Advertisement

Expanding Student Teachers’ Implicit Theories About Explanations for the Science Classrooms

  • Valeria M. CabelloEmail author
  • Maria Antonietta Impedovo
  • Keith J. Topping
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 785)

Abstract

This study explored student teachers’ implicit theories about explaining for the science classroom in three courses at diverse universities. Based on microteaching situations, the participants simulated explanations and discussed the elements they considered relevant for giving peer feedback. This led to the design of rubrics for peer assessment, which expressed their implicit theories about what a good explanation for the science classroom would look like. The three rubrics are presented and discussed in the light of the connections between teachers’ thinking and practice. Shulman’s ideas about professional teaching knowledge development, as well as negotiation of meaning, provide theoretical under-pinning for understanding and expanding student teachers’ thinking about explanations for the science classrooms.

Keywords

Explanations Implicit theories Science education Peer feedback 

Notes

Acknowledgments

PEEI-2014 Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades, Universidad de Chile, CONICYT-PAI, Program for Returning Researchers from Abroad 821320002 and PIA-CONICYT Basal Funds for Centers of Excellence Project FB0003.

References

  1. 1.
    Catalán, J.: Teorías Subjetivas: Aspectos Teóricos y Prácticos. Editorial Universidad de La Serena (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark, C.M.: Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: contributions of research on teacher thinking. Educ. Res. 17, 5–12 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pozo, J., Gomez, M.: The embodied nature of implicit theories: the consistency of ideas about the nature of matter. Cogn. Instr. 23, 351–387 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C.-y., Hong, Y.-y.: Implicit theories: elaboration and extension of the model. Psychol. Inq. 6, 322–333 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.: The knowledge-creating company: how japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geelan, D.: Teacher expertise and explanatory frameworks in a successful physics classroom. ASTJ 49, 22–32 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., Loughran, J. (eds.): Re-Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education. Routledge, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pozo, J., Gomez, M., Sanz, A.: When change does not mean replacement: different representations for different contexts. In: Schnotz, W., Vosniadou, S., Carretero, M. (eds.) New Perspectives on Conceptual Change, pp. 161–174. Elsevier Science, Pergamon (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karmiloff-Smith, A.: Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Southerland, S.A., Gess-Newsome, J.: Preservice teachers’ views of inclusive science teaching as shaped by images of teaching, learning, and knowledge. Sci. Educ. 83, 131–150 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferguson, R.: If multicultural science education standards’ existed, what would they look like? JSTE 19, 547–564 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bryan, L.A., Abell, S.K.: Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science. JRST 36, 121–139 (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Jong, O., Van Driel, J.H., Verloop, N.: Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. JRST 42, 947–964 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kpanja, E.: A study of the effects of video tape recording in microteaching training. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 32, 483–486 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mohan, R.: Innovative Science Teaching for Physical Science Teachers, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, India (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kilic, A.: Learner centered micro teaching in teacher education. EIJI 3, 77–100 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sadiq, A.: Student teachers’ microteaching experiences in a preservice english teacher education. Program. Lang. Teach. Res. 2, 1043–1051 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McLaury, R.L.: Preservice science teacher beliefs about teaching and the science methods courses: exploring perceptions of microteaching outcomes. Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seidel, T., Blomberg, G., Renkl, A.: Instructional strategies for using video in teacher education. TATE 34, 56–65 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rich, P.J., Hannafin, M.J.: Decisions and reasons: examining pre-service teacher decision-making through video self-analysis. JCHE 20, 62–94 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosaen, C.L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., Marjorie, T.: Noticing noticing: how does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences? J. Teach. Educ. 59, 347–360 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Snoeyink, R.: Using video self-analysis to improve the ‘Withitness’ of student teachers. JDLTE 26, 101–110 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Es, E.A., Sherin, M.G.: The influence of video clubs on teachers’ thinking and practice. JMTE 13, 155–176 (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sluijsmans, D., Prins, F.: A conceptual framework for integrating peer assessment in teacher education. JSEE 32, 6–22 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pauline, R.F.: Microteaching: an integral part of a science methods class. JSTE 4, 9–17 (1993)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sluijsmans, D., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Bastiaens, T.J.: The training of peer assessment skills to promote the development of reflection skills in teacher education. JSEE 29, 23–42 (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tseng, S., Tsai, C.: On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: a study of high school computer course. Comput. Educ. 49, 1161–1174 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Topping, K.J.: Learning by judging and discussing the work of other learners. Interdisc. Educ. Psychol. 1, 1–17 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sandoval, C.: Investigación Cualitativa. Especialización en Teoría, Métodos y Técnicas de Investigación Social. ICFES, Bogota (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shulman, L.S.: Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ. Res. 15, 1–14 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valeria M. Cabello
    • 1
  • Maria Antonietta Impedovo
    • 2
  • Keith J. Topping
    • 3
  1. 1.Departamento de Estudios Pedagógicos, Centro de Investigación Avanzada en EducaciónUniversidad de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Aix-Marseille Université, ADEF EA4671MarseilleFrance
  3. 3.University of DundeeDundeeScotland

Personalised recommendations