Journal of Science Teacher Education, 43), 195-219 ©1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Printed in the Netherlands A Framework for Learning to Teach Science in Initial Primary Teacher Education Vicente Mellado, Lorenzo J. Blanco, & Constantino Ruiz Deparunent of Science and Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, University of Extremadura, 06071-Badajoz, SPAIN Although ihe great many interrelated factors involved in teaching mean that improvements have to be considered holistically, there is no doubt that the teacher is still a decisive element in student learning. If we assume that the teacher is the key to the success or failure of putting any curricular innovation into practice (Mitchener & Anderson, 1989), school and science curriculum reforms have to be in consonance with the reality of science teacher education programs (Shymansky & Kyle, 1992). Any educative reform is condemned to failure if it can not count on a suitably prepared teaching profession ready to carry it through. Investigations concerning science teachers have become more frequent inrecent years, and their results have enormous importance in the design and development of teacher education. In the first part of this article, we review the research on primary science teachers in the following aspects: (a) antecedents, (b) conceptions of the nature of science, (c) conceptions of science teaching/leaming, (d) scientificknowledge, (ec) knowledge of science teaching, and (f) attitudes. In the second part, we formulate a framework of teacher education designed to develop the professional knowledge required bya primary science teacher. Inthe lastpart, we describe a program of initial education in which the primary science teacher learns to teach science in accordance with the proposed framework. Research on the Primary Science Teaching Profession Antecedents When prospective primary teachers begin their university education, they have ideas, conceptions, and attitudes about science and the form of teaching and learning it which isthe fruit af the many years they, themselves, spent in school, accepting or rejecting the roles of their science teachers. Their school years and their experiences as students learning science196 VICENTE MELLADO ET AL. influence both the novice (Gustafson & Rowell, 1995; Young & Kellogg, 1993) and experienced (Wallace & Louden, 1992) primary teacher. This is of major importance for their professional future since many teachers use pedagogical methods that are very similar to those they preferred in their own teachers when they were students (Huibregtse, Korthagen, & Wubbels, 1994) or simply teach in the same way they themselves were taught (Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994). Also, some of the teachers’ personal pedagogical images and beliefs are very stable. Initial teacher education changes them very little and may often even reinforce them. In other respects, however, prospective primary teachers enter university with many doubts and ambiguities, and while they have idcas which they keep throughout thcir initial cducation, they also have perceptions and attitudes which may be changed by a suitable education program (Tamir, 1991). ‘lhe results of several investigations indicate that teachers’ conceptions are in a continual process of formation from the time when they were in school and are the more stable the longer they have formed part of each person's beliefsystem. Prospective primary teachers' ownschool antecedents, therefore, have to be taken into account in analyzing their conceptions and behavior in the classroom when teaching science and when designing initial and ongoing teacher education programs. Also, if the origins of the beliefs are not suitably analyzed, it is quite possible that they will be perpetuated despite contradictions caused by reason, the passage of time, school instruction, and experience (Pajares, 1992), Many of the prospective primary teachers’ conceptions are implicit so that, during their university years, they need to reflect on them and make them explicit, although reflection on their conceptions does not automatically guarantee transfer into classroom practice. Primary Teachers' Conceptions About the Nature of Science Several of the studies of teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science place most primary teachers within the framework of one of the forms or positivism (Abell & Smith, 1994; Aguirre, Haggerthy, & Linder, 1990; Gustafson & Rowell, 1995; Porlan, 1989). No significant differences are found in this regard between expert and novice teachers. Other results, however, make us think that the situation is less straightforward and that, while primary teachers shaw empiricist traits, they cannot he pigenn-holed as ingenuous inductivists. A large proportion of them have an eclectic view of the nature of science, and their conceptions do not allow a consistentLEARNING TO TEACH SCIENCE, 197 association with any particular philosophical outlook. Chcung and Toh (1990) also found that novice primary teachers’ conceptions on the nature of science are generally disordered and do not form a coherent conceptual system. One of the causes may be that the philosophy of science 1s hardly dealt with at all in science teacher education programs so that an introduction to the topic may well help prospective teachers reflect on their own epistemological conceptions (Jimenez, 1995; Mellado & Carracedo, 1993). With respect to the influence of teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science on their teaching in the classrnom, there exist studies which find these conceptions to be correlated with their behavior in the science classroom. Hashweh (1996), studying primary and secondary science teachers, indicated that their epistemological belicfs remain stable and arc strongly correlated with their teaching strategies. Constructivist teachers better identify students’ alternative ideas and use a variety of teaching strategies considered to be potentially more effective than do empiricist teachers. Other studies, however, find no direct influence of teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science on how they teach in the classroom. Teachers justify any contradictions on the pressure of classroom situations and of the eurricninm impased on them. In work with four prospective primary and secondary teachers at the end of their university education, using a combination of questionnaires and interviews, Mellado (1997) detected no well-defined conceptions on the part of the wachers concerning the nature of science (which seemed to be due to a lack of previous reflection on these aspects), only dominant orientations (one positivist, one relativist, two with mixed conceptions). ‘I'hey conserved marked contradictions in everything relating to scientific methodology. On analyzing their classroom behavior, no direct relationship was found between the teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science and their teaching behavior. The teacher with the most positivist conception of science was the most constructivist inherclassroom, while the teacher with arelativist conception of science followed a traditional transmissive classroom strategy in which his students were mere passive receptors of extemal knowledge. These results, together with those of Ledenuau (1992), call Into quesuon the relationship between teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science and classroom teaching behavior. Primary Teachers’ Conceptions About Science Teaching/Learning Some investigations assign primary teachers traditional transmissive conceptions of teaching. The student acts as a receptor of extemal knowledge198 VICENTE MELLADO ET AL. (Porlan, 1989, Smith & Neale, 1991), Primary teachers also have a viewpoint of spontaneity regarding practical experience and activities as being the best means for science teaching/leamning (Gustafson & Rowell, 1995). In Hashweh's (1996) analysis, the number of primary and secondary teachers with a constructivist conception of leaming is similarto the number with an empiricist view. There is also a strong correlation between their conceptions about learning and their conceptions about teaching strategies. Horak (1980) identified three types of primary teachers. The first facuses on the student with indirect methods and individual activities, the second on transmission with a strong emphasis on order and discipline, and the third on Mexibility with large-group activities aud a variety of techniques and classroom materials, While some teachers show an apparent agreement with the constructivist outlook, the epistemological value they give to the ideas of their students can be quite different, from seeing these ideas as simple errors that the teacher has to change by explanation or by reference to the textbook to authentic alternative theories with an educational and epistemological value (Lopez, 1994). We agree with Fernandez and Elortegui (1996). While establishing teaching typologies or models in a study may show up certain tendencies, the usual case with a teacher is not to find the pure version of a typology but a mixture of features characteristic of various typologies. For some, there exisis a partial relativuship between teachers’ epistemological conceptions and their curricular conceptions. For instance, for Kuolaidis and Ogborn (1995), teachers who regard scientific theories as real prefer teaching by separate subjects instead of as an integrated science. They separate the processes from the products. In the paradigm (in the Kuhnian sense of methodological framework) of teaching thinking, teachers’ educational beliefs and their classroom behavior are considered to influence each other mutually. Whathave been the results of studics of the possible relationship between primary teachers' conceptions conceming teaching/leaming and their classroom teaching behavior? In some case studies of primary teachers, such as that by Appleton and Asoko (1Y¥¥6) with an expert teacher, there was tound to be coherence between their constructivist view of science teaching/leamning and their planning and practice of teaching. Nevertheless, the consideration of the complexity of the classroom leads some researchers to add caveats to this influence of teachers’ conceptions of their classroom teaching behavior and tahighlight the importance af practical knawledge, Repent primary teachers possess practical knowledge about classroom situations which allow them to act appropriately in the complexity of the classroom. Rather thanLEARNING TO TEACH SCIENCE 199 straightforward, this practical knowledge is complex and polyfacetic, developing gradually as the result of experience and considerable effort (Duffe & Aikenhead, 1992; Wallace & Louden, 1992). One aspect of practical knowledge is practical reasoning, a decision-making skill both in everyday life and in the production and evaluation of scientific knowledge (Brickhouse & Stanley, 1993). Other studies have only found a partial relationship, with frequent contradictions, between educational conceptions and classroom teaching behavior. Such is the case af the expert primary teacher studied hy Landen and Wallace (1994) whose constructivist principles are contradicted by a teacher-centered teaching of science. Even expert primary teachers with strong philosophical commitments to constructivism and conceptual change (Abell & Roth, 1995) recognize contradictions between their beliefs conceming science teaching/leaming and theirclassroom teaching behavior. ‘These studies have indicated that there is more consistency between beliefs and classroom practice in experienced teachers than in novice and prospective teachers. Novice and prospective teachers can present remarkable contradictions between the theories they expound in the studies and what further analysis shows to be their implicit theories. They also usually have more traditional teaching behavior than that manifested in their previous conceptions. Science Teachers’ Content Knowledge Knowledge of the material to be taught is essential for primary teachers. First, this is because the strategies teachers use ditfer greatly according to the subject matter they are teaching, one reason being that each topic hasitsown proper traditions conceming the best way for it to be taught and leamed (Stodolsky, 1991). Second, research carried out with primary teachers indicates that a low level of knowledge of sciences is an obstacle to ite effective teaching (Abell & Roth, 1992), Primary teachers with a low level of scientific knowledge have difficulty in carrying through educational changes (Grimellini & Fecon, 1988), avold teaching wples wey do no. know sufficlendy well (Smith & Neale, 1991), are insecure and lack confidence in teaching sciences (Appleton, 1995; Glasson & Lalik, 1993; Schoenberger & Russell, 1986), reinforce the students’ own conceptual errors (Tobin et al., 1994, and depend more on the textbook for both instruction and evaluation and on memorizing information. Third, primary teachers can themselves have altemative ideas about scientificconcepts. Constructivist studies have widely investigated students’200 VICENTE MELLADO ET AL. spontaneous ideas conceming scientific concepts. These ideas are deeply rooted and often do not coincide with scientific theories. Having alternative ideas about scientific concepts has shown itself to be not an exclusive preserve of students. Primary teachers, too, have alternative ideas about scientific concepts, at times coinciding with those of the students (Wandersce, Mintze, & Novak, 1994), thereby demonstrating how persistent these ideas can be, The alternative scientific ideas filter the information received and persist and survive despite contradictions with scientific knowledge, simply coexisting with the latter in specific damains. While not always from a constructivist viewpoint, there have been studies which detect alternative ideas about topics of science in primary teachers, both in prospective teachers (Atwood & Atwood, 1996; Colomer, Duran, & Gold, 1993; De Manuel, 1995) and in experienced teachers (Osterman & Moreira, 1992, Shymansky et al., 1993). Knowledge of the Teaching of Science The teaching of the experimental sciences has developed spectacularly over recent years, The studies on science teachers and research on science teaching have generated a specific bady of knowledge in this area which can. be found in numerous books, journals, and other specialized publications. The teaching of experimental science has come to be regarded as a discipline in its own right, with a scientific community generating an emerging body of knowledge, and with its own objectives and research methods (Aliberas, Gutierrez, & Izquierdo, 1989). Prospective primary teachers have to know the aspects of science teaching/learning which are most relevant to their professional level--theories of science learning, science teaching strategies, problem solving in science, school laboratory and science practical work, conceptual and methodological change, the intuitive ideas of students of different ages about each specific topic, students characteristics (attitudes, motivation, level of maturity, etc.), knowledge of the school science curriculum, organization of the science classroom (principles, rules and routines, use of time, etc,), the resources of the science classroom (textbooks, audiovisual media, leaching material, etc.), evaluation, and so fortn. There exists a most ample bibliography conceming all these aspects to support the primary teacher's initial academic education. One line of research which has contributed notably to understanding the primary science teacher's knowledge of teaching is the comparison of expert and novice teachers. The instructional process and the handling of the. class are closely related, and the latter is one of the characteristics which distinguishes expert teachers. These teachers actively direct the students’LEARNING TO TEACH SCIENCE 201 behavior and maintain control of the whole class. The students in these classes know how to work individually or in groups, and the teachers are not subjected to the pressure of maintaining order but dedicate their time to directing students’ leaming (Tobin & Frase1, 1990, Tobin ct al., 1994). When novice primary teachers are teaching science, they generally think in overall terms about the class as a group, while experts think by differentiating the individuals so that they can better diagnose the children’s learning difficulties (Neale, Smith, & Wier, 1987). Experts prefersimpleexplanations with short pauses that help students fix onto the important concepts, and they have more examples, analogies, and alternatives to represent the concepts. They also stand out in how they anticipate content and in the summaries that they use (Clerment, Krajcik, & Borko, 1994). One noteworthy aspect is that the primary teachers who are regarded as excellent maintain a constructive science classroom climate in which the students are motivated to leam (Anderson, 1989; Fraser, 1994; Tobin & Fraser, 1990). The explanations that teachers use in the science classroom and the different ways of representing content have also been the subject of research. The language a teacher uses is a powerful communication tool which can have an influence on the students. The questions posed by the teacher in class are related to the quality of teaching and can provoke responses of a high cognitive level from students (Roth, 1996; Watt, 1996). Some studies have centered on the primary teacher's use of analogy in teaching science (Ogborn & Martins, 1996), with analogies seen as a useful strategy for Jearning and conceptual change on the part of the students. Kruger, Palacio, and Summers (1992) argued that analogies are not only useful forthe teacher to teach science but also for the prospective primary teacher in leaming to teach and in developing pedagogical content knowledge. Attitudes of Primary Teachers to Science Teaching Affective and attitudinal aspects also have importance in teachers’ practical knowledge when teaching science, with influence from their expectatious abuut the students aud frum their knowledge of the material to be taught. Certain primary teachers feel poorly qualified to teach science, and both those with experience (Schoenberger & Russell, 1986) and those in initial teacher education (Appleton, 1995) see their scientitic knowledge as insufficient, believe science subjects difficult to teach, and feel insecure and unconfident with them. This can encourage negative attitudes towards science teaching (Vitale & Romance, 1992). Also, the anxiety that teaching science provokes in prospective primary202 VICENTE MELLADO ET AL. teachers has a repercussion on their self-efficacy in science teaching (Czemiak & Schriver, 1994). Studies based on the social cognitive theory of Bandura (1977) on science teachers' self-efficacy beliefs, together with those on prospective teachers’ outcome expectations, have shown the relationship of the two constructs with the teacher's classroom teaching behavior (Enochs, Scharmann, & Riggs, 1995), Ashton and Webb (1986) added that teachers’ self-efficacy depends on the material to be taught. Teachers dedicate more time and interest to areas where they believe their efficacy to be greater, and this has a repercussion on their teaching and the students’ learning (Huinker & Madison, 1997). Novice primary science teachers’ confidence in teaching science is also related to how they perceive their students, When the teacher studied by Kamen (1996) raised her level of confidence in her students’ results, there was aconcomitant increase in her own self-confidence. Other investigations Indicate thal students seem to perceive how good a science teacher is according to the social climate generated in the classroom (Tobin & Fraser, 1990), assessing the teacher with affective rather than with cognitive aspects (Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Creton, 1990). Along the same lines, Yager and Penick (1986) found that school students’ attitudes towards science and the science classroom are more negative the older they are and hence the more years they have spent in school. Primary teachers, despite having less scientific knowledge than their secondary education counterparts, seem to generate student attitudes that are more positive. The teachers, themselves, perceive the class climate 10 be more favorable in primary than in secondary schools (Fraser, 1994). Professional Knowledge Required to Learn to Teach Science During their initial stage of teacher education, science teachers have to learn two well-differentiated, thangh closely related, sets of professional knowledge which we denote as the static and the dynamic components (Blanco, Mellado, & Ruiz, 1995; Mellado, in press). We include in the static component, knowledge of scicntific content, general psychopedagugival knowledge, and academic knowledge of science teaching. This part constitutes a body of knowledge which is general for all prospective teachers, and the teacher education center must encourage stimulating exemplary methodologies in learning academic knowledge. The static component does not, however, necessarily depend on the specific student in his or her facet as a future teacher nor on the particular classroom context where that teaching activity is going to be carried out. The static componentLEARNING TO TEACH SCIENCE 203 is necessary, but not sufficient, for teachers to leam to teach, since the teachers' theoretical, propositional, or static knowledge may not affect their practical knowledge which is what really guides their teaching behavior in the classrouin. Also, prospective teachers begin their university studies with knowledge, conceptions, attitudes, and role models of science and its teaching/learning about which they need to reflect during their initial teacher education. ‘This reflection is a necessary, but still insufficient, condition in the process of Jeaming to teach science since the teachers’ classroom behavior may not correspond with their previous conceptions. In our opinion, there exists a professional component in a teacher's knowledge which we denote as the dynamic component (see Figure 1) whose status is different from the static component whether of content knowledge, general psychopedagogical knowledge, or the propositional academic knowledge of science wactiny itself (Mellado, in press). This component is generated and evolves from the teachers’ own knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes. It requires active personal involvement and reflection on the teaching process and practice in teaching specific material in particular school contexts. This process allows teachers to reconsider, and then modify or reaffirm. their static component and conceptions. Figure 1. Components of the science teacher's professional knowledge. PROFESSIONAL ANTECEDENTS INITIAL TEACHER EDUCATION _ DEVELOPMENT eS SSSR Self-knowledge Values: Beliefs Saaue pre] \ coupunedit counpuucut i Lpt [inciudes Development Proféssi Attitudes knowledge of: From: development af PCK Rol -Sciences -Static oles General component psychopedagosy |_| Self knowledge L Srience teachin -Person Anowledge methods. © reflection |Other subjects Teaching practice204 VICENTE MELLADO ET AL. Shulman (1986), too, considered that teachers develop specific knowledge about how to teach their subject matter, Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), which they construct in a personal manner during their practice of teaching. This constitutes a body of knowledge whichdistinguishes teaching as a profession and is a form of pedagogical action and reasoning by means of which the material is transformed into representations that the students find understandable. It is also important to consider that, in learning to teach, the teacher develops personally and socially as well as professionally (Bell & Gilbert, 1994) and only in so far as the three aspects are taken into account will a balanced, solid, and lasting cducation be achieved. From social constructivism, Tobin et al. (1994) also emphasized the need for social interaction with peers and other teachers in the process of learning to teach. The dynamic component is the most specifically professional and distinguishes the expert from the novice science teacher. During their years of teaching, expert teachers continually develop the dynamic component and integrate the different components of knowledge into a single structure forming their own science pedagogical content knowledge. Initial Primary Teacher Education in Science Teaching Can something more be done in the initial education of primary science teachers so that they will already begin to develop specific professional knowledge? We consider that teacher education ought to contribute to generating and developing the dynamic component in teachers on the basis of they, themselves, analyzing their own teaching practice and their knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes relative to the teaching/leaming of science. Asnoted by Kagan(1992), teacher educationcenterscannotlimitthemselves to transmitting propositional knowledge (the statio component) but will have to introduce more procedural knowledge and strategic schemes of action (the dynamic component). Praviive Is esseuulal for prospective teachers 10 generate their own practical schemes of action in science teaching. Reflection in and about practice teaching (Schoen, 1983) is a process of continual feedback which allows prospective teachers to analyze theirclassroom behavior and contrast it with their previous conceptions. It also permits them, through case studies in the university center. to contrast their teaching hehavinr with that of expert science teachers and with that of their companions, For this, they have to reflect with their university supervisors, tutors, and companions toLEARNING TO TEACH SCIENCE 205 redefine their teaching stratcgics, to contrast them with thcir previous beliefs, and to put these revised strategies back into practice. This complex process in which the dynamic component of the PCK is developed requires a certain minimum level of organization in the university primary teacher education centers. Most importantly, practice teaching cannot be allowed to be an end in itself, as itis when the effective paradigm used is one which separates practice from and subjugates it to theory. Instead, it should be sequential throughout the teacher education course and intercannected with the thenretical development. Hacker (1988) noted that at least three periods of practice teaching are needed for prospective science teachers to develop their professional intellectual behavior. In the first period, they will pass through a phase where they find themsclves not very muchin control, Then, as a reaction, during the second period, there will be an increase in authoritarian behavior to control the classroom. It is in the third period when there will be a greater degree ot reflection and an increase in the genuine activities of teaching science. From a general educational viewpoint, the practice teaching carried out by the prospective teachers in primary centers has been one of the priorities and most widely treated subjects of education research. In Spain, concern and dissatisfaction with primary practice teaching ismanifestin the numerous studies carried out on the subject, in the practice teaching plans prepared by university centers, and in the congresses, meetings, and seminars in which itbas been a constant issue in recent years (Montero, Cebreiro, & Zabalza, 1994; Zabalza, 1990). Practice teaching cannot be considered as an isolated phenomenon but as a part of the general foundations and scope of teacher education, and the issue of what should be the type of teaching practice to use will be conditioned by multiple factors, amongst them the teacher education paradigm that is adopted (Zeichner. 1983) and the conception of the curriculum and of how it relates theory and practice. ‘The paradigm adopted in the Education Faculty of Badajoz for primary tcachera ia that of the reflective teacher (Mellado & Gonzalez, 1992). The model of practice teaching is based on collaboration among the university faculty and primary schools, integrates theory and practice into the curriculum, and encourages reflection on the part of prospective teachers. The plan of practice teaching is structured into three periods, one in each year of the university course. This permits first contact with the centers and classrooms during the first year (1wo weeks), practice teaching with treatmentof general preblems in the second year (five weeks), and practice with a greater degree of respansihility and specializatian in the. third year (five weeks) The faculty has a Practice Teaching Commission, made up of a representation of university supervisors, primary school tutors, and prospective teachers,206 VICENTE MELLADO ET AL. which is responsible for planning and monitoring practice teaching, Education students are assigned tutors in the primary centers and in the university. The latter are responsible for teaching a pre-practice program and then for coordinating weekly seminars during the practice periods. Responsibility for practice teaching cannot be left exclusively with what formally constitutes a practicum in the teacher education syllabus. The rest of the subjects have to be called on to link up with the practice periods io further the process of learning to teach (Marcelo, 1994). Apart from the general aspects dealt with by the university tutors in the practicum lectures and seminar, we believe that the theoretical subjects of science teaching should take advantage of the periods of practice teaching to advance the specific process of leaming to teach science. From the perspective of the specific subjects of science education, the practice teaching periods can then have a major part to play in primary teacher education, not only as an approach to the profession but as a good means tor the prospective teachers tobeable to develop the dynamic component of their professional knowledge in science. The classes on science education, then, when linked closely to the periods of practice teaching, would form an integrating core for the different aspects of teacher education in the process of learning to teach science (Furio, Gil, Pessoa, &Salcedo, 1997). Tt is indispensable that the university syllabus should include the second and third years (at least in the third year) subjects on the teaching of science since the dynamic component is specific for cach subject's matcrial and can only be developed from hat material. If teachers begin their education with beliefs and attitudes on science and the teaching/leaming of science that are the fruit of their own school years, this education, too, has to start out on the basis of these conceptions. The spontancous educational thinking of science teachers must be questioned during their education (Gil, 1993; Hewson, 1993). Self-knowledge on the part of prospective teachers implies reflection on their own conceptions of science, the nature of scientific knowledge and science teaching/learning, and their role as science teacher. Qualitative methods of inquiry used in teacher education programs based on individual needs and adapted to specific coutcals help tu develup te dynamic component of knowledge by focusing on the individual clinical component of the prospective teachers’ education (Marcelo, 1990), Nevertheless, we have scen in preceding studies that, even if the prospective primary teachers have reflected on their conceptions and started to develop them. this is no guarantee of their changing these conceptions ar of their transfer into classroom teaching behavior. A science teacher may have constructivist conceptions and yet not behave in the classroomLEARNING TO TEACH SCIENCE 207 consistently with these belicfs because practical schemes of action in the classroom are lacking (Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993; Mellado, 1996; Tobin, 1993). Itis consequently necessary to reorient teacher education so that the prospective teachers can both reconstruct their own personal theories of teaching and learning in specific contexts and simultaneously construct practical schemes of action in the classroom (Gunstone & Northfield, 1994; Sanders, Borko, & Lockard, 1993). Our proposal for such an education program consists of six phases (see Figure 2). The science education instructor introduces the various topics of the subject over the course of these phases, applying them to the personal cases of the prospective teachers in their practice teaching. At the same time, the prospective teachers can reflect on their own cxpcricnecs as scicnce learners and relate them to their theories of science teaching and learning (Abell & Bryan, 1997). Figure 2. Phases of the education program designed to develop the dynamic component. SUBJECT OF SCIENCE EDUCATION PHASE I: Previous reflection abuut conceptions of science and science teaching/leaming PHASE-II: Recording lessons on science from the primary curriculum PIASE-UL, Aualysis uf aching beuavivus and comparison with previous concepts PHASE-IV: Contrast of teaching behaviour of prospective and expert primary teacher ‘on teaching science PHASE-V: Recording lessons on science “| from the primary curriculum PHASE-VI: Analysis of prospective primary teachers’ teaching evolution and new curricular proposals208 VICENTE MELLADO ET AL. Phase I. The prospective primary teachers reflect on and analyze their previous conceptions conceming science, science teaching/learning, and theirown roles as science teachers. This phase would be in the first orsecond year betore the second practice teaching period. Phase II. A lesson on science from the primary curriculum is observed and taped during the teaching practice of the second year. Collaboration among the science education instructor, the university tutor, and the primary teacher tutor is essential forthe prospective teacher to perform the practicum inacoordinated manner without contradictions among the different tutors. These recordings can be made individually or conjointly if there are more than one prospective teacher working together in the primary Ulassruum, especially asithas been shown (Cannon & Scharmann, 1996) that cooperation inpractice teaching enhances the prospective primary teachers’ self-efficacy. Phase III. The prospective primary teachers need feedback with individual and group analysis of the recording, reflecting on and comparing the classroom behavior with previous conceptions and with recordings of other prospective primary teachers (Trindale & Oliveira, 1993). Reflection is more effective when done on the real content of a lesson rather than in an abstract manner (Clarke, 1994). Dissatisfaction is anecessary, but insufficient, condition foreducational change (Glasson & Lalik, 1993). ‘Teachers ouly change their personal theories when they perceive them as irrelevant (Buitink & Kemme, 1986) and the new strategies as useful fortheireveryday practice and their students’ progress (Ebenezer & Hay, 1995), Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) found four conditions for conceptional change that have been applied in certain primary teacher education programs (Grimellini & Pecori. 1988: Stofflet, 1994); however, Louden and Wallace (1994) pointed out that the teacher's professional knowledge accumulates and changes very slowly on the basis of old conceptions and new classroom expericnces. The prospective teachers usually come to their first practice teaching with an optimism that is not very realistic as to their possibilities as teacher. ‘The contrast with classroom reality then leads them to use traditional teaching strategics. Personal involvement, by reflecting on their own practice, allows prospective teachers to be aware of their own situation and evolve towards other forms of teaching (Blanco, 1996). Prospective primary teachers define their own unique science teaching style when they reflect an the averall aspecte of their clascranm practice (Clarke, 1994). Help in this process of reflection comes from analyzing the metaphors they use. Research in this regard, while more concerned withLEARNING TO TEACH SCIENCE 209 secondary than with primary education, had indicated that teachers conceptualize their roles in metaphorical terms (Tobin et al., 1994), The process of change and improvementin science teaching can thus be initiated by introducing a variety of metaphors into education courses and basing reflection on teaching/leaming strategies on them. Together with the metaphors, Nichols, Tippins, and Wieseman (1997) described a series of strategies to encourage critical reflection by the future teachers. Case studies of novice primary teachers teaching sciences can help in the socialization of future teachers (Abell & Roth. 1994: Loughran, 1994). When teachers begin giving classes, they usually find a conflict between what they have learned in the education center and classroom reality. Phase IV. Classes of prospective and expert primary teachers are compared. Contrasting how expert and prospective teachers teach the most Televanttopics of science in specific contexts is essential for the development of the science teacher's own dynamic component. One obstacle to putting this into practice is the relative lack of case studies of expert science teachers teaching each subject at each level of the primary curriculum (Anderson, 1989). Case studies in text and in video of primary teachers regarded as excellent provide an invaluable referent for science teaching and the education of other teachers (Abell & Roth, 1995). The examples of other wwachets' teaching experiences may help prospective teachers improve their attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs and persuade them that if other teachers can do it, they should be able to do it as well (Huinker & Madison, 1997). While they do not give the recipes for elective teaching that the process- produce paradigm might have ‘ed one to expect, they do offer new ideas on teaching strategies (Bell & Gilbert, 1994) and elements that can help teachers reflect on their own practice, knowledge, and beliefs. In these phases, the prospective teachers’ practical reasoning skills can be developed by giving them real problematical science classroom situations with no predetermined solution to analyze and solve. Then, they can compare the actual solutions adopted by other teachers as described in the available Case studies wiin thelr propused suludiuns. Phase V. A science lesson from the primary curriculum is observed and taped during the third practice period. Phase VI. Individual and group analysis of the taped lessons to monitor the prospective teacher's progress in teaching science is conducted. This can encourage the prospective teachers’ evolution from traditional or spontaneous210 VICENTE MELLADO ET AL. teaching models to others which are more innovative (Porlan, Azcarate, Martin, Martin, & Rivero, 1996). Feedback in this phase comes from the prospective teachers reviewing and reflecting on their progress (Abell & oth, 1995). Finally, the new curricular proposals are put into practice individually and collectively. A major aspect highlighted in several studies (Baker & Saul, 1994; Krugeretal., 1992; Smith, Blakeslee, & Anderson, 1993) is the design of teaching materials and resources during the education program. ‘The prospective primary teachers acquire throughout the program a personal pedagogical portfolio of science teaching/leaming cases and situations such as those described by Shulman (1993), Collins (1993), and Nichols et al. (1997) which may be very uscful to them in their future careers. Final Reflections Weend this proposed theoretical-practical framework for initial primary science teacher education with reflections on five points which seem to be important for putting this educative process into practice. 1. Ifprospective teachers take their own teachers during their years in school as referents for science. teaching, whether pasitively arnegatively, it is fundamental for teacher educators to use a methodology during initial education which is consistent with the theoretical models they are putting forward. Otherwise, the prospective teachers will learn more from what they see done in the classroom than from what they are told ought to do be done (Stoddart, Connell, Stofflett, & Peck, 1993; Stofflet & Stoddart, 1994; Tobin et al., 1994), Just as a student's conceptual change is hindered if it is not accompanied by ontological and methodological changes (Dusch! & Gitomer, 1991), a teacher's conceptual change has to be accompanied by changes in methodology and attitude (Gil, 1993; Neale, Smith, & Johnson 1990). 2. Fundamental in thie process is the eupport the prospective teacher receives from the university instructor, the primary teacher tutor, and their fellow students since their learning includes personal, social, and professional development (Bell & Gilbert, 1994), Prospective wachers’ beliefs will men be consistent with their practice, and both beliefs and practice will be open tochange. While ateacher'sbeliefs affecthow the curriculum is implemented, the curriculum itself affects these beliefs (Tobin et al., 1994). Since prospective teachers usually encounter conflictive and frustrating situations during their practice teaching. they need snppart and aclimate of callahoration and trust (Erickson, Mayer-Smith, Rodriguez, Chin, & Mitchel, 1994), 3. School contexts and the motivational characteristics of the childrenLEARNING TO TEACH SCIENCE 211 vary greatly (Martin-Diaz, & Kempa, 1991), and theie is uv single waching strategy valid for all of them. Prospective primary teachers themselves differ widely. The intention of the present process, therefore, is not to attempt to give recipes to prospective teachers, not even the experts’ strategies. It is rather 10 encourage in them the capacity for reflection, education, and development and give them the confidence and motivation that will allow them to leave the university with sufficient professional skills to help them in their initiation into teaching. Two teachers may both be excellent while nsing styles and strategies that are very different. There is no single strategy that may abstractly be considered as the best. The educational strategy to be used in each specific case will be determined by the teacher or teams of teachers taking into account Ue subject mater, (ne students, the sociocducative context, and so forth. The university instructor and the primary teacher tutor can, however, help prospective teachers find their own personal styles (Abell & Roth, 1994), 4. Collaboration among university science education instructors, primary school teacher tutors, and the prospective teachers contributes decisively to the success of initial primary science teacher education programs (Abell & Roth, 1995; Cannon & Scharmann, 1996; Ericksonetal., 1994; Shroyer, Wright, & Ramey-Gassert, 1996). 5. Onemust be realistic about the difficulties in putting this educational program into practice. Sometimes they are due to organizational problems, but also, we wacher educators may be insufficiently prepared in these strategies (Sequeira, Leite, & Duarte, 1993). We, ourselves, are being subjected to a process of changing roles and beliefs and of professional development within our own field (Hardy & Kirkwood, 1994). References Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. A. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science methods course using a reflection orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(3), 153-166. Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: A Case study Of a scicnee enthusiast student. Science Education, 76(6), 581-595, Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1994). Constructing science teaching in the elementary school: The socialization of a science enthusiast studentteacher, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 77-90. 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(1), 59-74.212 VICENTE MELLADO ET AL. Abell, S. K., & Smith, D, C. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 475-487. Aquirre, M., Haggerthy, S., & Linder, C. (1990). Student-teachers’ conceptions of science teaching and leaming: A case study in preservice science echcation. International Journal of Science Education, 12(1).381- 390. Aliberas, J., Gutierrez, R., & Izquierdo, M. (1989). La didactica de las cicncias: Una cmpresaracional. Ensefianza de las Ciencias, 7(3), 277-284. Anderson, C. W. (1989). Policy implications of research on science teaching and teachers’ knowledge. In Competing vision of teacher knowledge {pp. 1-28). Kast Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education. Appleton, K. (1995). Student teachers’ confidence to teach science: Is more science knowledge necessary to improve self-confidence? International Journal of Science Education, 19(3), 357-369. Appleton, K., & Asoko, H. (1996) A case stndy of a teacher's progress toward using a constructivist view of Ieaming to inform teaching in elementary science. Science Education, 80(2), 165-180. Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman. Atwood, R. K., & Atwood, V. A, (1996). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the causes ot seasons. Journal of Kesearch in Science Teaching, 33(5), 553-563. Baker, L., & Saul, W. (1994), Considering science and language arts connections: A study of teacher cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1023-1037. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1994), Teacher development as professional, personal and soclal development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(5), 483-497. Blanco, L. J. (1996). Aprender a ensefiar matematicas: Tipos de conocimiento. In J. Giménez, S. Llinares, & V. Sanchez (Eds.), El proceso de llegar a ser un profesor de primaria. Cuestiones desde la educacién matemdtica (pp. 199-223). Granada. Spain: Comares, Blanco, L. J., Mellado, V., & Ruiz, C. (1995). Conocimiento didactico del contenido en ciencias experimentales y matemdticas y formacién del profesorado. Revista de Educacién, 307, 127 146. Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T., & Creton, H. (1990). A study of student perceptions of physics teacher behavior. Journal of Research in ScienceLEARNING TO TEACH SCIENCE. 213 Teaching, 27(4), 335-350. Brickhouse, N. W., & Stanley, W. B. (1993). Practical reasoning and science education: Implications for theory and practice. Science and Education, 2, 363-375. Buitink, J., & Kemme, S. (1986). Changes in student-teacher thinking. European Journal of Teacher Education, 9(1), 75-84. Cannon J. R., & Scharmann, L. C, (1996). Influence of cooperative early field experience on preservice elementary teachers’ science self- efficacy. Science Education, 80(A), 419-436, Cheung, K. C., & Toh, K. A. (1990, October). In the eyes of the beholder: Beginning teachers’ conception of the nature of science and sctence reaching. Paper presented at the meeting of the Educational Research Association, Singapore. Clarke, A. (1994). Student-teacher reflection: Developing and defining a practice that is uniquely one’s own. /nternational Journal of Science Education, 16(5), 497-509. Clermont. C. P. Krajcik. J. S.. & Borko, H. (1993). The influence of an intensive inservice workshop on pedagogical content knowledge growth among novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1), 21-43. Collins, A. (1993), Performance-based assessment of biology teachers: Promises and pitfalls. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1103-1120, Colomer, M., Duran, H., & Gold, G. (1993). Conocimientos de Gcologfa en los estudiantes de Magisterio de la especialidad de Primaria. Ensefianza de las Ciencias de la Tierra, 1(3), 175-179. Czemiak, C., & Schriver, M. (1994). An examination of preservice science teachers’ beliefs and behaviors as related to self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 5(1), 77-86. De Manuel, J. (1995). Porqué hay veranoseinviernos? Representaciones uc vatuliautes (12-18) y de futuros macstros sobre algunos aspectos del modelo Sol-Tierra. Ensefianza de las Ciencias, 13(2), 227-236. Duffe, L., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher practical knowledge. Science Education, /0(5), 493-506. Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D, H. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: Implications for educational practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 839-858. Ebenezar, J. V., & Hay, A. (1995). Preservice teachers! meaning- making in science instruction: A case study in Manitoba. /nternational Journal of Science Education, 17(1), 93-105.214 VICENTE MELLADO ET AL. Enochs, L, G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to preservice elementary science teacher self- efficacy. Science Education, 79(1), 63-75. Erickson, G., Mayer-Smith, J., Rodriguez, A., Chin, P., & Mitchel, 1. (1994). Perspectives on learning to teach science: Insights and dilemmas from a collaborative practicum project. Jnternational Journal of Science Education, 16(5), 585-597. Feméndez, J., & Elortegui, N. (1996). Qué piensan los profesores acercade como se debe ensenar. Ensefanza de las Ciencias, 14(3), 331-347. Fraser, B. J. (1994), Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493-541). New York: Macmillan, Furi, C., Gil, D., Pessoa de Carvalho, A. M., & Salcedo, L. E. (1992). La formacién inicial del profesorado de educaci6n secundaria: Papel de las diddcticas especiales. Investigacién en la Escuela, 16, 7-21. Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1993). Preservice biclogy teachers' knowledge structures asa function of professional teachereducation: A year-long assessment. Science Education, 77(1), 25-45. Gil, D. (1993). Contribucién de la historia y de ia filosoffa de las ciencias al desarrollo de un modelo de ensefianza/aprendizaje. Ensefianza de las Ciencias, 11(2), 197-212. Glasson, G.E., & Lalik, R. V. (1993), Reinterpreting the learning cycle from a social consuuctivist perspective: A qualitative study of teachers" beliefs and practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 187- 207. Grimellini, N., & Pecori, B. (1988, April). Conceptual change and science teacher training: A constructivist perspective. Paper presented at the. meeting of the American Fducational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. Gustafson, B. J., & Rowell, P. M. (1995). Elementary preservice tcacher: Constructing conceptions about learning science, teaching science and the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 175), 585-605. Gunstone, K.b., & Norhtield, J... (1994), Metacognition and leaming to teach. International Journal of Science Education, 16(5), 523-537. Hacker, R. G. (1988). A model for the professional development of student teachers of science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 203-210, Hardy, T., & Kirkwood, V. (1994). Towards creating effective learning environments for science teachers: The role of science educators in the tertiary setting. [ternational Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 231-LEARNING TO TEACH SCIENCE 215 251. Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 47-63. Hewson, P. W. (1993). Cuustructivism aud reflective practice in science teacher education. In M. L. Montero & J. M. Vez (Eds.), Las diddcticas espectficas en la formacién del profesorado (pp. 259-275). Santiago, Spain: Térculo. Horak, W. J. (1980, April), An analysis and comparison of elementary preservice and inservice teachers’ beliefs about science teachers’ classroom behaviors. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA. Huibregtse, I., Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (1994). Physics teachers’ conceptions of learning, teaching and professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 16(5), 539-561. Huinker, D., & Madison, S.K. (1997). Preparing efficacious elementary teachers in science and mathematics: The influence of methods courses. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(2), 107-126. Jiménez, M. P. (1995). Comparando teorias: La reflexién epistemolégica sobre la naturaleza de la ciencia en la formacién del profesorado. InL. Blanco & V. Mellado(Eds.), Laformacién del profesorado de ciencias y matemdticas en Espafa y Portugal (pp. 267-280). Badajoz, Spain: Diputaci6n Provincial. Kagan, D. (1992), Professional growth among preservice and beginning, teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-170. Kamen, M. (1996). A teacher's implementation of authentic assessment in an elementary science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 859-877. Koulaidis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1995). Science teachers’ philosophical assumptions: How well do we understand them? /nternational Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 273-283. Kruger, C., Palacio, D., & Summers, M. (1992). Surveys of English primary teachers’ conceptions of force, energy, and materials. Science Education, 76(A), 339-351, Ledenman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and wachers' wuucepiivus of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359, Lépez, J. 1. (1994). El pensamiento del profesor sobre el conocimiento de los alumnos. Jnvestigacin en la Escuela, 22, 58-66. Louden. W..& Wallace. J. (1994). Knowing and teaching science; The constructivist paradox. International Journal of Science Education, 16(6), 649-657.216 VICENTE MELLADO ET AL. Loughran, J. (1994). Bridging the gap: An analysis of the needs for second year science teachers. Science Education, 78(4), 365-386. Marcelo, C. (1990). Introduccién a la formacion del profesorado: Teorta y metodos. Sevilla, Spain: Universidad de Sevilla. Marcelo. C. (1994). Investigaciones sobre practicas en los ultimos afios: Que nos aportan para la mejora cualitativa de las practicas. In M. L. Montero, B. Cebreiro, & M. A. Zabalza (Eds,), El practicum en laformacion de profesionales: Problemas y desafios (pp. 339-361). Santiago, Spain: Térculo. Martin-Diaz, M. J., & Kempa, R. F. (1991). Los alumnos prefieren diferentes estrategias didacticas de la ensefianza de las ciencias en funci6n de sus caracteristicas motivacionales. Ensefanza de las Ciencias, 9(1), 59- 68. Mellado, V. (1996). Concepciones y practicas de aula de profesores de ciencias, en formacion inicial de primarla y secundaria. Ensenanza de las Ciencias, 14(3), 289-302. Mellado, V. (1997). Preservice teachers' classroom practice and their conceptions of the nature of science. Science and Education, 6(4), 331-354. Mellado, V. (in press). Preservice teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of the nature of science. In K, Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Mellado, V., & Carracedo, D. (1993). Contribuciones de la filosoffa de la ciencia a la diddctica de las ciencias. Ensefianza de las Ciencias, 11(3), 331-339, Mellado, V., & Gonzalez, T. (1992). Las practicas de ensenanza en la EU de Magisterio de Badajoz. Campo Abierto, 9, 283-301. Mitchener, C. P., & Anderson, R. D. (1989). Teachers’ perspective: Developing and implementing an STS curriculum, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(4), 351-369. Montera, M.1.,Cehreim, R ,& Zahalza, MA (1904) Fl practicum en la formacién de profesionales: Problemas y desafios. Santiago, Spain: Térculo. Neale, D. C., Suits, D. C., & Johnson, ¥. G. (1990). Implementing conceptual change teaching in primary science. The Elementary School Journal, 9(2), 109-131. Neale, D. C., Smith, D. C., & Wier, E. A. (1987, April). Teacher thinking in elementary science instruction. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. Nichols, S. E., Tippins, D., & Wieseman, K. (1997). A toolkit for developing critically reflective science teachers. Journal of Science TeacherLEARNING TO TEACH SCIENCE. 217 Education, 8(2), 77-106. Ogbom, J., & Martins, I. (1996). Metaphorical understanding and scientific ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 18(6), 631- 652. Ostermann, F., & Moreira, M. A. (1990). O ensino de fisica na formacdo de professores de 1° a 4° series do 1° grau: Entrevistas com doceutes. Cadernw Caturinense Ensino Fisica, 7(3), 171-182. Pajares, R. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. Porlan, R. (1989). Teoria del conocimiento, teoria de la ensenanzay desarrollo profesional: Las concepciones epistemologicas de los profesores. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain. Porlan, R., Azcarate, P., Martin, R., Martin, J., & Rivero, A. (1996). Conocimiento profesional deseable y profesores innovadores: Fundamentos y principios formativos. Investigacién en la Escuela, 29, 23-38. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Sclence Education, GO(2), 211-227. Roth, W.-M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709-736. Sanders, L. R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J.D. (1993). Secondary science teachers knowledge hase when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 723- 736. Schocnberger, M., & Russell, T. (1986). Elementary science as a little added frill; A report of two casestudies. Science Education, 70(5), 519-538. Schoen, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Sequeira, M., Leite, L., & Duarte, M. C. (1993). Portuguese science teachers’ education, attitudes, and practice relative to the issue of alternative conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 845-856. Shroyer, M. G., Wright, E. L., & Ramey-Gassert, L. (1996). An innovative model for collaborative reform in elementary schaal science. teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 151-168. Shulman, L, S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in leaching. Bducastonat Reseurcher, 15(2), 4-14. Shulman, L. S. (1993). Renewing the pedagogy of teacher education: ‘The impact of subject-specific conceptions of teaching. In L. Montero & J. M. Vez (Eds.), Las diddcticas especificas en la formacion del profesorado (pp. 53-69). Santiago, Spain: Térculo.218 VICENTE MELLADO ET AL. Shymansky, J. A., & Kyle, N. C., Jr, (1992). Establishing a research agenda: Critical issues of science curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(8), 749-778 Shymansky,J.A., Woodworth, G., Norman, O,, Dunkhase, J., Matthews, C., & Chin-Tang, L. (1993), A study of changes in middle school teachers’ understanding of selected ideas in science as a function of an inservice program focusing on students’ preconceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 733-755. Smith, D.C., & Neale, D.C. (1991). The construction of subject-matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Advances in Research onTeaching, 2, 187-243. Smith, E. L.. Blakeslee. T. D.. & Anderson. C. W. (1993). Teaching strategies associated with conceptual change learning in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 111-126. Stoddart, T., Connell, M., Stofflett, R., & Peck, D. (1993). Reconstructing elementary teacher candidates’ understanding of math and science content. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(3), 229-241. Stodolsky, S, S. (1991). La umportancta dei contenido en la ensenanza: Actividades en las clases de matemdticas y ciencias sociales. Madrid, Spain: MEC-PAIDOS. Stofflet, R. T. (1994), The accommodation of science pedagogical knowledge: The application of conceptual change constructs to teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(8), 787-810. Stofflett, R. T., & Stoddart, T, (1994), The ability to understand and use conceptual change pedagogy as a function of prior learning experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 31-51. Tamir, P. (1991). Views and beliefs of Israel preservice teachers on teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 239-244. ‘Lobin, K. (1993). Reterents for making sense of science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15(3), 241-254. Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1990). What does itmeanto be anexemplary science teacher? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(1), 3-25. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on ingrmetinnal etrategies for teaching science. InD,L. Gabel (Bd.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45-93). New York: Macmillan. Tindale, V., & Oliveita, V. (1993). A fonmayiu inivial dus professores cas disciptinas de didactica das ciencias no Universidade de Evora. Revista de Educagao, 3(2), 77-82. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (1992). Using videodisk instruction inan clementary science methods course: Remediating science knowledgeLEARNING TO TEACH SCIENCE 219 deficiencies and facilitating science teaching attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(9), 915-928. Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (1992). Science teaching and teachers’ knowledge: Prospect for reform of elementary clasemams. Science Education, 76(5), 507-521. Wandersce, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J.D. (1994). Research on altemative conceptions in science. 1D. Gabel (Ed.), /Zandbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 177-210). New York: Macmillan. Wait, D. (1996). An analysis of teacher questioning behavior in constructivist primary science education using amodification ofa descriptive system designed by Barned and Todd (1977). International Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 601-613. Yager, R. E., & Penick, J. E. (1986). Perceptions of four age groups toward science classes, teachers, and the values of science. Science Education, 18(5), 601-613. Young, B. Y., & Kellogg, T. (1993). Science attitudes and preparation of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 7: 7(3), 279-291. ‘Zabalza, M. A. (1990). La formacion practica de los profesures. Santiago, Spain: Térculo. Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Altemative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 3-9.