Impacts of instructor and student loci of commitment on biology learning for prospective elementary school teachers

Article
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

This study explored the dynamic in the loci of commitment of several participants in a university-level biology course developed for elementary school teachers. The analysis concentrated on two instructors with almost opposing loci of commitment. Through both instructors were committed to teaching, one showed commitment to the subject matter (accuracy, quantity, depth) while the other was more concerned with having the students get involved in the topic development. When the instructor focused on the coverage of content, the students and the instructor felt disappointment— each ending the unit expressing reciprocal discontent with the outcome of the unit. This situation eventually proved detrimental to the students' learning and application of biology. Situations where the instructor proved to be more student-oriented resulted in students making sense of relevant ideas, understanding concepts, and incorporating those ideas and concepts into their knowledge web and teaching practice.

Keywords

Science Teaching Elementary School Teacher Cognitive Engagement Scientific Term Target Student 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Berg, B. L. (1989).Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  2. Eckensberger, L. H., & Meacham, J. A. (1984). The essentials of action theory: A framework for discussion.Human Development, 27(3), 166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eisner, E. W., & Peshkin, A. (Eds.) (1990).Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Etzioni, A. (1961).A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Firestone, W. A., & Pennell, J. R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions and differential incentive policies.Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 489–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gallagher, J. J. (Ed.). (1991).Interpretive research in science education. (NARST Monograph number four). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University.Google Scholar
  8. Glasersfeld, E. von (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching.Synthese, 80(1), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989).Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Karp, D. A., & Yoels, W. C. (1976). The college classroom: Some observations on the meaning of student participation.Sociology and Social Research, 60, 421–439.Google Scholar
  11. Lee, O., & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science classroom.American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 585–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lemke, J. L. (1990).Talkin science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  13. McRobbie, C., & Tobin, K. (1995). Restraints to reform: The congruence of teacher and student action in a chemistry classroom.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 373–385.Google Scholar
  14. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982).Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  15. Patton, M. Q. (1983).Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. (1996). Staging Aristotle and natural observation against Galileo and (stacked) scientific experiment or physics lectures as rhetorical events.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(2), 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sommers-Smith, S. K., & Morrison, D. A. (1989). The Boston scholars: An introduction to college science with an interdisciplinary focus.Journal of College Science Teaching, 18(5), 307–311.Google Scholar
  18. Tobin, K. (1993, November).Qualitative and quantitative approaches to research on learning environments. Paper presented at the international conference on Interpretive Research in Science Education, National Normal University of Taiwan, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  19. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gable (Ed.),Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45–93). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australian Science Research Association 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BellinghamUSA

Personalised recommendations