Accessing Examples of Good Science Teaching

By Loughran, John

Accessing Examples of Good Science Teaching Analysing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice. Steve Alsop, Larrry Bencze & Erminia Pedretti (Eds). Berkshire, U.K., Open University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-335-21311-1

In recent times there has been growing interest in better capturing and documenting examples of good teaching as work into teacher researcher (in particular) has helped to highlight the complex and sophisticated knowledge that underpins practice (Cochran- Smith & Lytle, 1999, 2004). In fact, it could well be argued that, although good teaching matters, the essence of such endeavours is actually bound-up in what Shulman (1986, 1987) described as pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). One value of PCK is in the focus it brings to bear on understandings of knowledge of specialist subject matter teaching, so that it becomes readily apparent that good teaching requires much more than generic skills alone; as opposed to more superficial technicist understandings that gain prominence from time to time.

Through a consideration of the notion of PCK, the special place of subject matter content and expertise begins to emerge, and so the approach adopted by Alsop, Bencze and Pedretti in their book Analysing exemplary science teaching offers an interesting way of considering the purpose and value of exploring good science teaching. However, it is equally important to note, as McComas (2005) does in the foreword to this book, that as different people look into the classrooms of expert science teachers, not all will see the same thing all of the time. In fact, this is actually an important feature of this book, as it sets out to purposefully present exemplary science teaching and does so through three different lenses, each of which offer alternative perspectives on expert science teachers’ teaching. These perspectives include: portrayal through narratives; discussion and analysis (with a particular focus on theory); and, a futuristic perspective in terms of implications for science teaching and research.

In the first section of this book (which comprises 10 Accounts of practice) each of the authors offers insights into their science classrooms. The editors have organised and structured these accounts using Hudson’s (1993) three elements whereby the first four Accounts pertain to learning the products of science, the next three to learning about science, and the final three focus on helping pupils to do science.

Through these Accounts, the manner in which the portrayals are offered are reminiscent of the intent inherent in cases (Mitchell & Mitchell, 1997; J.H. Shulman, 1992), as the narratives are strong and personal. However, they are not cases of the traditional structure and form. As alluded to by the editors, these Accounts have purposely been structured by the authors as narratives that do no not focus around the dilemmas, issues and problems of practice so central to traditional cases. Instead they are focused around the notion of exemplary practice itself. In addition, that which in traditional cases is incorporated into the text in ways designed to create further questioning and alternative perceptions of the episodes and events has been introduced via annotated comments in the margins. Each of these comments is coded in ways that allow cross-referencing within the section as well as across sections 1 and 2.

For some, this approach will be most helpful, whilst for others it may well diminish the insights highlighted, as the subtleties and nuances are not left to the reader to determine, examine and explore, but are made unequivocal and explicit. This is an interesting textual device and one with which I am sympathetic, for there is always the concern that that which is embedded in the text may not be fully appreciated by the reader. Experience has a major role to play in influencing that which might not only be seen in a particular teaching and learning situation, but also that which might be abstracted form one situation to another other. Indeed, a similar concern drove such explanations in work in case study, whereby the insights and interpretations being developed within the narrative were augmented by explanations and descriptors, for exactly this reason (Loughran, 1996). However, there is little research to support or negate its value. In any case, the intention is that readers will make their own choice about the use or otherwise of such annotations so that if they are needed, they are helpful, and if not, they may simply be overlooked. Either way, it is one attempt to ensure that the aspects of exemplary practice intended to be highlighted are not so easily missed by the reader.

In the first section of the book, through the manner in which the authors have constructed their narratives, it is not difficult to imagine what it would be like to see into their science classrooms and to apprehend the nature of the science teaching and learning occurring there. As all of these accounts look into different types of activities and topics, they offer a wide range of ways of seeing what might be considered as exemplary practice in action. Within each the amalgam of subject matter content and pedagogy that is PCK is often detectable, just below the surface of the text. An interesting aspect of this element of exemplary practice is that it illustrates how a construct such as PCK may be noticeable to some but not to others, because of the differences in the ways in which practice is conceptualized-which varies with both the purpose and the intentions of pedagogical construction and analysis. It is this point then that brings into stark relief the value or otherwise of the annotations and links throughout the text and raised, for me, an interesting issue.

The annotations and links cause me to ponder how these comments might have varied according to the nature of the experience and perspective brought to bear by the different editors, and what role teachers may have-or be encouraged to have-in a similar process. In considering what it means to look into an exemplary classroom and to draw out some of the salient features, it raises an interesting question about what one looks for-and why. That which is seen may appear very different depending on who is doing the looking; and, ultimately, what frames are brought to bear in analysis. It is this point that offers a springboard into the second section of the book.

Part 2 of this book approaches analysis of exemplary practice using Schwab’s (1973) idea of a common place. As these ten analysis chapters unfold, the initial lenses (Hudson’s) through which the Accounts are organised are represented with specific attention to Schwab’s four common places, highlighting a number of issues important in shaping understandings of science teaching and learning. For example, Hodson argues that:

Despite two decades of research interest in nature of science issues, many students still leave school with confused or distorted views about science and scientists … Too often students are led to believe that scientific observation provides reliable data from which scientists can readily derive authoritative knowledge about the physical world (96).

From this perspective, Hodson reconsiders the Accounts and uses them as data (as do all the authors in this section) for analysis so that, from his particular vantage point and with his particular expertise, he is able to offer the reader insights into the Nature of Science that underpin the practice and principles within, and across, each Account.

In Analysis 6, Alsop looks into the Accounts in order to ‘explore affect in accounts of exemplary practice’. Like the analyses that preceded this chapter, Alsop brings to bear his particular skill and expertise in drawing the reader in to seeing something in the Accounts that may not have been, at first glance, quite so visible. He notes that:

Learning science, at any level, is full of emotional challenges, setbacks and triumphs. … In science lessons it is every bit as much the role of the teacher to understand the emotions associated with education as it is to cover the curriculum. However, in research and practice the interaction of affect and cognition is largely understated. Affect is, more often than not, marginalized. In exemplary science teaching I suggest-quite simply -that it shouldn’t be (147).

From this affective perspective, Alsop draws attention to the fact that affect is evident in all of the Accounts, and that an important emerging issue is that ‘talking about teaching in such emotive terms is actually both uncommon and controversial’ (149). This is an issue which concerns teachers and researchers in different ways, partly as a consequence of the context of their work. For researchers, it may be interesting as a point that allows some escape from the constancy of what seems to more and more be a search for measurable outcomes of learning. However, for the teacher, it may well be one of the subtle but important ‘immeasurables’ that is indicative of what is happening in the learning. This difference brings into focus a helpful aspect of the way in which this book has been conceptualized. It offers ways in to understanding exemplary pr\actice from different stakeholders’ perspectives and thus highlights the complexity of teaching science, thus offering a sense of counterbalance to technicist views of teaching and learning.

John Wallace builds on this very point in Analysis 8 in which he constructs eight themes that are immediately apparent to him as central to the Accounts of exemplary teaching. His themes include the: tenacity of teaching; immediacy of input; centrality of content; plurality of pedagogy; expedience of epistemology; legacy of the laboratory; disguise of dilemma; and, motive of morality. In considering what these themes mean and how they come together to highlight the complex nature of science teaching as well as the tacit nature of teachers’ knowledge of practice, Wallace pays careful attention to the balancing act that science teachers manage in the busyness that is their everyday teaching life. He notes that the science teachers who authored the Accounts:

maintain a strong teacher presence while encouraging students to take responsibility for their learning. They balance students’ needs to learn science, do science and learn about science, and have strong content knowledge themselves. The teachers also employ a balanced mix of teaching strategies, incorporating elements of exploration, guided inquiry and performance. … Exemplary teachers manage the dilemmas and tensions inherent in these competing demands by balancing, and where necessary trading off, one course of action against another (182).

In the final section of the book, the editors consider all that has been raised in the Accounts and Analysis chapters and draw together what they see as two important themes derived through this reflection, as they create an agenda for future research in science education.

It is at this point that they illustrate how the book is more than an accumulation of interesting text, as they highlight how this project created a platform from which the teacher authors could reconsider their Accounts and the associated Analyses in order to ‘contemplate the image of teaching that emerged and the role this might have in shaping future practice’ (203). The teachers’ responses are then the beginning point of the discussion that frames that which follows and leads into ways of exploring professional development and growth.

Not surprisingly, like many scholars before them, the editors draw particular attention to the centrality of teacher talk as something that tends to drive, and be valued in, professional learning. Importantly though, they make clear that quality conversations and critical reflection need to be considered together so that ways of acting might be realized in practice rather than simply lead to the production of ‘a theoretical treaty [that languishes] in the world of academia’ (203). In the penultimate chapter, the possibilities that emerge through a reconsideration of those aspects of the project that created the platform for this discussion help to set an agenda for considering the relationship between theory and practice in science education.

The final chapter returns again to the Overarching epistemological themetheory and practice1 and does so by considering the notion of agency. The editors are concerned to address issues associated with the search for a ‘quick fix’ when considering the complexities inherent in teaching and learning. In so doing, they draw attention again to the value of creating a stimulus for discussion, so that individuals might be best placed to choose to negotiate their own professional learning in ways that are informed by, and appropriate to, their perceived needs and concerns. In attempting to ‘preserve the voices of teachers and academics [through this text and], recognizing their considerable expertise’ (204), they hope to offer a platform for informed change agency. By adopting a framework that is designed to enhance the mixing of ideas and perspectives in ways that value the knowledge, skills and ability of the worlds of practice and theory, the editors anticipate creating new and real options for all involved in science education to find new and meaningful ways of responding to the issues and challenges highlighted in this book.

These views are perhaps best demonstrated in the final sentences of the book. Bencze, Alsop and Pedretti state that:

Rather than thinking of this book as a collection of perspectives and practices in science teaching to be emulated, however, we commend this book as a stimulus for ongoing collaborative negotiation of praxis that leads to socially just and empowering education for every learner (226).

I trust this book does just that for readers, as it offers a helpful and wellconceptualized approach to drawing on different stakeholders’ perspectives on science education, by maintaining respect for the complex and sophisticated knowledge of the practice community in concert with the research expertise of the academic community.

REFERENCES

COCHRAN-SMITH, M., & LYTLE, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: teacher learning communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 24, 249-305). Washington D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

COCHRAN-SMITH, M., & LYTLE, S. (2004). Practitioner inquiry knowledge, and university culture. In J.J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V K. LaBoskey & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self- study of teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 1, 601- 649). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

HODSON, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85-142.

LOUGHRAN, J.J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and learning through modelling. London: Falmer Press.

MCCOMAS, W.F. (2005). Foreword: exemplary practice as exemplary research. In Steve Alsop, Larry Bencze & E. Pedrerti (Eds.), Analysing exemplary science teaching (pp. xv-xx). Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

MITCHELL, I., & MITCHELL, J. (Eds.) (1997). Stories of reflective teaching: A book of PEEL cases. Melbourne: PEEL publishing.

SCHWAB, J.J. (1973). The practical 3: translation into the curriculum. School Review, 31, 501-522.

SHULMAN, J.H. (1992). Case methods in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

SHULMAN, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

SHULMAN, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

JOHN LOUGHRAN

Monash University, Australia

Contact details:

Faculty of Education (Clayton)

Monash University

Wellington Rd.,

Clayton

3800

Australia

John.Loughran@Education.monash.edu.au

Copyright University of Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education 2007

(c) 2007 Studies in Science Education. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.