Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 353–370 | Cite as

Selective traditions in group discussions: teachers’ views about good science and the possible obstacles when encountering a new topic

  • Eva LundqvistEmail author
  • Per Sund
Original Paper

Abstract

There is an ongoing discussion about what content that should be taught in science education and there are different views among teachers about what represent good science content. However, teachers are not isolated individuals making their own interpretations, but are part of institutionalised systems building on patterns in the selection of teaching goals and content. Earlier research shows that teachers teach in alignment with different selective traditions, which can be understood as well-developed teaching habits. Individual teachers seem to develop their personal habits on the basis of the contextual situations created by earlier generations of teachers. In order to find out which content teachers find representative for science education, we asked nine teachers to take part in group interviews to talk about what they value as “good” science content. The participants were grouped according to their selective traditions expressed in earlier studies. The method was used to dynamically explore, challenge and highlight teachers’ views. The starting point for the group discussions is national tests in science. In Sweden, national tests in biology, physics and chemistry were introduced in secondary school science (year 9) in 2009. One overarching aim of these tests is to support the implementation of the science curricula and to include for example knowledge about socio-scientific issues (SSI). The content of the tests can consequently be seen as important for teachers to consider. The findings show that ‘resistance’ to including SSI is not just an issue for individual teachers. As individuals teachers can create many kinds of obstacles, but still be interested in integrating SSI in their science teaching. However, in group discussions the teachers tend to collectively adopt the scientific rational discourse. This discourse is what joins them and creates their common identity as science teachers. In turn, they seek to free scientific knowledge from social knowledge and thereby make assessment easier.

Keywords

Science education Content Selective traditions Teachers’ views Socio scientific issues 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the Swedish Research Council. We would also like to thank members of the research group SMED for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science eduction for everyday life. Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  2. Almqvist, J., Lundqvist, E., & Lidar, M. (2013). What content is assessed in the Swedish national tests in biology, chemistry and physics? Paper presented at the ESERA, Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  3. Cimbricz, S. (2002). State-mandate testing and teachers’ beliefs and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2). Retrieved September 17, 2015, from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/issue/view/10
  4. Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B., Evans, D., & Curtis, A. (2003). The impact of collaborative continuing professional development (CPD) on classroom teaching and learning. How does collaborative continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers of the 5–16 age range affect teaching and learning? http://wsassets.s3.amazonaws.com/ws/nso/pdf/09598003e49523abff794962e2752c81.pdf
  5. del Carmen Gomez, M., & Jakobsson, A. (2014). Everyday classroom assessment practices in science classrooms in Sweden. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9, 825–853. doi: 10.1007/s11422-014-9595-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. New York: Holt. doi: 10.1037/14663-000.Google Scholar
  7. The Swedish National Agency for Education (2010). Ämnesproven i biologi, fysik och kemi i år 9 2009. [Subject tests in biology, physics and chemistry in Year 9 2009]. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  8. Fensham, P. (1995). STS and comparative assessment of scientific theory. Research in Science Education, 25(1), 33–38. doi: 10.1007/bf02356458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flores, J. G., & Alonso, C. G. (1995). Using focus groups in educational research. Evaluation Review, 19(1), 84–101. doi: 10.1177/0193841x9501900104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodson, I. (2003). Professional knowledge, professional lives. Studies in education and change. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Grant, S. G. (2001). An uncertain lever: Exploring the influence of state-level testing on teaching social studies. Teacher College Record, 103, 398–426. doi: 10.1111/0161-4681.00120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johansson, A. M., & Wickman, P. O. (2012). Vad ska elever lära sig angående naturvetenskaplig verksamhet? En analys av svenska läroplaner för grundskolan under 50 år. [What should students learn in science education? An analysis of Swedish curriculum during 50 years]. NorDiNa, 8(3), 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310. doi: 10.1002/sce.1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levinson, R. (2010). Science Education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–119. doi: 10.1080/03057260903562433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lidar, M., Karlberg, M., Almqvist, J., Lundqvist, E., & Östman, L. (accepted). Manner of teaching and teaching traditions in science education: What do teachers emphasize? Sent to Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research.Google Scholar
  16. Lundqvist, E., Almqvist, J., & Östman, L. (2012). Institutional traditions in teachers’ manners of teaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 111–127. doi: 10.1007/s11422-011-9375-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lundqvist, E., & Lidar, M. (2013). Nationella prov i NO och lärares val av undervisningsinnehåll. [National tests in science education and teachers’ selection of teaching content]. Utbildning and Demokrati, 22(3), 85–106.Google Scholar
  18. Mausethagen, S. (2013). Talking about the test. Boundary work in primary school teachers’ interaction around national testing of students’ performance. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 132–142. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Orpwood, G. (2001). The role of assessment in science curriculum reform. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 8(2), 135–151. doi: 10.1080/09695940125120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Orpwood, G. (2007). Assessing scientific literacy: Threats and opportunities. In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P. O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus tercentenary symposium (pp. 120–129). Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  21. Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467. doi: 10.1080/09500690010006518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Östman, L. (1995). Socialisation och mening: no-utbildning som politiskt och miljömoraliskt problem [Meaning and socialisation. Science education as a political and environmental-ethical problem]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
  23. Östman, L. (1996). Discourses, discursive meanings and socialization in chemistry education. Journal of Curriculum Studies,. doi: 10.1080/0022027980280102.Google Scholar
  24. Roberts, D. A. (1982). Developing the concept of “Curriculum emphases” in science education. Science Education, 62(2), 243–260. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730660209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roberts, D. A. (2011). Competing visions of scientific literacy: The influence of a science curriculum policy image. In Linder CEA (Ed.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203843284.Google Scholar
  26. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  27. Summers, M., Childs, A., & Corney, G. (2005). Education for sustainable development in initial teacher training: Issues for interdisciplinary collaboration. Environmental Education Research, 11(5), 623–647. doi: 10.1080/13504620500169841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sund, P. (2008). Discerning the extras in ESD teaching: A democratic issue. In J. Öhman (Ed.), Values and democracy in education for sustainable development—Contributions from Swedish research (pp. 57–74). Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
  29. Sund, P. (2016). Selective traditions science teaching: An issue in national testing? In Cultural Studies of Science Education. Accessed April 4,2015.Google Scholar
  30. Sund, P., & Wickman, P.-O. (2008). Teachers’ objects of responsibility—Something to care about in education for sustainable development? Environmental Education Research, 14(2), 145–163. doi: 10.1080/13504620801951681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sund, P., & Wickman, P.-O. (2011). Socialization content in schools and education for sustainable development—A study of teachers’ selective traditions. Environmental Education Research, 17(5), 599–624. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2011.572156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Svennbeck, M. (2004). Omsorg om naturen. Om NO-utbildningens selektiva traditioner med fokus på miljöfostran och genus. [Care for nature]. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  33. Tytler, R. (2012). Socio-scietific issues, sustainability and science education. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 155–163. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9262-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wickman, P.-O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. Science Education, 88(3), 325–344. doi: 10.1002/sce.10129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wickman, P.-O. (2012). How can conceptual schemes change teaching? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 127–136. doi: 10.1007/s11422-012-9393-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams, R. (1973). Base and superstructure in Marxist cultural theory. New Left Review, 82, 3–16. doi: 10.4135/9781473914766.n8.Google Scholar
  37. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K., Ackett, W., & Simmons, M. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367. doi: 10.1002/sce.10025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.School of Education, Culture and CommunicationMälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden

Personalised recommendations