’ SEVs, similar to the use of conceptual change for altering students’
alternative conceptions (Hewson, Beeth, & Thorley, 1998), may be helpful. Science edu-
cators (e.g., Akerson, Morrison, & McDuffie, 2006) further concluded that just one course
for changing teachers’ SEVs might not be sufficient, and many teachers in their study re-
verted back to their earlier SEVs 5 months after a course, which provided explicit reflective
instruction in nature of science. Again, this finding is also similar to that derived from the
research about students’ alternative conceptions (Wandersee et al., 1994). Therefore, for
successfully changing teachers’ positivist-oriented SEVs, science educators need to have
appropriate instructional strategies as well as require more time and continuous efforts for
teachers’ change.
Finally, this study employed a multidimensional SEV framework for exploring science
teachers’ as well as students’ SEVs. By this, researchers can know more details about
people’s SEVs. It is suggested that some large-scale studies with much larger sample size
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
240 TSAI

be conducted to explore more about the intricacies between teachers’ SEVs and teaching.
In particular, by using multidimensional SEVs, researchers can acquire more insights 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.

APPENDIX: AN EXAMPLE OF ANALYZING TEACHERS’ SEV

POSITIONS
Each teacher’s SEV interview responses were analyzed by two researchers. The analysis
was conducted separately by each SEV dimension. One researcher, first, read the interview
transcripts and marked significant sentences that represented the teacher’s SEVs for the
dimension. Then, the second researcher validated the marked sentences. Discrepancies
between two researchers would be revolved by discussion. Take the first SEV dimension
“theory-laden exploration” as an example; the following interview responses were marked
by the researchers for each teacher:
Researcher: Does theory play a role on scientists’ exploration or observations? How?
Andy: Scientists can make totally objective observations, which are not affected by their
existing theories or conceptions; otherwise, we cannot have “science.” Science acquires a
special status from its neutral and objective exploration. Researcher: Do scientists have
any expectation before undertaking the research work? Why? Andy: No, I don’t think they
have. They “discover” scientific knowledge by objective data collection and interpretation.
Researcher: Does theory play a role on scientists’ exploration or observations? How?
Betty: I believe that scientists conduct research very objectively, quite free of their per-
sonal theories. But, I think, in some special cases, their theories influence the research.
Researcher: Do scientists have any expectation before undertaking the research work?
Why? Betty: Not really. Scientists are trying not to have expectations before conducting
research. However, in reality, I think some of them have (expectations).
Researcher: Does theory play a role on scientists’ exploration or observations? How?
Cindy: I think some scientific explorations are theory-laden and some are not. It depends
on the explorations. Researcher: Do scientists have any expectation before undertaking the
research work? Why? Cindy: I think, in many cases, they have some expectations, but not
all of them. Still some research work is conducted by no particular expectations, or it is not
affected by existing theories. Researcher: Is there much scientific research work that is not
affected by existing theories? Cindy: I think there is not much research work in this type.
Researcher: Does theory play a role on scientists’ exploration or observations? How?
David: Certainly, scientists’ theories play an important role on their exploration as well as
observations, I think. Scientists observe and conduct exploration based upon their existing
theories. Researcher: Do scientists have any expectation before undertaking the research
work? Why? David: I think scientists have certain expectations when undertaking experi-
ments, and their theories will guide them how to perform the experiments. Their theories
also help them interpret their observations. Without theories, they cannot finish the research
work.
Then, based on the theoretical positions for the SEV dimension proposed by Tsai (2002b),
the “theory-laden exploration” dimension has involved two contrasting positions: the con-
structivist perspective asserts that scientific exploration is theory-laden, whereas the pos-
itivist position supports that scientific is theory-independent, from objective and neutral
observations. The other SEV dimensions also had two distinct positions (constructivist
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
 TEACHERS’ SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWS 241

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.

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

242 TSAI

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.

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce

 TEACHERS’ SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWS 243

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.

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce