Abstract
This paper reports on the initial outcomes from the end of the fourth year of a 5 year research and professional development project to improve chemistry teaching among three cohorts of chemistry teachers in Manitoba, Canada. The project responds to a new curriculum introduction advocating a tetrahedral orientation (Mahaffy, Journal of Chemical Education 83(1), 49–55, 2006) to the teaching of chemistry. The project in its entirety is based upon several theoretical models in fostering chemistry teacher development (in particular Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model). These models are described, as is the progress made by teachers based upon the use of a Chemistry Teacher Inventory and associated teacher responses. Overall, statistical analysis of perceptions of their own teaching and comments made by teachers suggests they are showing limited development towards a tetrahedral orientation, albeit in a manner consistent with the curriculum. Ongoing research-based activities in this project are also described.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia instruction that emphasise molecular representation of students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317–337.
Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Developing practice as a teacher educator. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bindernagel, J., & Eilks, I. (2009). Evaluating roadmaps to portray and develop chemistry teachers’ PCK about curricular structures concerning sub-microscopic models. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 77–85.
Bishop, R. (1996). Collaborative research stories: Whakawhanaungatanga. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Briscoe, C., & Peters, J. (1997). Teacher collaboration across and within schools: supporting individual change in elementary school teaching. Science & Education, 81(1), 51–67.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bunce, D., & Gabel, D. (2002). Differential effects on the achievement of males and females of teaching the particulate nature of chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 911–927.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 279–289.
Fullan, M. (1992). Successful school improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research. Journal of Chemistry Education, 76, 548–553.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 9–27). Dodrecht: Springer.
Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2008). Reforming the teaching and learning of the macro/submicro/symbolic representational relationship in chemical education. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Promoting successful science learning—the worth of science education research (pp. 99–110). Aachen: Shaker.
Gilbert, J. K., Justi, R., van Dreil, J. H., De Jong, O., & Treagust, D. F. (2004). Securing a future for chemistry education. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(1), 5–14.
Golagshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–607.
Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understandings in science and its impact in the classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 323–337.
Hoffmann, R., & Laszlo, P. (1991). Representation in chemistry. Angewandte Chemie, International Edition English, 30.
Hoffmann, R., & Laszlo, P. (2001). The say of things. http://www.pierrelaszlo.com/articles/9-science-communication/57-the-say-of-things. Accessed April 3, 2010.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is chemistry difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they see. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 7, 701–710.
Lewthwaite, B. E. (2005). There’s growth—but it’s not that evident. A longitudinal study in science program improvement. Journal of Research in Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 241–259.
Lewthwaite, B. E. (2006). Contributors and impediments to science teacher-leader development. Science Education, 90(2), 331–347.
Lewthwaite, B. E. (2008). Towards treating chemistry teacher candidates as human. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 343–363.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of mathematics and science. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Mahaffy, P. (2006). Moving chemistry education into the 3D: a tetrahedral metaphor for understanding chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(1), 49–55.
Manitoba Education Citizenship and Youth. (2006). Grade 11 chemistry: A framework for implementation. Winnipeg: Manitoba Education, Training and Youth.
Manitoba Education Citizenship and Youth. (2007). Grade 12 chemistry: A framework for implementation. Winnipeg: Manitoba Education, Training and Youth.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.
Murray, H. G. (1999). Low-inference teaching behaviors and college teaching effectiveness: Recent developments and controversies. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, volume 15 (pp. 34–49). New York: Agathon.
Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science & Education, 67(4), 489–508.
Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1985). The generative learning model and its implications for science education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59–87.
Romu, T. (2008). Demystifying misconceptions in Grade 12 electrochemistry. Unpublished thesis. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba.
Roth, W. (1998). Teacher-as-researcher reform: student achievement and perceptions of learning. Learning Environments Research, 1, 75–93.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In J. Rolf, A. Masten, D. Cichetti, K. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181–214). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stewart, T., & Prebble, T. (1985). Making it happen: A school development process. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Straub, B. (2010). Constraints and contributors to the use of computer-based simulations in Manitoba Chemistry classrooms. Unpublished Master of Education Thesis. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB.
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963–980.
Acknowledgement
The author acknowledges the support provided by the National Science and Engineering Research Council (Canada) that supports this CRYSTAL initiative.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix One: Chemistry Teacher Inventory (CTI)
Grade: _________
There are 33 items in this questionnaire pertaining to strategies or actions used in the teaching of chemistry. They are statements to be considered in the context of one chemistry class in which you work. Think about how well the statements describe your teaching of chemistry in this class. If you teach more than one class and you believe your teaching is different in this other setting, consider completing a further CTI for this other setting.
Indicate your answer on the score sheet by circling:
N | if you never use this strategy in your teaching of chemistry; |
R | if you rarely use this strategy in your teaching of chemistry; |
S | if you sometimes use this strategy in your teaching of chemistry; |
O | if you often use this strategy in your teaching of chemistry; |
A | if you almost always use this strategy in your teaching of chemistry; |
If you change your mind about a response, cross out the old answer and circle the new choice.
1. Students copy notes from overheads without explanations. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
2. I perform chemical demonstrations. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
3. Visual images are used to clarify Chemistry ideas. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
4. Students plan investigations and then carry out the investigation. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
5. Computer-based simulations are used to clarify Chemistry ideas. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
6. I explain how Chemistry topics relate to students’ lives. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
7. I talk about the historical development of Chemistry ideas. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
8. Students carry out prescribed or set labs. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
9. Students do laboratory formal write-ups. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
10. Students are provided with pre-written notes and they are discussed. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
11. Students are asked to explain what has been demonstrated. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
12. Students perform calculations. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
13. Students use manipulatives to help understand what is happening at the molecular level. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
14. Students are required to know what a formula means before they calculate. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
15. Students have to explain chemistry ideas at the molecular level. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
16. I use a variety of strategies to get across Chemistry ideas. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
17. On tests students perform calculations. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
18. Students make notes from textbooks. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
19. Students are assigned problems from texts. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | |
20. Students work together on tasks. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
21. Students are expected to explain their results by discussing with their group. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
22. I use analogies or role plays to get across chemistry ideas. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
23. I check to see if students grasp ideas before moving on to the next topic. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
24. I refer to the history of Chemistry applications in my teaching. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
25. Chemical models are used to help students to learn. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
26. Min-labs/short experiments are performed by students. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
27. I assess student learning by tests. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
28. I give students lots of examples to help assist them in their learning. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
29. I get students to work together and help each other on activities & problems N R S O A + 0 - | ||||||||
30. I assist students with their work as they request assistance. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
31. I use everyday examples to communicate Chemistry ideas. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
32. I explain ideas as students copy notes. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
33. I assess student learning of student experimental activities. | N | R | S | O | A | + | 0 | - |
Thanks for completing this questionnaire.
Appendix Two: Chemistry Classroom Inventory (CCI)
Grade: _________
There are 33 items in this questionnaire pertaining to activities that may be occurring in this classroom. They are statements to be considered in the context of the chemistry class in which you are in currently. Think about how well the statements describe your chemistry classroom. Your answers will help me to understand what I can be doing better to help you in your chemistry learning.
Indicate your answer on the score sheet by circling:
N | if you never see this happen in your chemistry classroom; |
S | if you seldom see this happen in your chemistry classroom; |
F | if you frequently see this happen in your chemistry classroom; |
A | if you always see this happen in your chemistry classroom. |
If you change your mind about a response, cross out the old answer and circle the new choice.
Also, tell me if you want this to happen more in class (+), less in class (-) or stay the same (0) to help in your learning.
1. I copy notes from overheads without explanations. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
2. I observe chemical demonstrations. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
3. Visual images are used to clarify Chemistry ideas. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
4. I plan investigations and then carry out the investigation. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
5. Computer-based simulations are used to clarify Chemistry ideas. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
6. I learn about chemistry topics that are related to my life. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
7. We talk about the historical development of Chemistry ideas. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
8. I carry out prescribed or set labs. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
9. I do laboratory formal write-ups. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
10. I am provided with pre-written notes which may be discussed. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
11. I am asked to explain what has been demonstrated. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
12. I perform calculations during class. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
13. Manipulatives are used to help understand what is happening at the molecular level. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
14. I am taught what a formula means before I calculate. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
15. I have to explain chemistry ideas at the molecular level. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
16. A variety of strategies are used to get across Chemistry ideas. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
17. On tests I perform calculations. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
18. I make notes from textbooks. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
19. I am assigned problems from texts. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
20. I work on tasks with classmates (pairs, groups, etc.). | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
21. I am expected to explain results by discussing with my group. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
22. Analogies or role plays are used to get across chemistry ideas. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
23. Enough time is provided to grasp ideas before moving on to the next topic. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
24. The history of chemistry applications is talked about in my classroom. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
25. Chemical models are used to help me learn. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
26. Mini-labs/short experiments are performed. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
27. I am assessed by tests. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
28. I am given lots of examples to help assist me in my learning. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
29. We work together and help each other on activities and problems. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
30. The teacher assists me with my work as I need assistance. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
31. Everyday examples are used to help me understand Chemistry ideas. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
32. Ideas are explained as I copy or write notes. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
33. I am assessed by lab reports. | N | S | F | A | + | 0 | - |
Thanks for completing this questionnaire
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lewthwaite, B., Wiebe, R. Fostering Teacher Development to a Tetrahedral Orientation in the Teaching of Chemistry. Res Sci Educ 41, 667–689 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9185-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9185-2